Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.

His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.

And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.

Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).

The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.

Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...

Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.

I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).


I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.

The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.

Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.

The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.

In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes.


i rented this when it came out on video cassette in 1995. After rewatching it again,my idea about it hasn't changed much.

i was an adult then and i'm still an adult now!lol

The illogical elements mentioned by other reviewers didn't bother me. This isn't a documentary,it's a fantasy story where animals can talk!

While i didn't care for much of the songs,i liked the one at the end of the picture where it's sang by barry manilow and another person.

Some people seem to make an excuse for it's primitive animation by saying that CGI wasn't used often in animated features but let's not forget that THE LION KING was released about a year earlier and that packed possibly more excellence than any animated feature that came before it!!

But i think it's pretty fair to say that THE PEBBLE AND THE PINGOIN was made on the cheap while THE LION KING wasn't....

The high points for me in 1995 as well as today is the suspense generated by the few dangerous(mostly) underwater chase scenes.

i also liked the opening scene which takes place on a music notes page and a little bit of the love story. But most of the time,the story dragged on and was boring.

Worth a look if you like animation but if you're an adult and not a risk taker,go get another Walt Disney production instead of this!


Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.

I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.

Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.

The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.

I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.

4/10


Would it surprise you that my ears and eyes almost bled from watching and listening to this awful movie? My eyes almost bled from watching the awful animation and insipid, plotless, empty story. My ears almost bled from listening to the songs that sounded like they were sung by a chorus of howler monkeys. Then my brain almost melted because of this film's complete lack of intelligence. It's formulaic every step of the way. Talking animals are one thing, but a penguin who can fly just to keep with the "dreams can come true" schtick? Show some more faith in the children's intelligence please. Next to Rock-A-Doodle, this is one of Bluth's worst.


This movie totally sucked!!! Don't even rent it! You'll hate it! The plot didn't make sense, the characters sucked, and why was that penguin trying to get the pebble anyway? If that girl penguin would only like him because he has a pretty pebble than the relationship would not be based on love only on money! I very much disliked this movie(Hate is such a strong word!). And penguins cant fly! Even if they believe than they can do it, they cant. p.s. I am not who you think I am!


The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.

Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.

There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.


This movie contains the worst acting performance of all time. Spilsbury lacks energy to say the least. Energy is what Clayton Moore gave us in spades. I never felt once in this movie that Spilsbury was anxious for anything. Revenge, love, justice? Not in this guy's portrayal.

There is also no chemistry between Tonto and LR. If the plot did not force them to be friends, you don't get the impression they want to hang out with each other. Plus, the sidekick has the more interesting personality. Ewww.

The dialogue is predictable and boring.

The narration is stunningly bad and if you are familiar with the Dukes of Hazzard you can picture what this is like. I cannot believe the director would agree to this. It insulted me as a viewer by explaining every plot line I just witnessed.

Hey, at least the horses and locations looked good, maybe that is what happens when you hire a cinematographer to be your director.

RATING-2 You may be able to watch this one for laughs or to demonstrate to an alien what a bad movie is.


I very well remember the bad press this film got because of the producers' court order against Clayton Moore using the name "Lone Ranger" or donning his black mask at personal appearances. Quite apart from any consideration of the film's quality, this was the absolute height of nearsighted arrogance and stupidity on the part of the producers and their attorneys. And I suspect that the lesson was well-learned after this film tanked, which was widely perceived as some sort of karma for the jerks responsible for the court order against Moore.

In more recent times it has become the custom, when reviving a legendary film or TV project, to invite the original star or stars for cameo appearances, and rightly so. Show some respect, you idiots! And even if they turn up their noses at the prospect, which has happened, at least the offer was made. This is proof positive that film producers, studio executives, and entertainment attorneys are not quite too stupid and arrogant to be taught by example.


I remember this bomb coming out in the early 80's. At first it sounded like a great idea. A retelling of an American classic with the help of modern movie techniques of the day. There was a bit a of a back lash over the treatment of the original "Lone ranger", Clayton Moore. The movie studio had threatened legal action if Moore continued portraying him self as the real lone ranger. (Moore was performing at children's hospitals as the Lone ranger for sick kids.) To many Americans Clayton Moore was just that the; the one and only lone ranger. I had always felt that the studio could have done justice to both the fans and legacy of the lone ranger if Moore had been treated better. Maybe even a cameo in the new movie. How ever this was not the case, and many of the viewing public stayed away in droves. Also the story and acting were weak. All this added up to a big box office bomb, and rightly so. I personally I'm glad the studio lost big money after the way the real Lone ranger was treated. You don't treat an American icon that way.


There are so many things wrong with this movie that it is hard to pick just a few. Let's start with the silly and annoying songs. Like "Ride Little Cowboy" which just tended to accentuate the city-slickers look of Klinton Spilsbury. The silly kiddie cowboy songs going on in the background during the movie hurt any credibility or momentum that the story had going for it.

I had seen the media hype before this movie was released, and I saw Klinton Spilsbury interviewed on various TV shows, and he had a very soft, sweet, lilting voice. His body language was not exactly what people remembered who were fans of Clayton Moore and the Lone Ranger TV series. Spilsbury did not help things by acting like a diva and talking trash about Clayton Moore after the Producers got an injunction prohibiting Moore from appearing at Conventions and other events as the original Lone Ranger. Clayton Moore was not even allowed to sign as "Clayton Moore, The Lone Ranger." He could only sign as "The Masked Man." The incredible amount of negative publicity that this move gave the film was only added to by the petulant attitude of Spilsbury who was very quick to tell reporters that Clayton Moore would be quickly forgotten once the movie came out!

Sadly, even after the movie was a total flop, the company that owned The Lone Ranger refused to lift their Injunction against Clayton Moore, and he was never again permitted to sign anything except as "The Masked Man" and he could not don his black mask at any public appearances. Between Spilsbury's diva personality and the negative publicity the movie got, it certainly did not help to make a good impression on the public. Worse yet, a few weeks before the movie was finally released, the news was leaked that Spilsbury's voice in the movie had been over-dubbed by James Keech because the Producers thought that Spilsbury did not sound very convincing as a cowboy. The ridicule and derision that this news brought on the talk shows and comedy shows of that era put the last nail into the coffin.

But then there was Merle Haggard narrating his way through the movie. Apparently, the Producers were hoping that the macho image of Haggard (one of the Outlaws of Country Music) would add credibility to Spilsbury as The Lone Ranger. The narration by Merle Haggard was just another annoyance that audiences had to deal with. At times Haggard rhymes his narration, and it sounds like some weird kiddie movie. Combine the rhyming narration with the "Ride Little Cowboy" songs and any credibility that Spilsbury could have mustered was destroyed by Haggard and the soundtrack.

Tonto was played by Michael Horse, and as others have pointed out, Horse had a lot more personality than Spilsbury. In fact, perhaps because of Spilsbury's allegedly combative attitude during filming, it seems like Horse was given a lot more dialogue and screen time than anyone would have expected of Tonto. Tonto takes charge and often is the leader instead of the Lone Ranger. I was expecting (or hoping) that Billy Jack would make a cameo as Tonto's brother (it would have made the movie a lot better). Horse is not only more interesting than Spilsbury, but he says more and has better scenes. Perhaps it was a case of Horse stealing the show from Spilsbury. However, since the movie was so wretched, Horse did not get much recognition. Unlike Spilsbury, Horse has had a very productive career in the film industry.

Perhaps the last negative about this movie is the Powder Blue outfit of The Lone Ranger. The material that was chosen for Spilsbury was more powdery blue than what Clayton Moore normally wore at appearances. That choice of color for the outfit just made Spilsbury look more effeminate in his role. The comic book version had shown The Lone Ranger also wearing a red shirt and black pants, and that alternative outfit would have helped Spilsbury look more convincing as The Lone Ranger.

The supporting cast mostly mailed in their performances. They all look as if they were working on a TV episode and nobody seemed very convincing. Even the villain, Cavendish lost his edge due to the people around him. Overall, I feel sorry for Spilsbury. Not only did he do a terrible acting job, but it is obvious that the production and publicity were horrible and effectively sabotaged any chance the poor guy had. Even if he had been an excellent replacement for Clayton Moore, I doubt that the movie would have done well as a result of the other factors. As it stands, this film is funny in a sad way.


I guess it wasn't entirely the filmmaker's fault though. The film suffered from the unimaginably stupid decision to tell Clayton Moore (who had done the role in the 1950's and was the Lone Ranger us old folks grew up with) he couldn't wear the mask in public. Now mind you, the poor guy wasn't making all that much money doing so, and it wasn't like he was going to take anything away from this film, but the whole thing seemed... gratuitous.

The other thing the film suffered from (besides a leading man whose voice was so awful they had to overdub it) was that fact that Westerns weren't so hip in 1981. John Wayne was dead and we had just been subjected to a decade-long major liberal guilt trip about how the west was built on genocide of the Native Americans. (That and Blazing Saddles sent up the whole genre! The Campfire scene. Enough said!) Hollywood shied away from Westerns, because Science Fiction was COOL then.

The one scene that underscored it was when after rescuing the drunken President Grant (and seriously, I'd have let Grant stay with the bad guys. The country would have been better off!) Grant asks Tonto what his reward should be "Honor your treaties with my people". Yeah, right, like THAT was going to happen!


I loved this movie when it first came out(but i was just 12 years old then - and I had forgotten this film existed until one day I found a used copy for sale at a gas station. I bought it and I couldn't wait to watch this film that had I loved as a kid, and then as I saw this film again many years later,it hit me.... Why in the world did I like this film as a Kid, watching it again as an adult I realized that this film is terrible. The saddest part about this film is that they had everything in place to make the greatest western ever and they blew it!!! the costumes are perfect,good actors, there are 2 music scores the orchestrail score is wonderful, and keeps with the classic spirit of the old timey Lone Ranger alive, the second score is a series of songs by country music artest like Merle Haggerd, and The Statler Brothers and those songs like "The Man in the Mask" are so bad that they are funny. This movies Strongest point is that it had a Briliant Storyline, and one of the best Western plots ever, and for a while its fun to watch as John Reid is nursed back to health,after he and his fellow Rangers are ambushed.Its fun to see him grow into his new life and Identity as the Lone Ranger,as he concels his identity, and goes on a revenge run to get the gang responsible for killing his brother and all his fellow rangers to whom he rode with. But unfortunatly,as good as the storyline is, its all ruined by Merle Haggard Narrating everything as you are watching it happen(for the love of God why did they do that?) between Merle Haggard's Narration and The Statler Brothers singing corny(stupid) songs like "Ride little cowboy" being playing in the backgound make this movie impossible to take serious. I would Love to see a really good producer take this same script and story and re-do this film right,because at the heart of this silly film is a great western.---I would descibe this film as a beautiful woman dress in the ugliest clothing. I give it 4 stars out of 10 --if your 12 years old, and dont know better, then you might love it.


Whatever the producer was going for, he missed entirely. The Lone Ranger is not camp, but "the" icon for good-doers all over the world. And it's a total violation of the spirit of the character that the only real Lone Ranger, Mr. Clayton Moore, was forbidden to wear his mask in public appearances when this movie was released.

Whelp, long story short, the single saving grace of this gross (and poorly done) distortion was that in that year, I had the honor of meeting Mr. Clayton Moore in Columbus Ohio, as part of a tour resulting from the bad press over Mr. Moore's treatment. Needless to say, Mr. Moore's character, integrity and presence far outshined the movie.

Some things cannot be done better. There is only one Lone Ranger.


I waited quite awhile till I was able to watch this Lone Ranger movie. I finally got to see it on the Lone Star Channel today and was very disappointed in the whole movie. Clayton Moore and John Hart acted better Lone Rangers and Jay Silverheels as Tonto, than the two stars in this movie. Very poor acting was done by everyone in this movie. Even the plot was bad and far fetching. I believe the horse, portraying Silver was the best actor throughout this movie.I am glad I didn't go out and buy a copy of this movie when it first came out, as I feel it's a waste of good money. I am truly sorry the characters that Clayton Moore, John Hart and Jay Silverheels played, and brought to life on the silver screen, have been tarnished so badly. Unless in the future, they find actors worthy of portraying the characters in the same manner which Clayton, John and Jay did so well in the past, I'll not spend the money to buy the movie. I'll not watch this movie again.

Wayne Davies


The relationship between the Lone Ranger and Tonto was always good for a snicker, but to take the joke out of the joke by building a movie around the gay appeal of the legend... oh the horror, the horror...


One of the reviewers here wrote: "Good acting, good special effects, great

location. Even better ending. " All I can say is, "Ugh." This movie was painful to watch. Let me start by saying this: I am a Christian- considered extremely conservative by many people I know. So, what I am about to say is not biased by the

"Christian content" of the film. I'm not gonna bash it because it's Christian. I am gonna give it a 2/10 because it's a horrible movie. The writing is bad- over the top, WAY too preachy, and much of the "preachy" stuff is just plain irrelevant to the story. It just makes for bad scriptwriting. Whether I agree with the

screenwriter's beliefs is irrelevant- make a good script that flows well, stays on track, and is believable. The acting was amateurish at best. But hey, when you cast amateurs, you get

amateur performances. Dirk Been may have been on "Survivor," but that show

requires ZERO acting ability. Playing on his name and reputation to sell units is in bad taste. Cast unknowns who can act and you'll have a much better film. The effects were HORRIBLE. The scene with the hail and the subsequent falling of the stars was embarrassing to watch. And what was so great about the ending? It made no sense.Yeah, I know what

Tim Chey was going for, but it missed the mark, big-time. I bought this film and expected so much more based on reviews and the

misinformation on their website. And, although I was hoping for more, I got what I always get when I watch "Christian" films- an under budget, poorly written, pathetically acted, badly produced piece of ka-ka. Maybe someday, someone will finally step up to the plate with an end-times film as well-written and as well-made as Gibson's "Passion..." was. 2/10 stars.


I'm a Christian, and I have watched pretty of Christian movies, but this one is too bad. They try to make this good, but it's too hard for them I think.

- You can see the film is badly dubbed in many places. - You can almost think that the mainpersons in this film was the only ones left behind. I think there will be a lot more of them.

- The quality is poor, and the acting could have been better too. The story is not so very bad, but could've been better. The only plus I give, is to the story in this film, but totally I can't rate it more than 3/10. Watch "Left Behind" instead!


...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with "Gone" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary:

""Gone" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the "Survivor" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this "movie," because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been "raptured" before they made that mistake."

Case closed. Amen.


As an avid fan of Christian film, and a person trying to maintain a keen eye for improvements in the realm of Christian film-making, I was excited to get a chance to see this film. I was ready to see something that would make a new mark in quality movies. I was left disappointed.

The beginning scene is excellent, though a slight rip-off of Leon - The Professional on the angle, it showcases some great cinematography in the early goings... everything after that was pretty much downhill.

I was barely able to sit through this one, I was tempted multiple times just to shut it off.

The acting, while quite possibly sincere, was incredibly awful. But then again, the heart of the problem was the screenplay itself. The dialog was worse than anything I have ever seen, and even my amateurish screenplay "The Awakening" (soon to be an independent film) looked like a Hitchcock-thriller next to this. (Which isn't saying much.) The bright side of this film is that it was filmed on Sony's brand new High-Definition 900 cameras shooting in 24P. This film and Star Wars: Attack of the Clones were the first movies ever to use these new technology cameras that year. Unfortunately, the camera's performance seemed to be wasted with bad lighting, poor angles, and awkward handling.

The only good feeling I got coming out of watching this movie was how good my rookie indie film is going to look next to it. ; ) 4/10


The other reviewer was completely correct about this one. The writing was awful, the acting was awful, the subject was awful. The actors looked like they were not really into the movie, like they almost *had* to be there. There were some unique camera effects, but they were not really germane to the story (or what there was of a story), and they weren't produced particularly well.

I suppose they were trying to piggyback on the success (can I say that?) of the other eschatologically influenced movies (Omega Code, Left Behind). And yes, it DOES make Christians embarrassed when these types of movies are produced. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, especially a non-Christian.


This movie was terrible. You couldn't fast forward fast enough to get to the end of this movie. It came down to the last 20 minutes of the film and I literally hit the eject button right in the middle of the scene. It was one of the worst movies I have ever experienced. Worse than all Dean Cain films combined. To start, the acting was terrible. I realize that the main actors were from the cast of survivor, but one would think that any TV experience would have given them a little more talent. The movies other main problem was the campy visual effects and the poor film quality. In the movies defense, the theme of the show was well intentioned and the story was all right.


The back of the DVD for this movie raves, "Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films." This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.


This movie was terrible. The acting was awful. The script was awful. What was even worse were the camera shots and sound. Half the time the voices did not match up with the actors lips, and different camera angles in the same scene would be completely different hues. The worst part had to be when one of the actors was at the top of a huge cross-shaped building. The building had to have been 50 stories high, and probably 100 feet wide. However, when the actor was on top of it in another shot, they had "recreated" the top of the building. The building's width had been reduced to about eight feet wide. How could a building hundreds of feet high be eight feet wide? I know the film was low budget, but it is inexcusable. The movie itself just pushed ideas about a "rapture" then actually having a storyline or point. This reduced the script to mere rubbish, the characters seemed to be selling ideas in their lines rather than conveying emotions and moving the movie along in a direction. It was a complete waste of time watching. The movie gives Christians a bad name if it is one of the current best Christian films out there.


I watched the first show of each series just to see and what a waste of time. The girl from Emmerdale she was fat so yeah she should be in fat friend but no one every lost weigh.

Like Itv made a big mistake with this.

Bad Girls is 100times better.

I feel that the whole show was just about large people trying to loose weight but never did then they tried to have love storyline oh my god what a a waste of time and also air time. This show has not been repeated on ITV2/3/4 yeah thats how good it is.

I would say do not by th box sets just a waste of money.

BEWARE


One of low budget horror schlockmeister actor, John Carradine's more animated roles as a implied Nazi scientist, who is turning humans into zombies to serve the Reich. Mindless scuffling brain dead, only able to obey the most simple of orders....bit like staff in McDonalds.

Hitler isn't mentioned by name, since America wasn't at war at the time they was filmed, but it's pretty obvious who the bad guys are working for!

There seems to be two types of zombies in film, the traditional voodoo type popular in the old black & white films of the 1930's and '40's. Blank eyed and just following the commands of someone else as they stumble along. And then there is the type we know from later films like 'The Night of the Living Dead' and 'The Evil Dead.' Still roaming about but with only the intention to kill and eat the flesh and brains of their victims. Both have their moments in various movies over the years.

'Revenge' features the former zombie type, although, these are particularly goofy looking and would look more at home in an old time freak shows as geeks as they bite the heads off chickens. One black zombie named Lazarus with his wild hair, looks like a young Don King.

As to the plot, the evil doctor decides to make his wife a zombie along with the others and that's where he makes his mistake. Even though he lets her keep her strappy heels as a nice womanly touch as he turns her into one of the living dead, she's not happy about it.

It all goes horribly wrong and ends in tears, and the moral of the tale must be, never, ever, turn your wife into a zombie, it's just asking for trouble....

The film is interesting enough and it quickly rolls along to a finish, but never rises above it's poverty row origins. Not a patch on any true zombie classics but fun just the same.


There is not much to say about this one except that it is probably the worst of the early spate of zombie movies (I may get to watch another one, REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES [1936], before the month is out). For all star John Carradine's intention of building an army in the service of the Third Reich with them, they are not seen to do much at all!; James Baskett (Uncle Remus from SONG OF THE SOUTH [1946]!) plays their leader, who also serves as Carradine's manservant. Black comic Mantan Moreland reprises his 'fraidy cat' chauffeur role from KING OF THE ZOMBIES (1941), as does the exotically named Madame Sul-Te-Wan as Carradine's housekeeper. Unfortunately for Carradine, his supreme achievement  the zombification of his wife  brings him all sorts of trouble: not only do her relatives turn up at his remote abode/lab to inquire into her sudden death (which means he has to fake a funeral service!) but she actually proves disobedient and indignant, eventually 'persuading' her fellow zombies to rise against their master!! Also involved is cowboy star Bob Steele (still best-known for his bit in Howard Hawks' THE BIG SLEEP [1946]) who plays a U.S. secret agent posing as a Nazi posing as a Sheriff! Thankfully, director Sekely would have much better luck with his next genre effort, THE DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS (1962).


"Revenge of the Zombies" is a pretty weak and barely passable zombie effort.

**SPOILERS**

Traveling in the Bayou, Larry Adams, (Robert Lowery) and Scott Warrington, (Mauritz Hugo) are informed that a friend has deceased. Meeting with local Dr. Von Altermann, (John Carradine) he repeats the notion that they mysteriously died. While they are staying there, they realize that the help consists of zombies, reanimated dead people who are doing the bidding of their master. As the bodies pile up, he reveals that he has been making the creatures for use in various experiments and all try to stop him before it's too late.

The Good News: This here gets very little right. The opening is easily it's best, as it's got several great marks for it. From where it starts, with the creepy silhouettes walking in the dark all the way through to the revelations, this one works wonders for both it's mystery and great imagery. The big one is a really scene where the creature emerges from a coffin in a long, slow and creepy shot. These here are all done before the opening credits and is a fun sight. The scenes in the middle where the creature reawakens inside the coffin is pretty chilling and looks really great. The last big positive is the really fun ending. With the sort of ending that feels reminiscent of so many Universal attempts, this one fits in with that style. From the creepy reanimation to the real action involved near the swamp, this one is fun and really works with the others to give it's only real positives.

The Bad News: This one here only has a couple flaws, but they are major ones. The first one is the film's major boredom from inactivity. Almost nothing happens in here, mainly due to the tendency to do everything with talking rather than anything else. There's only intermittent scenes relegated to the zombies, yet there's nothing here that devotes any action to the film. This one simply doesn't have any action, and that's what hurts the film. It rarely generates a scenes that keeps the interest going, and at times this makes it feel a lot longer than it really is. The last flaw in the film are it's pathetic excuses for zombies. Those used to more modern fare will have a hard time getting any fear out of these creatures, and they really only serve several scenes. This here doesn't treat the zombies as threats, making them even less frightening. Little screen-time, nonthreatening nature and un-modern behavior from these zombies really destroys this one. These here are what really hurt the film.

The Final Verdict: With bad zombies and hardly anything worth watching, this one here is a curious effort. Those used to modern zombies will find little of interest in this one and come out the same as this one is, while only classic horror fans are advised to give it a shot.

Today's Rating-PG: Mild Violence


Always enjoy the Classic Horror films, however, this film was really a big waste of time and if it were not for John Carradine playing the mad man doctor who is able to control human beings through his experiments. This film was made during WW II and John Carradine was a German Nazi working to find a human weapon against the entire world. Bob Steele playing in many roles as a cowboy or gangster and in this picture Bob seemed bored to death with his role in this film and acted like this was his first film. Mantan Moreland, (Jeff) gave an outstanding performance with great comedy which helped keep the audience attention. I hate to criticize a film made in 1943, but this is really a big disappointment. If you like John Carradine and the roles he played as Count Dracula throughout many films during the 1940's, you just might like to watch John doing his best.


Well well, I had seen a lot of reviews on this one, and a lot of promo always showing the decapitation scene. But this flick is a tough one. And I mean it by all ways. It's hard to find a copy, because it was a low budget independent release and because MPAA was on the hunt for every copy on VHS, it came out unrated but it had to be rated for the MPAA. So copies disappeared into the underground scene. All people involved in this flick never did anything else in the biz. So it made this flick unique. VHS copies almost never pop up on ebay or other sites and if they do you will pay over a 100$ to get one. But due US connections I was able to catch a release on DVD sold worldwide. Limited but it was to be a sort of official one. Now and then there are still some screenings of this splatterfest. But is it worth all the hype surrounding it? As said earlier, it is a tough one to catch but also to sit through. There are gory killings, there is necrophilia, there is nudity but there is also a lot of talking between the coppers. And to be honest, if you would like to see the movie in 5 minutes watch the ending, it's a flashback in the killer's mind. The blood flows and indeed it's a splatterfest but not the full 80 minutes, splatter galore for 10 minutes. The quality of the movie is okay, sound okay, no hiss, colors okay, black is black and not blue as in many low budgets. It's okay to watch it but you never will be frightened but it's one to watch with your friends having a beer and a pizza I guess. 555, naaaaaaaaaaaaaaah 333.


Oh, the horror! I've seen A LOT of gore movies in my day, but this one just makes me gag with with laughter rather than repulsiveness. This is definitely a crazy movie and is very low-budget, I might add, but if you're able to look past the cheap audio, horrible dialogue, ugly girls, the obviously fake gore scenes, and overall cheeziness of the film, then you might find some of this film to be somewhat entertaining. The story is about a copy cat killer who goes on a killing spree every "5th day, of the 5th month, of the 5th year" (wow, how original), and it's up to two detectives (one of whom gave a valiant effort at trying to make the crapy dialogue good) to stop the killer's bloody rampage. The killing scenes (which are done with a plastic toy knife) are pretty brutal (which is a good thing), but very annoying due to the constant repetition of an obviously recorded scream (which is very ear piercing). As for the gore, there's plenty of it but it looks very fake; especially the blood - dude, c'mon, purple blood? But, if you're a fan of gore videos, like myself, then you'll find something in this video to cherish like I did (the crap-talking detective...he's the best thing going for this film). Other than that, all you're going to find is a bunch of senseless nudity (which is also a good thing, but too bad the girls are OOOGLY) and a very idiotic hippy necrophiliac serial killer. Sorry, but this one sucks.


Well, I didn't know what to expect from 555. Matter of fact, I had never even heard of it until a few months ago. But, being a collector of just about all types of horror I figured I would go ahead and grab this obscure 80's slasher.

Basically the storyline has to do with a killer that kills every 5 years for 5 nights in a row. What the third 5 in the title means... nobody knows. Anyway, the killings start as the killer searches for young teenagers fooling around in obscure places. He decapitates the men and brutally knifes the woman to death. After this, he proceeds to rape the dead corpse. The police think they have a lead on the killings but really have no idea what is going on. How will they find the killer? Does anybody care?

This movie is filled with some of the worst actors I have ever seen. No wonder none of these actors went on to do anything else, literally. The three lead actors consist of two detectives and a "sexy" female reporter. I am being sarcastic when I say sexy, she is about as un-sexy as it gets. The two detectives are like watching tweedle dee and tweedle dum. One of them underacts his part and the other one may have gone to the Shatner School of Acting. The acting is so bad that it almost forces you to lose your interest in the movie, thus almost putting you to sleep.

The only thing holding this terrible movie together is a few decent gore scenes. For a movie on this budget the makers must have put all of there money into the special effects, which still aren't that great.

Unless you are like me and have to own every single horror movie out there, I would suggest steering clear of this movie. 4/10


A majority of exclusively made-for-video low-budget fright flicks from the 80's invariably stink worse than raunchy old socks. This particularly dismal and amateurish no-budget Chicago-set bargain basement "nasty necrophiliac nutcase on the loose" bloodbath serves as a depressing affirmation of this borderline ineluctable fact. A bearded, disheveled, long-haired, bead and flower shirt-wearing wild-eyed psycho hippie fruitcake embarks on your standard random gruesome killing spree, graphically slaughtering libidinous young couples who are engaging in strenuous coitus whenever the deranged Mansonesque lunatic attacks. (Hmm, do I detect a fairly obvious and self-righteously puritanical "have sex and die" message here? Gee, could be, man.) Boy, is this mentally unbalanced sicko one real way gone pup: After knifing his female victims, our certifiably crackers killer enjoys making love to their freshly slain bodies. (WARNING: Possible *SPOILER* ahead. Towards the picture's end the corpse-copulating crazy gets rudely interrupted by the cops while he's in the middle of doing the unthinkable with a nubile cadaver, thereby provoking the foul pervert to cut loose with an understandably anguished and ear-splitting cry of "Nooo!") Now, ain't this gonzo guy a definite sweetheart and a half?

Too bad this flick is so poorly done; if it had only been made with a modicum of flair and proficiency it could have been a sleazy little gem of a horror exploitation item. Alas, Wally Koz's ham-fisted direction, Lamar "Larry" Bloodworth's stubbornly static and immobile cinematography, Frankie "Hollywood" Rodriguez's insipid, monotonously head-banging "hard rock" score, the pitifully cheap and unconvincing make-up f/x, flat, conspicuously uneasy plywood acting by a hideously all-thumbs and unappealing non-pro cast, lethargic pacing (too much screen time is tiresomely squandered on the police's drab efforts to catch the wacko), an especially lame would-be shocking "surprise" ending (the mystery killer's true identity is guaranteed to have you groaning in disgust), the uniformly boring, incessantly bickering and positively braindead characters, and a steady succession of dull soft-core sex scenes that are about as erotic as watching two slugs mate for 90 minutes straight all add up to one profoundly putrid and unrewarding limp, soggy noodle of a crummy clinker. However, to be fair, this film does possess one stellar virtue: The mad-dog slasher has unquestionably excellent taste in garishly tropical, louder-than-thunder day-glo Hawaiian shirts.


this is the worst movie in the world. the only reason i gave it a 2 was because the first 10 minutes were hysterically funny in a "is this for real??" sort of way. it was so cheesy and low budget...they should not have even bothered. there was nudity and violence for the pure sake of having nudity and violence, and the effects were just so so bad you would not believe it (think ketchup as blood, and cabbages for severed heads). do not rent this!!


Hollywood had a long love affair with bogus Arabian Nights tales but few of these products have stood the test of time. The most memorable were the Jon Hall, Maria Montez films which have long since become camp. This one is filled with dubbed songs, anachronistic slang, and slapstick. It's a truly bounteous crop of Mesopotamian corn, and pretty near intolerable today. It was nominated for its imaginative special effects which are almost unnoticeable in this day and age, consisting mainly of trick photography. The only outstanding, positive feature which survives is its beautiful color and clarity. Sad to say, of the many films made in this genre, few of them come up to Alexander Korda's original "Thief of Baghdad". Almost any other Arabian Nights film is superior to this one, though. It's a loser.


Yes,the movie is not a piece of art but the first time I watched it I was 10 years old,my parents were out and I stayed home with my two brothers.It was May 1970(I know that because I found a note about the cycle of horror movies that one network had).It's one of the most vivid memories I have with the guys.We ended all in one bed and covered up to the head! Our very first horror movie! We kept talking about it for years and laughing about the moment.Those were horror movies.Nowadays horror movies are always the same.Or was it better when we were kids enjoying without analyzing the plot and the cast and the dialogs? Most sure it was that.But for me this is a great movie!


I love this movie. Even though I rated it a "4", that's because the acting, the plot and the budget were all slated to the "B" universe even before this movie was released. But that's OK! It is an entertaining film that has a lot to offer!

I remember what Leonard Maltin said about "Plan 9 From Outer Space": a film so bad that it's great! Lacking the UFO - alien plot, The Thing the Couldn't Die relies on the supernatural (divination, a buried head looking for it's body, hypnosis, etc) to tell it's story. The acting is stilted, the camera work second class and the settings are limited, but boy! what a movie! This film is available in the bootleg market. If you find a copy, buy it!


While out divining for water, a young psychic woman named Jessica Burns (Carolyn Kearney) stumbles upon something else altogether. She discovers a chest that has been buried for centuries on her aunt's ranch. Instead of the treasure her aunt is hoping for, the chest contains the head of Gideon Drew, a devil worshiper who was beheaded by Sir Francis Drake. Telepathically controlling the hired-hand who opened the chest, Drew's head goes on a murderous spree in search of the rest of his body  also buried on Jessica's aunt's farm. While Jessica is certain she feels the presence of evil, can she put a stop to Drew's plans and will she be in time to prevent his becoming whole?

I thought I was fairly familiar with most of Universal's horror output prior to 1960, but this is one Universal film from the 50s that certainly gets little mention. While The Thing That Couldn't Die isn't what I would call a "good" movie, it does have a few things going for it. First, the film has some interesting ideas and is actually rather ambitious. Director Will Cowan, whether by luck or intention, is able to give the movie some nice atmosphere from time-to-time. And, the special effects involving the head are certainly creepy. But the whole project is undone by the acting. I'm shocked to learn that any of the supposed "actors" in this thing ever appeared in anything else. You would think that this was a "one and done" type of movie for most of those involved. Kearney is the worst offender. She's horrible. Also, The Thing That Couldn't Die may have been a bit too ambitious for its own good. Given the budget and other limitations, there was no way the movie could aspire to its more lofty ideas. Finally, the movie ends rather abruptly. Just as things are starting to get interesting, The End. What's that about?


For all its many flaws, I'm inclined to be charitable towards "Thing". There is the nugget of an interesting, creepy, claustrophobic Hitchcock style story here. Put this in the hands of a writer like Theodore Sturgeon or (if you prefer British perspective) Robert Bloch, or the guy who wrote "Day Of The Triffids", and you might have had a nasty, unsettling little spook story that was the best thing in an book anthology of horror and suspense stories.

However, someone chose to tell this story as a feature length movie, and a cheap, 2nd rate at that, and so most of the potential is wasted. A story like this really needs a voice like Sturgeon's to bring out interesting quirks of character in a better light. His classic story "The -widget-, the -wadget-, and Boff" is an example of how he can gather together an isolated group of "ordinary" characters and in the space of 40 pages can turn them into the most amusing, sympathetic and fascinating people you've ever met. A good writer can, with a few chosen words, make the reader "see" some of the most vivid and memorable events ever to scar his emotions.

Instead, we get a movie where some of the most irritating and unlikeable characters ever made are lumped together and made to interact in unconvincing "Where did that come from??" moments that just lie there. (IE the blond psychic girl declaiming that "You're all evil and I hope you are destroyed!"). We get leaden pacing and slow motion blocking and dull sets and stiff actors. I blame the director for the 'stiff and shallow' part. These are all 3rd rank character actors who never made the big time, but they are also 'real' actors, and a good director could have gotten better performances out of them. We get uncalled for lesbian overtones that make the viewer feel uneasy and exploited without delivering any kind of payoff. (If I'm going to have my baser instincts exploited and feel guilty about it, I want done by stuff staged better than this). And we get over an hour of creepy build-up diffused in about 35 seconds in one of the worst anti-climaxes I've ever seen.

Good things about "Thing"? Um, well...some of the closeup shots of the warlock's head silently mouthing its directives were pretty effective. The miserly and shrewish widow rang true to life (even if I wanted to stuff a sock in her mouth). The first scene where the big, "simple" ranch hand silently turns on the oily cowboy and kills him had a bit of shock value, because the plot had taken the trouble to establish the big guy as a fairly sympathetic character. And like I said earlier, the idea of an insidious force from the past turning the members of an isolated community against each other is a good one and can sustain interest far above the actual merit of a bad performance.

Which this definitely is.

But, as I said, I'm inclined to be charitable, because the director was probably working under a penurious budget, breakneck time constraints and the best actors he could find for the money. Heaven knows how future generations will judge facile crap like "The Cave", "Wrong Turn" or the remake of "House of Wax" 40 years from now. I hope they are charitable towards our own tastes in supporting our generations wastes of film stock.


Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once.


If you ever visited Shenandoah Acres as a child and wondered, could there be a worse vacation spot in the world? Well, you could have watched this movie and had your answer. Flavia (a.k.a. Fistula) Macintyre's dude ranch is often frequented by business casual Gordon, at least since resident water witch, Jessica, was 13. But Jessica can find much more than fresh spring water with that divining rod  buried "tray-shure," lost jewelry, dead bodies, even a talisman that will keep her from dressing like a slut and raising drinks with a phony beat and a Suzanne Pleshette look-alike while hypnotized by a disembodied head. Evil, evil evil.


Jessica is a young, virginal and very innocent girl who lives with her aunt on a remote ranch. Jessica is also a powerful psychic, capable of dowsing, retro-cognition, precognition and esp. When young and handsome Gordon Hawthorne comes to visit, he is instantly skeptical of Jessica's powers...until her skills uncover a lost wristwatch and unearth an ancient treasure chest. However, the treasure chest holds the severed head of a centuries dead satanist named Gideon Drew, whose powers are far stronger than Jessica's. Despite her warnings of the evil in their midst, Drew manages to mentally enslave everyone unfortunate to make eye contact with him. But Drew wants Jessica most of all. He needs her dowsing skills to unearth his body, so that he can rise from the dead and rule over the human race. Will Jessica's powerful fleur de lis, combined with Gordon's love, ward the ancient evil off before it can destroy them all?

This isn't a very interesting movie. It certainly could have been - the basic story is interesting and imaginative, but the acting is leaden and the whole thing moves much too slowly to hold interest. Jessica is also too innocent - almost annoyingly so, and Gordon, her love interest, is wooden, stiff and totally emotionless. None of the characters are very likable, and the low budget is painfully obvious. A rushed ending also doesn't help matters. Avoid, unless it's the MST3K version.


As a kid, this movie scared me green. As an adult, I couldn't stop laughing.

I have not had the pleasure of watching this movie via MST3K. I caught it, instead, on a late Saturday afternoon, when there was absolutely nothing in the theaters, and there was nothing left to do outside but rake some autumn leaves. I figured, this HAD to be better. I was wrong.

The movie has some very good elements; a water-divining mystic, a beatnik painter, couple of idiot ranch hands, an elderly history buff, and an "evil wind." Um...I mean...evil head. An evil head which will, as soon as the systematic hypnotism of each and every one present is complete, be looking for its evil body.

The whole story takes place on an evil "ranch" which apparently neither grows crops, nor raises evil livestock.

As everything is declared by their resident mystic to be "evil," you either roll your eyes horribly, or laugh til your sides split, depending on your mood. Me? I laughed until I had tears streaming down my face.

I remembered this movie fondly as one of those which really SCARED me as a kid. But some kids are afraid of Santa Claus, too..no? Anyway... if you're into 50's horror camp, then this is definitely a movie you shouldn't miss.

If you're looking for a good story line, this movie has that. It's the over the top dramatics and downright innocence of the time that makes it so horrid. The acting was just BAD, but it still had some good elements. Perhaps it rates a remake...?

It rates a 4.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


I suppose you could say this film has a grain of potential, but nothing more, because boy did the filmmakers botch it. The plot is practically incomprehensible, the pacing is lethargic and the acting is pathetic. And what the hell is a trade rat? Worst of all, though, this movie's climax is the anticlimax of all anticlimaxes; plus the title doesn't seem even remotely accurate. The only redeeming feature of this film is the pretty dark-haired woman... well, the blond girl was pretty too, but she was annoying and not as good looking as the brunette. Anyhoo, as with a lot of movies, this is one to be seen only on MST3K.


This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.


Boy Oh Boy, does this movie stink. This movie is one of the worst pieces of trash I have ever seen in my whole entire life. Please, even if your life depends on it, DO NOT, and I repeat: DO NOT under any circumstances, view this horrid piece of garbage. Only watch this thing when it comes on as a MST 3000 Episode. That was the only way I could sit through the whole thing. If I had to watch it without that show, I would've stopped watching it before it was over. It does have one use: A Cure For Insomniacs!!!!!


Directed by Diane Keaton and adapted from a book by Franz Lidz. A young mother Selma Lidz(Andie MacDowell)is battling a very serious illness and her self proclaimed inventor husband Sid(John Tururro)is a little lacking in the emotions department. Unhappy with the new home situation, their sensitive son Steven(Nathan Watt)decides he wants to stay with his two eccentric uncles Danny(Michael Richards)and Melvin(Lou Cutell)until his mom is well. Steven seems to be happier and even takes interest in his strange uncle's living habits; he even decides he wants to change his name to Franz. Set in the early 60's, this drama is a bit comedic...change that to zany. Not being a MacDowell fan, UNSTRUNG HEROES assures my attitude; albeit I enjoyed the film and it is not a total waste.


I began watching this movie on t.v. some weeks ago, but gave up after the first 10 minutes or so. At the start, the person on the witness protection scheme located in an isolated farmhouse becomes nervous about his exterior placed guards, and then asks the guard inside the house whether he can make a telephone call - only to discover the line has been cut.

Shortly afterwards, Roy Scheider as one of the witness's assassins turns up and duly executes the witness and his wife - upon which the Roy Scheider character duly picks up the wall telephone in the kitchen, dials a number, and then speaks: It is done!!!! That was it for me!


Having sat and watched this film I can only wonder at the reasons for creating the film. This was without a doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen and had no redeeming features.

If it was supposed to be funny then it might have managed to be a very weak comedy but as an action thriller it was dire.

Slow, no plot, no real action, nothing approaching good dialogue and I've no idea about the characters. What else can I say. Avoid.


To be honest, I did never read one of the comics and cannot remember part 2 and 3 at all. I can compare to the first part (Werner - Beinhart) and this one here is really disappointing, compared to part1 as well as compared to most other movies I watched the last weeks. The first minutes seam to be just a needless clone of the first movie intro and then it is becoming even worse. There are a few good (funny) scenes, but in total it is just another boring second-rate try of German film industry that cannot succeed (nearly as usual). One good thing: The movie is quite short (75 min.) The bad thing: It only contains story and jokes for 45 Minutes ;) -> Don't watch it


MASTER PLAN: have the winning team in a deadly tournament. One of several martial arts action pictures that attempted to capture the flavor of the famous "Enter the Dragon" from '73, this one is an effort from South Africa. The villain's stronghold is a bit different, appearing as a white castle-like fortress in the middle of the desert from a distance. The villain himself, a Baron or general, is a slightly more perverse version of the "Dr.No" or Han mold of master villainy, having strange flashbacks to the glory days of Nazi Germany. He does wear the full regalia Nazi uniform at some points. His main ambition in life is to hold an illegal martial arts competition/tournament against his Japanese rival, an extension of their complicity in the 2nd World War (my army is better than your army). It sounds silly and it is, though the suggestion of madness and crazed machismo almost works. The central hero, Steve Chase (Ryan), resembles a white 'Bruce Lee' character, having a similarly lean, lithe physique, though obviously not on the same level of martial arts expertise. I thought he would be some secret government agent here but apparently not. He and his girlfriend have joined the Baron's team of fighters, but decide to quit (what did they think they were getting into?). Of course, it's not that easy. There's an odd sequence of them escaping through the desert using a wrecked car with a rigged sail - those desert winds can do wonders for travel, it seems.

The plot kind of meanders in the 2nd half, as the hero joins the team of the villain's competitor and the girlfriend is held hostage by the villain in a cell, under threat of rape by the hero's rival. The most interesting character turns out to be Chico, a dwarf who is the villain's assistant; he's loyal to the Baron but is sympathetic to the plight of the hero. Much of the fighting utilizes the ballet-like capabilities of the hero, with a lot of leaping and slow motion. The sound FX are also amped up and exaggerated in an attempt to add more impact to the blows. There are a few good fights during the tournament towards the climax, but none really stand out. If one had to pick, I suppose the best involves the brutish muscle man-henchman of the Baron, introduced late in the story (he lifts the back of a car at one point). You wonder how the hero will take him out at the end, since the brute seems to shrug off most of the punches. The acting is very mediocre, descending into camp as far as the girlfriend, who tends to laugh for no reason, as if she's high on grass, though she is very cute. Some of the training scenes are also campy, especially all those guys running over or rolling down the desert sands. And, with such a title, there's surprisingly few actual killings. Ryan, as Steve Chase, returned as a traditional agent in the sequel "Kill and Kill Again." Hero:4 Villain:4 Femme Fatales:4 Henchmen:6 Fights:6 Stunts/Chases:4 Gadgets:2 Auto:3 Locations:5 Pace:5 overall:4+


A buddy and I went to see this movie when it came out in 1980. It was playing in a huge theater and we were the only two people in the place. It lasted two days in the theater before they stopped showing it. It was so bad that we laughed all the way through it. Since that time, we rate movies based on Kill or Be Killed as the worst movie of all time. Like other reviewers have mentioned, it is so bad that it is funny. It isn't worth a second look that's for sure. I just can't bring myself to give it more than a 1 because I don't think the makers of the movie intended for it to be so bad and I can't give credit for an accident. Sorry.


"A research scientist is experimenting with human DNA in an attempt to create the perfect human being. His work has made it to the point where he can take a human fetus and accelerate its growth to that of an adult within a few days. His latest creation is a (spoiler omitted), but side effects from the process (spoiler omitted)," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

"Embryo" opens by promising: "The film you are about to see is not all science fiction. It is based upon medical technology which currently exists for fetal growth outside the womb. It could be a possibility tomorrow or today," according to Dr. Charles M. Brinkman III. Right. And, Dr. Joyce Brothers appears, later, at a party with Roddy McDowall.

First, we see Rock Hudson (as Dr. Paul Holliston) light a cigarette and drive recklessly (watch that speedometer!) during a storm; unfortunately, he hits a dog. Mr. Hudson takes the wounded canine home. He learns it is pregnant, and manages to save the life of one of the puppies, due to his experimental knowledge of fetal growth. What this really boils down to is that Hudson uses an experimental drug to grow the embryo, so that it can survive outside the mother's womb. The dog, "Number One", grows to adult-size rapidly, and is passed off as its mother.

Hudson lives with his sister-in-law Diane Ladd (as Martha Douglas); since his wife Nicole, also a doctor, died in another car accident. Ms. Ladd seems more emotionally stable about Nicole's death than Hudson, who survived the crash that killed his wife. Things begin to get creepy when Hudson's dog shows an intelligence level far above any normal dog. Then, Hudson decides to use his accelerated embryo growth on a human, Barbara Carrera (as Victoria Spencer).

Hudson and the cast try their best; but, the "Embryo" storyline is wretchedly absurd nonsense. If you take away her silly opening and closing scenes, Ms. Carrera's valiant characterization almost works; she might have been a bigger star, if offered better films than this. The infantile ending suggests a sequel; but, happily, the idea was aborted.


First and foremost I'd like to state - for the record - that it's incredibly dumb to call your movie "Embryo" when the subject matter exclusively revolves on scientific research performed on fetuses (animal as well as human) aged 12-16 weeks. The embryonic stage is over at the end of the eighth pregnancy week and from that moment on the unborn critter enters the fetal phase. Okay, in all honestly, I didn't know all this, but I took the effort of looking it up and that's the also the least thing the creators of "Embryo" could have done. Don't worry; I'm not just stumbling over details or being exaggeratedly bitter, as there are several more reasons to state why "Embryo" is a huge failure. Actual science can be considered as boring and inaccessible, and thus Science Fiction is a cinematic genre created especially to make the otherwise tedious, yet educational science topics more interesting and comprehensible to larger audiences. By depicting ambitious scientific experiments that go horribly wrong, or space missions that encounter evil aliens instead of light-years of void, filmmakers usually manage to entertain people with spectacular special effects and, at the same time, teach them useful little trivia about science. In order to make a good or at least halfway-decent Science Fiction movie, writers and directors only have to comply with one basic rule: DON'T be boring! If they can't fulfill this one condition, the viewer might as well read a theoretically accurate book. Something must have gone wrong during the production of Ralph Nelson's "Embryo". The basic premise is potentially fascinating and even involving, as we're all sensitive about saving the lives of unborn babies. There also were some very prominent names involved in the production, like main stars Rock Hudson ("Giant", "Seconds"), Diane Ladd ("Chinatown", "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore") and director Nelson himself was responsible for the acclaimed classics "Soldier Blue" and "Charly". Then what went wrong? Simple. The script is irredeemably boring, clichéd and the whole thing looks incredibly foolish because the lab scenery & scientific equipment is clearly too primitive to achieve any medical breakthroughs with.

Rock Hudson, in a very poor performance, plays a doctor who hasn't put any passion in his research work ever since his wife passed away. When his car hits a pregnant dog on a rainy night, his passion returns and he does everything possible to save the dying animals' fetuses. He manages to keep one fetus alive, impressively accelerates its growth process and trains it to become an extremely intelligent dog. Because his procedure is so successful, Dr. Paul Holliston convinces his friend at the hospital to repeat his tests with the human fetus taken from the womb of a pregnant teenager who committed suicide. The female subject unexpectedly keeps growing at a fast rate, however, and after only a couple of weeks she's a full-grown, ravishing and super-intelligent woman. The good doctor naturally falls in love with her, but the groundbreaking new growth treatment also begins to show horrible side effects... Absolute nothing happens during the first 45 minutes of the film, apart from a lot of implausible and overly melodramatic mumbo-jumbo and one or two deeply impressive tricks performed by the dog. That second half of the film does contain a little bit of (grotesque) action and suspense, but by then the stupidity of the dialogs and the implausible plot-twists already ruined the potentially fabulous Sci-Fi idea. There are some really cool scenes, most notably the chess-showdown between Victoria and Roddy McDowall (in a highly memorable and ultra-obnoxious supportive role). The grand finale is absurdly grotesque and literally on the verge of ridiculous, and it almost feels like Ralph Nelson put in that final disastrous shot because it was the general rule in contemporary thriller & Sci-Fi cinema. The last sequence, including the horrible freeze-frame shot at the end, certainly doesn't fit the tone of the previous 100 minutes of the film. But anyway, my sincere admiration and respect to the dog and his trainers. An animal with such intellect and talent surely deserved to demonstrate its tricks in a much better film.


Although Embryo could have been a potentially thought provoking examination of bioethics, it degenerates into a stereotypical Frankenstein parable, putting across the by now monotonous lesson that there were some realms man was not meant to enter or study.

Scientist Rock Hudson is experimenting with ways to prevent miscarried babies from dying. After success with a dog, he immediately jumps to humans-violating medical ethics and any sense of plausibility-with the equally unrealistic assistance of a hospital administrator. His experiment works too well, with some decidedly unpleasant side effects.

Although Barbara Carrera is reasonably good in her role, and some of the animal training is spectacular, the film suffers from being too fantastical. Even though a message at the prologue assures viewers that this represents contemporary technology, the scientific work depicted looks far fetched even for the twenty-first century, let alone the mid- 1970s. Furthermore, the scene where Carrera is able to find a cure for the side effects of bioengineering simply by typing a question into a computer is laughable.


After his career as a romantic leading man ended in the late 1960s, Rock Hudson starred in lots of different projects, including TV shows and lesser films. However, I believe that "Embryo" is his only turn as a mad scientist, and that's probably a good thing. I guess he needed the work.

Driving along one dark and stormy night, brilliant Dr. Paul Holliston (Hudson) hits and injures a Doberman, which he brings back to his lab (that looks somewhat like a dank Midwestern basement). He then manages to raise the dog's unborn puppy outside the womb, so naturally he decides to do the same thing with a human being. He raises Victoria (the beautiful Barbara Carrera) from a fetus the same way. Victoria grows at an astonishing pace, and soon blossoms into a gorgeous young woman.

Predictably, things go very wrong. After a halcyon beginning, Holliston's sister-in-law Martha (Diane Ladd) begins to wonder where the young woman came from, and Victoria herself begins to show signs of instability and violence. The final sequence is one long car chase straight out of "Smokey and the Bandit", after which Victoriawho has shockingly aged in just a few minutesis assaulted by a frantic Holliston, who tries in vain to destroy his malformed creation along with its unborn child. All of this is accompanied by screeching tires, roaring engines, a car fire, and lots of sirens. The limp endinga bunch of paramedics frantically working on Victoria while Holliston writhes in regretis more labored than creepy.

Although just made in 1976, this movie is very dated. The only difference between this and the many 1940s mad scientist movies is that Hudson plays the lead role rather than Boris Karloff. The sets are pretty cheap and very antiquated to today's audiences, to the extent that Hudson's reel-to-reel tape recorder is about the size of a refrigerator. Much of the action takes place in a poorly lighted laboratory. Hudson sleepwalks through his sordid role, giving the impression that he's truly a washed-up movie star, while Ladd and Carrera are much more believable. Surprisingly, Roddy McDowall pops up briefly as a chess player.

The Passport Video transfer is very substandard, looking as though it had been made from a poor VHS copy using home equipment. If you're nostalgic for 1976, watch this once just to say you did. Otherwise, watch a football game or soap opera instead.


Rock Hudson's second venture in the science fiction genre after Seconds is Embryo a film that combines elements of the Bride of Frankenstein and Pygmalion in one rather weird film about for lack of a better word a test tube baby that grows up to be Barbara Carrera.

Hudson is scientist experimenting in organic development and gets a chance to first experiment on his own Doberman pincher when it is accidentally hit by his car.

Some pituitary secretions from the female dog are given to a prematurely born puppy and it grows remarkably into an adult. Exalted with his success, Hudson takes a fetus from a dead accident victim and gives it some of the same stuff.

What he gets is Barbara Carrera. And she develops physically and intellectually at a prodigious rate. What she doesn't do is develop emotionally. Still Hudson passes her off as his new research assistant to friends and family like sister-in-law Diane Ladd, son John Elerick, and daughter-in-law Anne Schedeen.

Embryo doesn't explore some of the real issues in this kind of science, it exploits them instead. The special effects as they are, are pretty second rate. Hudson looks like he lost interest in the project about halfway through the film.

Now what would have really been interesting is if he had gotten boy child and it grew up to be a harlequin novel hero. Now that would have been something Rock Hudson could have sunk his teeth into.


I suppose I'm supposed to take something like this with a grain of salt. These laboratory movies (and, yes, they spend a lot of time in the laboratory), always fail in one dimension: there is an understanding that single people fooling around have uncovered secrets beyond the comprehension of anyone to this time. Of course, they pay a price because their experimenting has the same shortcomings that Dr. Frankenstein's did. There is always something they didn't anticipate. There are so many things from pure science to fashion for young ladies to outrageous cover ups that don't work here. The young woman is certainly fetching and the doctor can't help himself, but he could have been a little bit discreet or even made an effort to shelter what he was doing. Things go wrong and because of this intellect, she gains tremendous power, including an understanding of how she came to be. Rock Hudson looks pretty fit here. He never quite makes it in this role, however. It wanders all over with lots of clichés and silliness which diminishes the basic issue. Once she has her revenge a more suitable thing would be for her to wander off and allow him to seek her out and destroy her in some grand way.


I sat through this on TV hoping because of the names in it that it would be worth the time...but dear Gussie, whoever thought this script was worth producing? The basic idea is excellent but the execution is appallingly bad, with a constantly illogical sequence of scenes, an ending that is almost laughably melodramatic and poor Rock Hudson wanders through this with an understandably confused look on his slightly sagging face. Looks like a bad B movie from the 40's...


"The Apartment Complex" is a campy comedy full of kookie characters created in lieu of a real story which tells a young psych student (Lowe) who takes a job managing an apartment complex and becomes embroiled in a murder mystery...um, if you can call it that. This low cal watch contains no suspense, no thrills, no drama, no action, precious few funny moments, a dash of nudity, and almost no romance. "The Apartment Complex" is passable, forgettable junk food for only the most needy couch potatoes.


I agree in many parts with the fairly thorough review already posted on the subject of the miniseries, and agree that it does have its pros, not only its cons. For example, the original film manage to truncate much of the middle and final sections of the novel into a single montage, including the discovery of Gurney Halleck and the love affair of Paul Atreides and Chani, which, on reading the novel, is a travesty, probably born of the studio cutting shenanigens of which the other reviewer writes. This was one of the great failings of the original film, and the miniseries, to its credit, does include many of the original plot lines that were cut out of the Lynch film due to the expansive nature of the Herbert novel.

However, this in itself is a double edged sword. Rather than complete a text-to-celluloid transfer of the novel, the creators of the miniseries were tempted to create their own plot lines, absent from the original novel. Similarly, although this is surely a "fuller" account of the storyline of Dune, it is also a break from the originals heart and soul & main vision - that of prophecy. Where are the internal monologues that characterize Herbert's writing and demonstrate what the many different characters are thinking, without the need to suddenly switch viewpoint, or expand in words or unnecessary and stilted spoken monologues? Gone. So much of the original agony of Paul's decision to choose the jihad or death, the choice to fulfill the prophecy or swing away from it, surely the most interesting aspect of the novel itself (and one which captivates people who are far from Science fiction fans) is missing.

Without prophecy, what is the point of Dune? It is simply a more educated and learned version of Farscape or Andromeda. How sad that this is all we are provided with. Lynch's film was flawed, yes. But a flawed film could lead to a correction by another film-maker, taking on some of the best points of Lynch's film-making and rejecting some of the more overblown aspects of the style whilst restoring the storyline. Now this story shall probably never be translated to film again, and this I find heartrending.


This miniseries/movie was so terrible at times that I nearly broke down and turned it off. I am a great fan of the novel, however this movie suffers from multitudes of problems. The costuming is poor, and many of the more emotionally charged scenes are blase. The departures from the novel are poorly chosen, significant nuances are missed or rewritten.


I looked forward to watching this film since I loved the David Lynch version. In my first attempt at watching it I fell asleep. Nothing was happening. The next night I tried to watch the rest, and again it was putting me to sleep! Nothing ever happened in this movie that could keep anyone's interest alive. The only time it got a bit more exciting was when I tried it on Fast Forward! The DVD came with a second disk which contained bonus material. Needless to say, I had no hard to go through the torture of watching more of Dune (2000). Here are the low points: The acting was bad, the plot moved in slow motion, the sets were and looked cheap, the direction was pathetic, and the CGI visual effects childish.

If you want to watch Dune, save your money or rent the 1984 version.


That's a weird, weird movie and doesn't deserve a better mark than David Lynch's one! The special effects are badly made, the actors are majorly bad actors and in this movie it's not about a race which is the minority of a planet and tries to fight against the dominators, but it seems to be a crazy movie, which pays homage to sect kind of organisations. That's surely not the will of Frank Herbert, the author of the six part epic! Check out David Lynch's one, that's the perfect tribute to the novels!


This is the "Battlefield Earth" of mini series. It has with a few exceptions, all the disastrous ingredients that doomed that movie and will follow it to the grave in the turkey cemetery. They are both adaptations of books with a endless amount of pages who has been turned to a complete mess by a script writer and a director (In this case they are the same person.) who clearly don't know what they are doing, they have both a messiah wannabe that don't really deliver, as a hero (Played in this case by a guy that looks like Mark Hamill but sadly the force is not with him.) and a bunch of stupid bad guys who likes to betray and mess up the life for each other, they are both containing scenes stolen from better productions and they are both cheap productions who tries to look expensive with some (often badly made) computer animation. The exceptions that actually makes the whole thing worse is the terrible work made by the lighting guy who don't even have the skills to turn on the light in his own living room, the camera work that for no reasons at all sometimes are in tilted "Battlefield Earth" mode but for the most of the time are flat as a pancake, the extremely cheap and to small desert set that only contents a pile of sand in the front of a backdrop painted as a desert, that turns very old very fast because it appears in almost every scene, and the bad idea by the costume designer to try to mimic "The fifth element"'s fashion madness with the addition of the silliest hats ever made. Silly moments to remember: 1. Every scene with the guild guys, who looks like MST3K's observer guys but with silly hats. 2. Irulan shows up at the party dressed in her butterfly dress (Why butterflys? -was the one with stuffed parrots in the cleaner?) with matching silly hat, together with a couple of guys with silly balloon hats. 3. Paul the stand-up comedian. 4. Baron Harkonnen in over acting overdrive, screaming "I,m alive". 5. Every Scene with the backdrop, because it newer fits the foreground 6. Every scene with the Fremen's fake religious cermonies, specially the "water of life" cermony. 7. The battle scenes where the same guys gets killed a couple times and the same things explodes over and over again. It is a lot more but it is a 1000 words limit on this so i better stop before i gets carried away.


Drivel. Utter junk. The writers must not have read the book, or seen David Lynch's film. Not worth wasting your time.

Longer does not make better. While more in-depth then Lynch's film, it has gross in-accuracies, and down-play's key parts of the story.

"A Night at the Roxbury" is more worth your time.


What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to "big stalagtites" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful "Navigator" effect.

This so-called "Frank Herbert's Dune" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called "Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire "feel" of the story was "sanitised". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....


The Dune miniseries opens with a "flashforward" montage of action sequences. The realisation quickly dawns that these are the *best* scenes out of the 265 minute running time, and they're not good. Not good at all. Oh dear.

But let us not judge a book by its cover (even though that's exactly what we're being invited to do). Let's give Dune a chance to redeem itself.

Well, here's the expected watery opening on Caladan. But who's this petulant, strangely ugly man? Paul Atreides? *This* is Paul Atreides? This generic plastic puppet? And why does he look so old? What's that? The actor's only 25? Well, he doesn't *look* it, and that's way too old anyway.

But at least he has charisma, right? Wrong. Alec Newman is a stumbling, mumbling buffoon. I'm picturing him being discovered sitting in the dark in a remedial acting class because nobody liked him enough to tell him the class was over, and he's just too dumb to realise it. When your Paul Atreides has all the screen prescence of soggy toast, and an acting range from "petulant" to "blank" your production of Dune is doomed from the start.

The other actors take pity on poor Alec though, and give uniformly insipid and incomprehensible performances so that he doesn't look too bad by comparison. At least, I *assume* that is what they are doing. Because I'm charitable, you see.

To be fair, they are clearly being given no direction at all. Random gestures, blank or inconsistent deliveries, missing their marks, it's all here. This is like a master class in how not to do it.

And sure, there are more elements of the book in this miniseries than there are in the 1984 movie, but there aren't twice as many, because of all the. Pauses. To fill. Time.

But we can forgive all this because of the small budget of $20 million, or only $5 million per hour. Nobody could be expected make quality science fiction on that sort of budget.

Except perhaps "Stargate SG-1" which makes do with $1.4 million per 50 minute episode, or "Farscape" at $2 million. And frankly I'd rather watch four episodes of either of those while being punched in the kidneys, than have to sit though the travesty that is Dune the miniseries again.


This is a total piece of crap. It is an insult to the awesome book by Frank Herbert. They have mangled the story and characters. The acting is average to bad. The only character done right and played well is Duke Leto, played by William Hurt. Unfortunately, he dies pretty early in the story and then its all downhill from there (not that its a very tall hill to begin with).

The 1984 movie was directed by the legendary David Lynch. I was not overly impressed with the movie, but considering the technological limitations of the time, they tried their best. Amazingly, the crappy mini series makes it look so much better by comparison. It was at least somewhat true to the book, which I really love.

They had the chance to do it right this time, sadly it was not taken.


If you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs.


While the David Lynch version of Dune is choppy, awkward, and unfaithful to the novel, it is visually well designed and well acted. The best one can say about the Sci Fi channel's attempt to make Dune into a miniseries is that it's ambitious. Actually, that is virtually the only positive praise one can offer. The actors (with few exceptions) seem happy to recite their lines with the least emotion possible, and the least appropriate accents. The costumes seem to have been designed by someone with a a large surplus of Mylar fabric on hand and an unhealthy love of unflattering headwear.

In part, this miniseries suffers from living in the shadow of Lynch's already well known effort. However, it takes elements from Lynch's film which were not present in the novel and copies them nearly wholesale (i.e. the Guild Steersman's navigation sequence), and this only encourages encourages negative comparison to Lynch's film. A for effort. D for virtually everything else.


Surely one of the lamest shows ever to be produced on these shores and thats saying something. Even many of the lead actors didn't stick around for the duration. The fact that it ran for eight years is a sad indictment on the average intelligence and cultural nous of the Aussie viewer. It went round and round in circles, with repetitive gags and poorly-drawn characters. Arthur MacArthur, for god's sake. did they actually pay the writers of this show? I wonder if anyone checked their qualifications. There were tired gags about rural people and second-rate farce situations that were poor imitations of a thousand English and US sitcoms that had gone before. I think that's what I hate about it so much, that it appears no one involved wanted to make it memorable, original or clever, instead opting for the lowest common denominator each time.


But even caricatures need a plausible plot line. I suppose in 1934 some part of that audience long ago would enjoy this tepid farce. It doesn't age well. It does give Nat Pendelton and Zasu Pitts experienced and expert support players a shot at leading roles. Pendelton, who is featured prominently in the Thin Man series tries his best but is over matched by witless plot. With the backdrop being a stage play with gangsters its not exactly original material. Movie's saving grace is the always excellent Edward Everett Horton in a wasted performance. But don't waste your time watching Everett in this film. I would encourage anyone to watch him in his effort in Holiday, with Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn. Same era 1936, but much better script and storyline. Better gags and needless to say star power as well.


It's astonishing that some people saw this as art. We saw it as a poorly filmed (shaky hand-held camera and all), (generally) badly acted, unscripted mess that seemed more like a high school film project with the kids experimenting in black & white film making. Injecting mounds of poetry in place of a story does not an art film make. When we watched this in the theatre, people were starting to have fits of the giggles (us included) at the endless stupidity of this self-indulgent, meandering mess. And believe me, it does seem endless. Had we finished our candy and popcorn, we too would have walked out of the theatre with the other two dozen people who packed up and left looking for something more interesting to do!


A terrible deception: controversial film, winner of the Teddy in Berlin 2003, Mil nubes de paz turned out to be a fiasco. The actors are all reciting (well, they are not exactly actors); the film tried to be a high bet but ends up being a doubtful bet: it stays in the superficiality of two guys kissing and a guy whose lover is gone; it has no purpose: nothing to do with the homo-sexuality presented in other films (e.g. Before Night Falls (2000) by Julian Schnabel). Technically the only thing that works is the photography; otherwise, the camera is put in strange angles (to make it more `art-film') and the whole film runs in a black and white atmosphere. The film is so pretentious that bothers. I mean, it's good to be pretentious when you have talent to support it. Or maybe it is that it's so art-cinema that it's incomprehensible. The story flows slowly, slowly, slowly. To me, more form than essence. Superb edition? It was good. Superb direction? Don't think so: the film is weak. It was an interesting project. It's a shame. It's a flaw. One star out of four.


A very, very, very slow-moving, aimless movie about a distressed, drifting young man. Not sure who was more lost - the flat characters or the audience, nearly half of whom walked out.

Attempting artiness with black & white and clever camera angles, the movie disappointed - became even more ridiculous - as the acting was poor and the plot and lines almost non-existent. Very little music or anything to speak of. The best scene in the movie was when Gerardo is trying to find a song that keeps running through his head. He goes to a used record store to buy it for his lover and has to sing the song for two sales clerks before they find the album. Cute scene gave promise, but it went downhill from there. The rest of the movie lacks art, charm, meaning... If it's about emptiness, it works I guess because it's empty. Wasted two hours.


I nearly fell asleep during a screening of this. Of a boring story that seems to go on forever, it follows several days in the life of a male prostitute who falls in love with one of his tricks. After a heated affair, the trick leaves a long letter explaining why they cannot be together and how they must go on their separate ways.

The male prostitute then goes on a downward self-destructive spiral trying to find his "one true love", repeatedly returning to the same places they frequented, looking for more clues or signs as to where he may locate his love.

In the meanwhile, he hooks up with one ugly guy (who I thought was also a male prostitute), a gay basher, and some guy who ends up having a "three-second sexual intercourse session" with him in a back alley.

It never ceases to amaze me how films STILL portray random sex acts as scenes that can take place in a brief matter of seconds, such as in this case where the trick barely has his pants unbuckled before thrusting three times and miraculously experiencing orgasm!

All of these random encounters end with the sexual partner asking him to call them, to which he discards their telephone numbers.

There is a brief side-plot involving the main character visiting his busy mother who seems to have no time for his lifestyle. There is also another brief side-plot involving some random conversation with a young woman who has noticed him several times standing on the bridge from her window. And there is also one more brief side-plot involving him showing the letter to a male acquaintance, but the audience is not advised of his relation to this person.

None of these things really connect with each other, only to show us how lost and confused this young man really is. He seems to be living life like a ghost. There was one good scene in the entire movie that involved him rummaging through a yard sale looking for a particular record with the world's saddest song on it.

Otherwise, this movie just seems to go on forever. Filmed in black and white, it may seem very dreamlike, but sitting in the theater for nearly two hours watching this drivel will resemble something more like a nightmare!

I found the ending to be confusing as I wasn't quite sure whether the young man had died and gone to heaven? That would have been a nice pay off to end the misery that both audience and the main character had to endure in this meaningless tripe. But seeing as this is an "independent film", movies with endings like these are supposed to encourage you to "use your imagination".

For those of you who are seeking out nudity, there are only brief scenes and most of them are filmed in such a way that anything suggestive are artfully concealed within the shadows. In other words, don't waste your time with this one.

My Rating - 2 out of 10