Plankton, or Creatures from the Abyss as I'm positive it's more commonly known as & filmed under as the title Creatures from the Abyss appears over a moving image & in the same font type as the rest of the credits, starts with five 20 something kids, Mike (Clay Rogers) his girlfriend Margaret (Sharon Twomey), sisters Julie (Ann Wolf) & Dorothy (Loren DePalm) & an annoying idiot named Bobby (Michael Bon) whom decide to all fit into a small rubber boat & head out to sea, don't ask why as I don't know. Oh & the complete idiot Bobby left the petrol behind & never thought to tell anyone so it comes as no great surprise that they end up stranded out at sea without any petrol for the motor & to make matters worse they become trapped in a thunder storm & discover a dead body floating in the water. Shortly after their luck seems to change when they come across a yacht & potential safety, in a flash everyone boards the yacht & begin to explore. First of all they find a scientific lab with various fish specimens & computer equipment, then down below they find fully furnished & luxurious cabins. They find a chemist (Deran Sarafian) who appears mad & can't talk. They eat fish from the fridge which makes Dorothy puke up green vomit, beetles & slugs. They learn that these fish are living fossil's 1000's of years old & have been contaminated by toxic waste dumped in the sea & that they fly, mutate, bite & are generally unpleasant to be around. I really can't be bothered to go on with this plot outline so I won't, here's what I think...

This Italian production was produced & directed by Massimiliano Cerchi under the pseudonym Al Passeri (I'd hide under a different name if I made a film this bad too) & I think Plankton is quite simply one of the worst films ever, there are so many things wrong with this film it's difficult to know where to start. First the script by Richard Baumann is total crap, it makes no sense whatsoever & is so slow & dull it was torture for me to sit through. Why would five people just simply set sail for the middle of the ocean on a rubber dinghy barely big enough to fit them all in? What were they planning on doing exactly? Why do we often get point-of-view shots from these fish creatures but they seem to be totally invisible to the characters as they are never shown on screen even though they are right next to a character, & how do these fish get around the boat as there is no water for them to swim in? People's actions & reactions to things are all wrong, they constantly split up, they make bizarre decisions that simply don't make any sense in the situation they find themselves in & some of the dialogue is as awful as anything I've heard. I could go on all day about all the plot holes & ridiculous goings on but I'll run out of space if I do. The fish creatures themselves look awful, a mixture of rubbish rubber puppets & some really bad stop motion animation at the end, the scenes where they interact with the human cast also look terrible with some bad super imposition. I have heard a lot of comments saying that Plankton is gory, don't make me laugh! Forget it there is virtually no blood or gore in Plankton whatsoever, there are a couple of slimy scenes when Bobby transforms into a fish monster while having sex with Julie but it's pretty brief & he doesn't kill her, he just sort of drips slime on her, grows a couple of tentacles & a fish head comes out of his mouth. Later on Julie's vagina starts to drip some dark slime but that's it, we never get to actually see what happens to her or what the slime is. Dorothy has a fish creature come out of her back, off screen, & control her but again we never get to see what happens to her while Margaret commits suicide, a very brief shot of a plastic harpoon stuck to her forehead. Easily the grossest scene is when Dorothy pukes up that green stuff with what looks like beetles & slugs in it. That's it, only one person actually dies on screen & for the most part Plankton is quite tame & as exciting as watching paint dry & I nearly fell asleep it's so boring. I can't see how anybody can like this total crap, I just can't. The acting is awful, the dubbing is awful, the characters are awful & I hated all of them. Tecnically Plankton is predictably crap as well, with an estimated budget of only $250,000 all I can say is where did the money go? The sets are monotonous & dull with one lab & a few cabins, the special effect's are bottom of the barrel stuff including the most fake looking exploding boat ever, the cinematography is bland, the music sucks there is zero atmosphere or tension & as a whole Plankton, like it's name sake, is as low in the food chain as it could possibly be. I hate Plankton, it's awful in every single aspect of it's overlong 86 minute duration. Do yourself a favour & avoid this one at all costs unless your either a masochist or insomniac.


This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"

In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.

Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.


I just attended a preview screening of this film. A masterpiece of documentary film-making it was not. Totally absorbed with its subject, the film becomes incapable of leveling any sort of critical commentary with regard to Ms. Faye. Cloying and sappy, the only redeeming quality of the film was its use of puppets in an attempt (albeit a failed one) to structure some kind of narrative. But the creepiest experience occurred as the closing credits rolled. The audience rose and applauded. Like moths to flame, Americans in the 21st Century are still drawn to freakshows. The narrative of the misunderstood monster is getting rather tired.


What a disaster! Normally, when one critiques a historical movie, it's always fun to point out the inaccuracies that slip in, usually added by the writers to create more "dramatic" situations. However, "Imperium: Nerone" is a whole 'nuther kind of animal. In this movie you strain to find ANYTHING at all that is confirmed by the historical record amidst the farrago of nonsense and fiction presented as the life of Rome's bad-boy artist-emperor.

And it's a pity, because Nero is one of the most fascinating of all the Roman emperors. His life was filled with enough tumultuous events and interesting people to make a really good movie. The producers of this mess chose another route, which leads only to head-scratching on the part of any informed viewer.

Just a few examples:

1. Nero is depicted as an 6-8 year old boy when Caligula has his father killed for treason, exiles his mother Agrippina, and sends the boy to be raised by slaves in the countryside. "Ten years later," the story resumes just before the assassination of Caligula. Facts: Nero was born about six months after Caligula began his four year reign, and was only three when he was assassinated; Nero's father died of natural causes; Agrippina was briefly exiled for bad behavior, not treason; and Nero was not raised among slaves, but had the typical upbringing of a young member of the imperial family.

2. Okay, according to the writers, Nero is now about 16 when his great uncle Claudius becomes emperor (in fact he was about to turn 4); Agrippina engineers the downfall of the empress Messalina and marries Claudius, who adopts Nero. Then he goes off to conquer Britain, and is poisoned by Agrippina soon after his victorious return. Nero is declared emperor, although he's still perhaps only 18 or 19 years old. Fact: Claudius conquered Britain in 43 A.D., two years after beginning his reign. He lived until 54 A.D. Nero should have been 31 years old by then by any normal chronology, but in fact succeeded to the throne at age 16.

History tells us that there then followed the "Five Good Years," where Nero ruled wisely and well under the tutelage of the philosopher Seneca and the Praetorian commander Burrus. This is shown -- sort of -- except that portraying the Roman Senate as opposing Nero's good measures is false. Senatorial opposition to Nero only commenced when he started to show signs of insanity and began killing Senators for real or imagined treason.

3. Nero's mother Agrippina is the controlling sort, who murdered her uncle-husband to make her son emperor. After a while, Nero tires of her meddling and decides to kill her. In the movie, he sends his henchman Tigellinus to stab her to death. All true enough, but the reality was so much better! Agrippina was a survivor, and didn't go easily. Nero tried three times to poison her, but as an old poisoner herself she was savvy to all that, and he failed. Then he tried to crush her to death by collapsing the ceiling of her bedchamber, but that also failed. Next, he sent her on a voyage on a ship that was deliberately constructed to fall apart and sink; as it went down, she jumped into the sea and swam to shore. Finally, he had her stabbed to death. Now showing all THAT would have definitely improved this movie!

Other errors abound: Nero's lover Acte was not a childhood slave-friend, she never repudiated him, and there is no evidence that she became a Christian. Nero did not commit suicide by slitting his wrists while sitting beside a lake. Etc. etc. etc.

The sources for Nero's life are primarily the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, both of whom were of the senatorial class hostile to him and his memory. But the evidence indicates that he remained very popular with the common people, unlike one of the final scenes where he is pelted by the mob with vegetables as he leaves the city to commit suicide.

WHY did the writers and producers take an inherently interesting story with plenty of good stuff for any movie, and make THIS piece of crap? Oh, and did I mention how cheesy the sets and costumes were? Lol.

One star, because there's no way to rate it lower.


Perhaps, we are too much attached to great spectacles when we hear of antiquity brought to screen. Perhaps, we expect too much from these films. However, if we, as viewers, are offered far too little, what happens then?

That is what I thought after seeing IMPERIUM - NERONE by Paul Marcus, a part of the production series on the Roman Empire. AUGUSTUS by Roger Young, the first IMPERIUM movie, included at least Peter O'Toole but what does this movie include?

Hardly anything accurate. The historical errors are so serious that the movie changes facts and constitutes rather a distorted image of the Roman Empire than the true history. Throughout the movie, we see Nero young: young man during the allegedly long reign of Caligula, young man during the reign of Claudius and finally during his own (historically 14 year long) reign. And...he dies the same. According to the movie, Nero, born during the reign of Tiberius, lives for more than 40 years but looks to be in his late twenties when he dies... Continuity combined with made up history is the biggest problem of the movie, which makes it hardly logical, not to say reliable. Nero loses his father, is raised by slaves. At that time, his mother, Agrippina, is exiled by Caligula. Later, however, she suddenly marries emperor Claudius who already has big children with freshly married to him Messalina. At these moments of the movie, we see Acte (Rike Schmid), Nero's mistress. All right, it is historically "accurate"; yet, no source proves that she played such a decisive role in the rise of Christianity in Rome. In the film, she is not only a devoted Christian but even a witness of St Paul's miracle (he brings a young girl Marzia back to life). Besides, there was, historically, nothing like Nero seen on the court of Caligula since Nero was born in Caligula's 4 year long reign (A.D. 37-41). I understand that movies may change something but such an error makes the script absolutely unreliable! And many, many other shortcomings concerning content that are hard to enumerate but after 30 minutes of watching this film, I doubted whether I was watching a historical movie or a total fantasy.

As for its artistic features which supply us with entertainment, they are equally lame as the history here is. The performances are artificial, the cast simply have beautiful faces but weak acting abilities. Perhaps, I am too much attached to Peter Ustinov or Charles Laughton in the lead, but Hans Matheson does not fit as Nero at all. He could have some of the good moments as an actor but never as the infamous Roman emperor. Is he an artist who burns Rome for a song? Is he a cynic who disguises the love to his relatives? Is he a cruel ruler who sacrifices the lives of thousands of innocent people for the sake of "alleged justice"? None of these. He is just a young man who does not know how to rule and, in the long run, begins to release the fire burning within himself... John Simm is out of place in this film as Caligula and absolutely inferior to other portrayals of the character. Elisa Tovati is only sexy as Poppaea; yet she could have been much much better. The costumes are inaccurate and the sets do not amaze. Low budget results in low effects and, consequently, low entertainment.

But what made me most angry in this movie and, as a result, I give it 1/10 are some moments that are absolutely unacceptable:

- the death of Poppaea and St Paul's talk with Nero at her dead body,

- Claudius' mention of the current conquest of Britannia on the feast and soon his death (he conquered Britannia while Messalina was his wife much before his death),

- Tigellinus killing Agrippina (Laura Morante), Nero's mother,

- Nero's arguments in the speech to the senators,

- finally, Nero's death - a calm day at the lake and an indifferent suicide that leads to a moral said by Acte "Let us forgive him"

All in all, this film is a waste of time and is absolutely unneeded as yet another production concerning the Roman Empire. It's better to make one good film in 30 years than ten minor little ones in 5 years. 1/10 - should not have been made at all.


"Nero" as the title of the movie is in Germany is a another attempt to show one of the most interesting Roman emperors, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, better known as Nero. Although this attempt at least tried to show a more historic accurate Nero than the amusing but completely fictitious Nero Peter Ustinov played in "Quo Vadis!" it still is a major failure. And to those IMDb-commentators who still believe that Sueton and Tacitus propaganda is true, please read a book about Nero that was published less than 20 years ago. Nero did NOT burn Rome, this is proved! He did not murder Britannicus. He did not torture, kill and maim for pleasure, he was the first emperor who BANNED the gladiator fights. The movie still shows a lot of mistakes, errors and is by the way made in a really cheap style, especially the sets were cheap and unconvincing, the palace looking like some villa, the city itself looked like..well like a cheap set. The acting was between good and sub-par, the music nearly insignificant and the movie soon deteriorated after Nero became emperor to a rushed, bad edited mess without any clear narrative structure. So there still is the potential for an epic biography of Nero that shows the true Nero, who was one of the best emperors who ruled Rome, despite the lies of Sueton et al.


For a good take on the Roman Empire watch the excellent BBC produced miniseries "I, Claudius". This just sucked. The acting was pathetic and you could almost see the actors looking at the camera. Hans Matheson was irritating. Cheese factor was so high that it promotes constipation with repeated viewings. Even Caligula was tame. I think this film was silently supported by "religious" groups who shall remain nameless ;). The overt tones of Christian favoritism and persecution were blatant if that gives any hint. Stay away what ever you do - the running time is so long that I was able to read Harry Potter's first book faster than the time it took to view this tripe.

Italy has done better - don't let Hans cute face fool you. He is not a great actor...he is a great bore.


"Imperium Nero" is the second movie of the series of six productions named "Imperium". I have already unfavorably commented the first one: "Imperium Augustus". This second TV movie produced and broadcast last weekend by the Italian state owned network has the same defects. In addition contains a considerable number of historical errors. Some examples: Nero is a child and Agrippina calls him: "Nero, Nero". At that time is name was Claudius. He was named Nero after his adoption. Nero did not meet Acte when he was young as in the movie but after his marriage with Octavia and his nomination to Emperor. When becoming Emperor his sons where not adults: Britannicus is one month old and Octavia one year old. And many many more. If you are fond of ancient roman history you can find yourselves other examples. "Imperium" series will continue with four more movies : "Titus", "Marcus Aurelius","Costantinus" and"The Fall of the Roman Empire". Finally!


Sorry if I disappoint anyone about what I am about to say to this made for TV movie. But, I paid money for the movie and turned out this movie is disaster. The directing is really awfully bad. But, after I looked up its information here, I realized there might be reasons for the low quality of directing and producing. Maybe they don't have budget, but anyway, Ang Lee's Sense and Sensibility had little money too but it turned out a hit. The director in this movie did really bad job in telling the story and the movie couldn't even keep up a rational continuity in itself. It keeps pulling me outta scenes. Maybe someone need to work hard on story line/ board. The dubbed sound is also awfully bad. My god.... Normally, I would appreciate every movie because behind it lie ideas and imaginations of an individual. but, this time I am just mad , "I really wanna hit something HARD." ...Just don't do the job if someone can't fulfill it to its best. Bad arts (its' not even art, what is it? )really hurt people.


I cannot comprehend how this picture was allowed to be made. It is mostly, if not completely, inaccurate so much so that the main character does not even resemble how history has him look physically. This movie made me go on the internet and go through my books to make sure I remember Nero's personality correctly. For God's sake, I have a book that lists Nero as one of the most evil person's of the world and the movie made me feel bad for him. I must say Aggrapina's character seemed close to my understanding of her, both physically and psychologically. Although, the actors all did a good job, the movie was terrible and I'm sure I will not watch any others made by this sorry team.


'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.

A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.

Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.

I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.


A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.

The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.

I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.

If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.

Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.

Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back.


I thought this movie was going to be good. It absolutely wasn't, despite the Oscar-winning lead actors. I may have laughed once, and I never heard anybody else in the theater laughing. Renee Zellweger's pancake make-up was very unbecoming. Everybody seems to be trying so hard in this movie, running around in imitation of slapstick but not pulling it off. I think perhaps the movie must've sounded good in development, but something got lost in translation. Were the roaring 20's really like this? I think not. Everything seems a tad artificial. Randy Newman's score was annoying. The film is in sepia tones, just like every other movie that takes place in the 20's or 30's. There's just not that much originality here.


How many times must I write the words boring and not funny on this page until I get to ten lines. George is about original an actor as Alfalfa from the little Rascals. Although that is probably a slight to Alfalfa. How many times do I have sneak into these overpaid actors crappy films before I will learn that there is but one law in the movie industry. Take the money and make a movie - even if it is crap. They spend millions making this movie but can't take a few moments to watch the end result. And Renee GoAwayZigger should stop taking the illegal drugs she is on and seek medical help for the facial problems she is sporting. At least I hope its drugs as she is quite unattractive whilst talking out the side of her mouth. This movie was neither funny nor dramatic and these hacks should just stop making crap like this. George and Renee, you should be ashamed of yourselves and stop being stop stinking greedy.


Check out the two octogenarians who review Leatherheads. These guys are old-school Hollywood and a hit on YouTube. They always give an insightful and fun review. They have movie comparisons that are really interesting and they have a banter back and forth that is endlessly entertaining. They know movies, collectively they have been in the biz for practically a century. Lorenzo is a well-known screenwriter and Marcia is a famous producer. All of their insight on movies always leaves you with something to think about. See what they think about Clooney's latest...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-W7evBEArs


Leatherheads is an apt title, however a leather strap would be more useful to self-flagellate oneself after purchasing a ticket to watch this noxious attempt at entertainment. Clooney's attempt at self deprecating humor comes across with a quiet thud as his demeanor implies that he is anything but. Perhaps with another actor playing the Clooney role, the movie might be marginally palatable. Sorry George, I doubt there will be any Oscar nods this time. George Clooney is definitely a fish out of water when it comes to comedy (unless you are referencing to his politics). Anyway, only the most ardent of Clooney fans will enjoy watching Leatherheads, everyone else will long for the days of the silent picture.


OK where do I start? I saw a screening a couple weeks ago and I was shocked how bad this movie is. Sure if you just LOVE Beverly Hillbillies and Green Acres (bad acting) and you think they are the best TV shows on air then you will definitely love this movie. Me, personally, I really like George's work and he is very talented, but comedy is not his forte. Some people are natural in comedy and I am sure he is great & funny to work with personally but comedy he can not pull it off on the big screen. It was a cute movie but would I pay $12.00 to see it? H&LL no !!!! Now that I have seen it I would not recommend it to anyone to spend their money. George, buddy, I love you but please don't do any more comedies? This script is lacking a lot, great concept but just didn't do it.


This is defiantly a DVD rental movie. I'm a big fan of the cast members but the storyline never really grabbed me. Don't expect "Oh brother where art thou" in any way shape or form. Funniest part in my opinion is when the war hero explains what happens over in the Argon. Seems like they were trying to copy some of Clooney's funny facial expressions from "Oh brother where art thou" but you could kind of tell they were trying for that. John Krasinski was the bright spot and was solid throughout. Renee Zellweger plays the part of a zealous reporter willing to do whatever for the story. Overall it's a movie worth watching at home.


Let me preface this by going on record, I am a huge George Clooney fan, and I love John Krasinski in 'The Office'. Well, I was and I did.

This was the world's worst hang nail and it took 113 minutes to rip it off. The stupefying boredom was interrupted only by my frequent efforts to read my watch and estimate when it would be over.

Every funny scene was in the previews. All three of them. There was no real story, no character development, and the script was just plain bad. I've had a colonoscopy that was more enjoyable.

The title should have been SuperDuper Bad. This movie is a lock for a Razzie. It should get a whole slough of Razzies. I want my money back.


I also made the mistake of thinking that I was going to see the 2003 Swimming Upstream with Geoffry Rush. This was worse then a lot of student films that I have seen. The script was forced, the acting was subpar and the editing annoying. It was so slow that I just managed to force myself into staying. But I always give a movie a chance, so I suffered until the very end. Apparently there was a memo out about this movie, because my friend and I were the only ones in the theater. Why didn't somebody send me this memo?!?! That is why I'm posting, as a warning to others thinking of shelling out good money to see this. I just hope that you actually got to this page, and didn't get trapped like I did by looking at the wrong "Swimming Upstream." P.S. Sorry to the cast and crew if you are reading this. I know that you worked hard to make this. I know what goes into making a movie... keep trying!


CRAP! I accidentally watched this film-thinking that it was the Swimming Upstream that was released in 2003. I seriously regret wasting an hour of my life sitting through it. Shame on whoever gave this junk an award. I thoroughly loathed this film-in fact I didn't see it through to the end. After an hour I could no longer stand it. I am disgusted that people are amused by such a lousy script-which tries and fails to rip off a dozen other human interest stories and such BA-AD acting. PAINFUL. I rate it 1 star out of 10. An amateur could make a much, much greater movie.


The depiction of Ichabod Crane's character was so terrifically unlikable, my wife and I were hoping that the horseman (or some other character) would not only cut off Crane's head, but do it slowly and painfully.

I mean, this Brent Carver guy played it over the top---like he was on Broadway. And he was such a relentless jackass that we had no sympathy for him whatsoever.

I could go on with specific critiques of how this movie failed, but I prefer to not devote the energy.

Just skip it and go for the Johnny Depp version. Either that, or rent the Haunted Pumpkin of Sleepy Hollow (animated). It is quite good--entertaining for kids and adults.

Better yet, read Washington Irving's original story.


Its incredible to me that the best rendition of this amazing story remains a cartoon made by Walt Disney in the 1940s, but its true. Here another clumsy attempt sputters confuses and alienates would be viewers with admirable effectiveness while successfully antagonizing those of us who have actually read the story. Irving's original work is short by any measure and making a feature length film is bound to be a challenge. One can either completely rewrite the story a la Tim Burton which is a discussion for another time, or pad the bust-line of the old girl with unintended detail. The latter is what is attempted here, and if I may say, pitifully so. Unimaginative and thoroughly modern new facets to character personalities such as religious zealotry in Crane or wanderlust in good old Bram Bones ruin the story's intent and betray a severe lack of talent by the filmmakers. By the time the tale's famous climax approached, I had completely lost interest. Its the kind of film where you expect to see a stagehand smoking in the background.


It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can.

The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.

Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.

The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.

I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.


An awful B movie at best with video quality similar to Dead Alive. I challenge anyone who is a "Aliens (James Cameron 1986)" Movie fan to count how many times either lines or almost entire sequences were ripped off from the first two Alien movies to make this classic piece of garbage.

Cast members such as R. Lee Ermey and Ray Wise were the only two actors with any talent and the lead "Jack Scalia" was really absolutely horrible. I think they cast him for his massive cleft chin. I was also annoyed with the stereotyping of the only black male on the set John Toles-Bey who must look at this movie and just wonder. Look him up sometime as he has done a lot of interesting movies.

But on this movie: The script as I said earlier was a rip-off of Aliens tweaked and turned into a submarine "thriller". It included such lines as "I got a bad feeling about this" and "Kill me" as one crew member is infected by one of the mutants and his belly starts doing the "alien hop" just before it pops out of his stomach. There is also a rip-off of the classic "get some!" via Bill Paxton. We also have a bunch of navy grunts running through caves with creepy crawlies popping out of walls. Even the explosions of the mutated creatures is very similar to the popping of aliens as they charge marines in the movie "Aliens". And the kicker is that some of the mutants spit acid (as opposed to having acid for blood). There are many more major examples. So if you want to see this script done well watch the first two classics Alien and Aliens (With Sigourney Weaver). You'll have a more enjoyable time.

The plot could have been interesting and done better if not for confusing sequences in the start of the movie and generally poor editing. Camera shots were pretty dull and honestly it wasn't very hard to stop watching it and walk around the room to get a snack or check email. Many of the interactions between characters made little or no sense and went nowhere more often than not. The whole command structure between crew and Capt. was poorly done. I'm not even sure if there are Captains in the military that have full control over nuclear subs. In general this just shows that there was little research done for background information to make the movie seem at least a little respectable and there are many other similar examples (like dive depth etc..).

If you like horrible movies or are a big fan of Alien and Aliens and want something to just laugh and shake your head at then this movie may be for you. As for me this one is going back on the shelf...permanently.


ZERO stars out of ****

Endless Descent has absolutely no redeeming values, whether it's the ridiculously bad acting, the laughably awful special effects, the incompetent direction, the stupid script, or the gratingly annoying musical score. It's the kind of pitiful production that makes me wonder how a movie like this could even have the slightest consideration for being greenlighted by a studio in the first place.

I don't think I'm going to delve into the plot other than to say it's about a bunch of people who are trapped under the water and have to kill a lot of fake-looking creatures.

Let me go more into detail as to what is so awful about this flick. First of all, the acting is simply horrendous. Jack Scalia is ten times worse than Sylvester Stallone, a feat that is hard enough to accomplish as it is. The supporting performances aren't really any better. And what is with actor Luis Lorenzo, the guy who plays the cook, Francisco. He has a high-pitched voice and an accent that sounds appropriate for a comedy, not a sci-fi horror film.

The special effects are even worse. The creatures range from weird-looking eels to giant starfish and "mostquitoes." The effects look like something you would see in a muppet movie, and I don't believe I need to delve further in this issue.

Director J.P. Simon has slight cult status because of all the terrible films he's made. I'm sure some will enjoy Endless Descent in an Ed Wood type of way, but I don't even think it's that good. Everything he does is shoddy, especially the camerawork. The man cannot direct a movie, that's all there is to it.

This was the last of four films that took place underwater, and it sure does make Leviathan and Deep Star Six (Both bad films in their own right) start to look masterful in comparison. Either way, just stick with The Abyss.


Its a sin how these things are made, but then again we wouldn't get to see the best "Dummy scene" ever filmed. Ahhh the beauty of low budget Bigfoot flicks, you lean to see the beauty the more you watch them, thats if your brain doesn't melt first. As I said before, this has the best dummy scene ever! Words cant express it, you have to see it for yourself. Wonderful lines such as "Smells like decain flesh", "Thems human..."(You will know this one when you see it) The creature makes a Blah, Blah! sound and the scene where the baby gets shot will make you cry(with laughter) you will be rewinding it. Has a car chase, snowmobile chase, a Bigfoot folk song as well as a Disco song. It dosn't end there, while watching the credits a friend noticed "Wardrobe provided by K-Mart". You ask, how could you even get as far as the credits and then watch them? I could only explain this as a sort of shock to the brain, you are so mentally exhausted you cant move and also I guess you have to know who was behind the mess. All that being said, this is a must see especially if you want to punish yourself mentally. Its a keeper!


Bill Rebane's "The Capture of Bigfoot" is one of the most awful horror movies ever made.A greedy sawmill owner Harvey Olsen(Richard Kennedy)decides that he wants Bigfoot captured at all costs.However local game ranger Dave Garrett(Stafford Morgan)learns that the Bigfoot used to live in peace upset by a geological expedition,and sets out to protect the creature.There is nothing even remotely interesting in this piece of crap.The film is extremely dull and filled with horrible songs and cheap special effects.No gore,no suspense-just gigantic boredom.Avoid this horrible junk like the plague.


The Capture Of Bigfoot is one of the silliest and worst movies of all time. I love Sasquatch and Bigfoot movies but this one is just a sheer waste of one's time.Terrible, terrible, terrible!I watched this movie last night, and it was all I could do to finish watching.I understood that this weird crazy man wanted to capture Bigfoot,but that was the only thing that made sense in this movie.It did have some amusing parts though.There was this very cheesy and corny disco club with very bad disco dancing that seemed to go on for far too long in the movie.I think the director was trying to fill time.The worst thing was the way the Bigfoot looked.The obvious man in a suit looked like a pink faux fur Bigfoot.It was laughable.If you want to see a very bad Bigfoot movie, then I suggest that you purchase this movie.Personally, I wasted my time and my money on this one!


This movie is, in all likelihood, the worst film ever made. It is certainly the worst that I've ever seen, and I have seen A LOT of bad movies.

In this, nothing at all interesting happens throughout the movie. One could, literally, start the movie, take a short nap, and then wake up secure in the knowledge that nothing interesting has happened while you are sleeping. And I have seen this movie three times, staying awake throughout. I feel I should be congratulated.

The movie goes as one might expect, according to a formula, with no variation. Hunters capture baby bigfoot, get killed by parent, and the nearby town goes into a bigfoot killing frenzy. This is surprisingly boring for a Troma release.

So please do yourself a favor, and skip this movie. If you have to see it you will understand why.


This movie is the very worst that I have ever seen. You might think that you have seen some bad movies in your time, but if you haven't seen this one you don't know how terrible a movie can be. But wait, there's worse news! The studio will soon rerelease this masterpiece (I'm being ironic) for all to see! The only things worse than the plot of this movie are the effects, the acting, the direction, and the production. Bill Rebane, the poor man's Ed Wood (not that there is a rich man's Ed Wood) (I like Ed Wood's movies, though) manages to keep things moving at a snail's pace throughout this film. It opens with the capture of a baby bigfoot (a Littlefoot? --sorry, couldn't help it) by a pair of unlikable hunters, who are killed by the parent. This causes the entire town where the hunters lived to go on a Bigfoot hunting jihad. This is pretty much it for the plot. Nothing even remotely interesting happens, and we the viewers are never able to care about any of the characters. If one is interested in the films of Rebane I would recommend almost any other over this. However, as I said, it will soon be rereleased by Troma in order to bore a new generation of filmgoers.


If it weren't for the editing out of curse words and a superimposed blur when one character give another the finger, it would be easy to mistake this low-budget snoozer for a Sci-Fi channel pilot. The plot about the government's attempts to destroy a group of telekinetics it originally trained as military weapons ends ambiguously enough with the hero, himself gifted, in pursuit of a telekinetic survivor bent on revenge. Alas, the movie is talky, boring, predictable and even devoid of interesting special effects. Top-billed Louis Gossett, Jr. has a minor role as the evil government bureaucrat who originated the program and now wants to eliminate all traces. He walks through the part and it is hard to understand why he bothered. Other members of the cast do a decent job with a script that demands little.


The films of the Science Fiction Channel ( Sci-Fi Channel ) have become boringly predictable. The seem low on budget, originality, and plot.

In this creation the government is out to get a bunch of telekinetics and recruits a poor soul by devious means to help. There is plenty of over worked recycled twists on evil government organization theme. black coats, shadows, short meaningless lines make these one dimensional cartoons.

Daniel Dae Kim stands out as a good actor in a small role. He brings a bit of the style of his "Angel" character to the role. It is hard to miss the link that his "Crusade" character was a telepath and this is a film on telekinetics. Was this a Sci-Fi casting move to try and draw fans from the other show? Who knows. Thankfully he is a decent actor and a pleasure to watch.

The movie is definitely low budget. It reflects The Sci-Fi Channels current model of Canadian location, few well known characters, few effects, and woefully terrible plot and character development. One would think they believe science fiction fans will view anything labeled "scifi."

If you want a good telekinesis movie, check out "the Fury" ( 1978).


I know a lot of people like this show and i apologise to people who think this show is awesome but it is the worst show ever created. Sure i'm sure I would be a big fan of this show if Jeremy Clarkson wasn't on it. I mean I think that testing out cars and doing things like seeing whether a car can beat a aeroplane is awesome! But Jeremy Clarkson is just pathetic. Here are the reasons I hate this man: . He thinks it's cool to trick speed cameras that measure your average speed by taking measuring your distance and time by driving 200mph down the road and then resting for two hours. . He clearly thinks that he is better than Richard Hammond and James May. . He's got my best friend saying pathetic things. . He screams at kids just for taking a picture of him. I'm sorry top gear but Jeremy Clarkson is a freak.


"Haaaarrrryyy!"

The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.

Jaw-droppingly tacky, "Aot50FW" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.

Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.

The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed "The Deadly Mantis," "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jack, the Giant Killer" plus several episodes of TV's "World of Giants" and "Land of the Giants."

A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.


This is a fair movie, good for one-off viewing. The plot itself is fairly well worked for a picture of this kind which is a pleasent surprise as is the acting, which although a little hammy, is better than normal for these types of flick.

The 'special effects' are hilarious - a translucent giant and a blatantly polystyrene/papier mache hand wobbling unconvincingly on a bit of wire.

Definitely to watch once for kitsch entertainment value.

5/10.


This is the kind of movie that BEGS to be shown on TV at 3 or 4 in the morning, if at all.

No doubt the film-makers responsible for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman" thought they were making a pertinent statement about women and philandering and the dangers of the demon rum, all wrapped up in a sci-fi allegory.

Or maybe it was a tax write-off.

Either way, "Attack" proves best for the viewer under the following circumstances: a) extreme intoxication, b) seen on a double-bill with any of those Jacqueline Suzanne movies (maybe "Once is Not Enough"?) or c) just a night when you feel insecure and the world around you is a little too perfect. Pop in "Attack" and you'll feel great, guaranteed!

It's good for a laugh at the expense of the hokey script, the rubbery special FX and that four-eyed sheriff. And I think the last line should be engraved in a monument somewhere in Washington D.C. - it's just that memorable.

Four stars for "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"; buy a copy, mail it to Gloria Steinem - she'll love you for it.


I saw this movie because it had a giant person and was labeled as a monster movie. I do not understand why it is called a monster movie. The movie is a drama. I was expecting a lot of destruction, but what did I get? Most of the movie was relationship problems and people thinking that a woman was a loony because she saw a spaceship crash with a giant inside for an unexplained reason. The action started a few minutes toward the end. Since the woman was killed, isn't that murder? Couldn't they have done anything else besides murder her? If you watch this because you expect it to have action because it is labeled as a monster movie, don't watch it. It is not a monster movie. It is a drama.


I’d been interested in watching this ever since it was cited as the Worst Film Ever on an entry devoted to 1950s sci-fi cinema in a British periodical from the early 1980s entitled “The Movie” (incidentally, the Leonard Maltin Film Guide also awarded this the unenviable BOMB rating). When it came out on DVD last year, I became interested in purchasing the “Cult Camp Classics” Box Set in which it was included (along with QUEEN OF OUTER SPACE [1958] and THE GIANT BEHEMOTH [1959]); however, since recently acquiring QUEEN on DVD-R, I had put paid to the idea.

Happily, I’ve just stumbled upon the film on DivX – however, the print wasn’t culled from the Warners DVD (which is said to boast a surprisingly pleasant-looking transfer) but rather a muddy TV print…though not so much that the detail is lost (in other words, it was like watching the film in sepia as opposed to black-and-white!). Anyway, to get to the matter at hand: I have to admit that, in a way, I was disappointed the film didn’t prove to be the laugh-fest I had anticipated all this time (Maltin calls it “hilariously awful”); actually, I found it quite engaging – and thankfully brief at a little over an hour in length. Some undeniably amusing bits remain though – such as when the old nurse starts screaming her head off at the sight of the 50-foot woman, and when the Sheriff’s deputy almost runs over his chief and the leading lady’s butler in his enthusiasm to be of assistance in such an unusual case. Neither did the special effects hit me as being “among the funniest” (Maltin again) on film – though they’re certainly embarrassingly bad!

O.K., so the idea that an alien (in giant-sized human form, clad in cave-man rags, and radioactive to boot!) coming to Earth in a big ball-shaped(!) spaceship and apparently after the heroine’s prized necklace is utter nonsense – and his quasi-transparent appearance does it no favors at all…but, really, it’s the human story that holds our attention (relatively speaking). The character of the philandering husband isn’t very interesting, but his two women are: wealthy but nagging alcoholic wife Allison Hayes and ambitious, vixenish girlfriend Yvette Vickers. Also involved in the narrative are Hayes’ faithful servant (already mentioned), a couple of cops (one of them, as noted elsewhere, being amiably goofy) and as many doctors (one of whom is named Dr. Cushing[!] and another a specialist who’s called in when Hayes starts growing in size after being exposed to radiation).

Of course, the film could be seen as the reversed female version of THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN (1957) – though it wouldn’t be fair to compare the two further, as the Jack Arnold/Richard Matheson classic is far more psychological/intellectual in approach; actually, Hayes doesn’t seem to be that bothered with her ‘condition’ and, in fact, takes advantage of it in order to teach her husband a lesson! However, her rampage – exaggerated in movie posters of the era – is rather quaint (especially when considering that it only occurs in the last ten minutes or so); when not shown the damage caused by her enormous but highly unconvincing hand (especially when lifting the puppet that’s supposed to be her husband!), she’s mostly seen walking in long shot and almost from behind (with her size even inconsistent in proportion to the buildings she passes by)!! Still, Hayes’ demise via electrocution (when she bumps into an electrical cable) is competently done.

Finally, I followed this with its 1993 TV remake with Daryl Hannah as the titular creature – which I rented specifically for this purpose.


A woman as rich as she is insecure has a history of alcoholism and nervous breakdowns, helped no doubt by a smooth-talking gigolo husband who openly cheats on her. Naturally nobody believes her when she claims to have been accosted by a giant man who stepped out of a giant satellite. Much to the delight of her husband, this could be the incident which finally puts her away for good.

From the very opening scenes, with it's ludicrous news broadcast and ridiculous satellite encounter, you'll probably be convinced that the only redeeming value of this movie is that it is so bad that it is funny. Although not too far off the mark, this is most definitely not true.

Unlike most movies of this genre, this is not really a sci-fi or a horror film, but actually a serious drama which intelligently incorporates a sci-fi scenario into the plot. It's not a good or even mediocre drama, but it will exceed your expectations if you weren't expecting any legitimate drama at all. The acting is surprisingly good for such a low budget effort and, most importantly, it is well edited and excellently paced. It is never boring and manages to generate more than a little interest in seeing what will come next. Nevertheless, this is still a movie strictly for those who can't pass up the chance to see a 1950s film with a title like "Attack of the 50 Foot Woman"!


I like 50s sci-fi movies a lot. I like the really good ones (such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and many others) and sometimes the really bad ones because they can be really funny and great to watch with friends (such as Plan 9 From Outer Space). However, when a sci-fi movie is bad but not bad enough to be fun, it really should be avoided. This movie is just such a film. The posters make it appear as some sort of sexy she-beast is attacking mankind, whereas the real plot is a lot less interesting. A woman is married to a womanizer. She is contaminated and begins to grow to a HUGE size and decides to track down this worm and kick his tail and that's about it. Also, many of the special effects really stink--especially the gigantic papier mache hand that comes into the room to grab the wicked hubby.


The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.

One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.


In Moscow, the priest Owen (Vincent Gallo) hires a team to guide him in the underworld to find his friend Sergei (Rade Serbedzija) that is missing while researching the legend about the existence of demons and an entrance to hell beneath the city.

I bought this DVD based on the name of Val Kilmer and the interesting pictures on the cover. I am totally disappointed since this film is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I do not understand how Val Kilmer accepted to participate in this production. There are two shameful reviews in IMDb promoting this movie and they are typically fake, written by users with only one review in this site. There are two possible ways to see this boring and awful film: my wife and I napped many times because of the monotony of this pointless story, and we used the rewind button of the DVD to repeat each lost scene. However, the correct way should have been the use of the fast forward or the stop button, to end this crap faster. My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Cidade Sombria" ("Dark City")


After watching this film I decided that it was so awful that I must join IMDb and write a review to warn other people of the pit falls of renting/buying this film. To be fair to the film there is only one good section to this film and that is the end credits cause then you know that this crap is well and truly over. I watched it to the end in the hope that I may get a little bit of pleasure out of the film. Just tunnels more tunnels and an old man talking to himself (If you watch this film too many time so will you). As for Val if he keeps selecting films like this he may as well kiss goodbye to his acting career. There is no point in even writing about what is in the film as that has already been done. Keep your money and sanity and keep well clear.


Sit in your basement with the light out for an hour and a half. That's about the same as watching this subterranean search for the Devil's door. An American researcher Owen(Vincent Gallo)travels to Moscow and gathers a rescue team to search for his friend Sergei(Rade Serbedzia), an archaeologist who has disappeared in the catacombs beneath Russia's capital city. They will be shocked to discover subterranean dwellers thriving in the dank and dark complex system of caves and tunnels. The searchers will come upon the gatekeeper of Hell, Andrey(Val Kilmer), and will strike a deal to continue their venture; only to succeed in being scared almost witless when realizing they are among walking dead. Also in the cast: Joaquin de Almedia, Oksana Akinshina, Sage Stallone, Joss Ackland and Julio Perillan.


There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.

With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of "here they go again with the girl (or lights)" from the viewer.

Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.

Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.

Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.

About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.


This may not be the worst movie ever made, but it is absolutely the most boring. Wonder why it is shot mostly in the dark, and mostly with Vincent Gallo walking away from the camera, or looking down? Because he doesn't want to show his face for actually agreeing to being in this movie. I liked his early stuff, but the pretentiousness of the "Brown Bunny" and then being cast in this drivel knocked him down a peg in my book. And Val Kilmer? I actually want to send him a sympathy card. The "doors" to this??? Actually the casting was the only reason I watched this movie, and Val doesn't even show up until the movie is more than halfway over. Simply a sad movie.


i never made any comment here on IMDb, but as i saw this movie, i cant be quiet. i just set up my account here only because this horrible movie. in two words, this movie is PURE CRAP. the movie has no sense at all! Nothing makes sense in this movie. Watching this movie was pain all the way. I don't understand why Val Kilmer agreed to do this movie. He plays a minor role as a gang leader, says few words, and he is there like 5 minutes total.

I bought this DVD based only because of Val Kilmer name on the box and the interesting pictures on the cover.

As was stated in other review, Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back!!! The title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO


I suffered the watching of this movie at Sitges Festival last month. If there would be a possibility of "unfilm" a movie to avoid its existence, this should be the first in the list. María Lidón isn't a director, she is just a dumb woman that pretends that holding a camera with the hand and shout "action" makes her a professional film maker. What a mistake! The movie itself is pointless and a total waste of good actors that could be doing something better in another project. Val Kilmer does nothing but place his face in front of the camera. His character don't have specific weight in the movie. The same thing can tell about Joss Ackland, Vincent Gallo or Joaquim De Almeida. It's a shame the way Rade Serbedzija's character has been written. WARNING SPOILERS

He spends most of the time alone in the tunnels talking with himself in the way (now I'm doing this, now I'm low of bats, I'll search in my bag, now I'm turning left, now I'm turning right...) only to bring the audience a clear idea about his actions. It's simply nonsense and proves the lack of talent of the director. END OF SPOILERS

The usual joke about this piece of garbage among the audience was that the title of the movie itself brought the clue about the rating everyone should give it: ZERO


This line is a good summary of this movie. If you have read it, and watched 20 minutes of the movie, you will know exactly how the rest of the movie is going to behave. Some researcher named Surgei (pronounced SirGay) are searching for hell in the underworld of Moscow. However he seems to have disappeared, and his friend Oven follows with a team to search after him. Could they have find a more boring plot? Some bad actors looking after an old man in the underground. The acting is very bad, the romance really feels pointless and untrue, often there is no good reason for the way the characters are acting, nothing is scary and most of all: there's not happening anything interesting in the whole, entire movie. They just walk, asking some gang leaders and other guys about the way, walk some more, complain some, finds the old man, and then they run, and finally finds the way out of the underground.

The only thing that provides me from giving this movie the lowest of all ratings is the atmosphere. If you just want to see a movie for that, this may be a good choice. It's dark, and it's mystical and murky. However, the rest of the movie is really dull. You just sit there all the time, waiting for the movie to begin or something to happening. It's actually happening some things, but they are not very well performed. For example, i didn't really notice when one of the characters disappeared, and I swear I wasn't sleeping or something. And I don't understand what's dangerous with these children... They just run around in the underground together, scratching it walls with sticks (I suppose it is meant to be scary in some way).

Just watch this movie if you are in immediate need of some murky atmospheres.


The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.


The gates of Hell opened up and spit out this film, then closed again.

Watching this movie makes me appreciate other movies I have seen, like all other movies. Nothing makes sense in this movie.

It would really take too long to mention all the plot problems. In fact, except as a warning, it really isn't worth wasting some of the nearly infinite space available on the internet writing about this film.

From now on, I will check IMDb before watching any film.

Hot darn, IMDb is forcing me to write more about this film. I guess I should warn you about Edison Force while I am at it. But if you had to chose between the two, pick Edison Force.


Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back! This is a horror movie, not thriller, not suspense, a horror movie. Yes, this movie is a horror. Horrifyingly bad. After many years of lurking here at IMDb, I am actually moved to set up an account just so I (like at least one other reviewer here) can warn people DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! IT WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL, or at least your desire to live in a world that makes movies this bad, or at least an hour and a half of your life if you are not wise enough to hit the fast forward button.

Seriously, I'd love to hear the director's voice over on an "enhanced" DVD (there's another horrifying thought) to see what the hell they were thinking. The producers had to assume there were enough suckers out there to fall for the Val Kilmer name to make this film at least break even in international distribution.

I actually had the misfortune to pick this to watch on movies on demand, which provided no subtitles to the Russian dialog. Not that it mattered much. Straining to hear the Russian, translate it in your head (if you can) only to find out how dull it is just adds insult to injury.

I will give this movie a "1" because I cannot give it a lower rating, and because it did achieve one remarkable thing. It somehow made an almost entirely subterranean movie NOT feel claustrophobic. Now that's a dubious achievement.

HERE'S YOUR SPOILER: And the ending, holy mother (no pun intended) it's like they ran out of money and just decided to stop filming. The "climax" of the film literally happens seconds before the end and is solved by the simplest escape I have ever seen on film. Exercise your simple escape mechanism too if you find yourself watching this - the off button.


I was hooked in by the premise that the show was about demons. From hell. And a doorway to hell. What I didn't realize was that I would be watching some guys run around tunnels chased by small children who may / may not have been demons for the entire movie. Sure there was some dialogue in between, and great underground scenery but the lack of a plot, developed characters, any twists or development in the story at all was sorely lacking. Oh, and out of interest, there were no special effects. The entire budget was spent on actors salaries, sets and lots of time running around with a camera underground.

The ending was one of the typical lackluster boring endings that makes you say "I endured this film of boredom for that!?" If you want to see demons and a doorway to hell, I promise you that you would be better off served watching the trailers to the game Hellgate : London which while shorter than this movie at 5 minutes, pack more dialogue, character development, action, plot and satisfying conclusions than this.

The second star is for effort, but overall a low score for failing to make a movie that stands out, and for promising in the tagline much more than what was delivered.


If they had a Zero out of 10 I would of entered it. Everyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves taking money from the public. I don't know how films like this get released Video or Pay Channel. I am disappointed in Vincent Gallo. Val Kilmer was in it for about 8 minutes, so I can't get that mad at him. Only the person who listed him to be the star in it. It is like Marlon Brando in Superman.There is no plot except Gallo searching and finding his friend in the catacombs. Why they were searching for the gates of hell only the director knows. They should of kept this film in Moscow and burned it for fire to keep all the homeless extras warm for the night. There is nothing more to say about this film that all the other reviewers have written. I wish I could forget this movie it hurts my brain.


While in Madrid I was able to see a screener copy of this film. Wow! Gallo is amazing in it. Very unusual performance he gives. Aside from Gallo's genius, the film however is a dull a film I have ever seen in my life and at times is so poorly done it borders on laughable. I am also a Val Kilmer fan so he was part of the reason I made such a grand effort to view the film. The problem is Val is really only in one scene. Having his name in the cast as the lead is an insult to my intelligence and to the rest of the cast. I have only seen Stranded of the directors other films. Both films are far far below average but both contain very interesting Vincent Gallo performances. If you are as much as a Gallo fan as I then see this film regardless of how bad it is. If you do not like Gallo then there is ZERO left to love.


I can't remember the worst film I have watched.Total waste of actors and audience time.If you prefer sitting by your TV and think when will be this film over,then this is the right film for you.Maybe this film is recorded to make people believe that Moscow has some mystique past. But I must say I have not expect anything else from Rade Serbedzija,but I have expected more from Vincent Gallo.The film lacks a plot, character,development,denouement.Entire movie is about underground tunnels and how they are mystique.I must be fair there is some camera effect but even that is too poor.Over and over are the same pictures.Total waste of time.


Wow.. where do I begin. I rented this movie because it sounded like something I would be interested in watching. With a name like Val Kilmer starring in this film, I thought how bad could it be? This has got to be the worst film I have ever seen with such a big name attached to it. I was wondering why it slipped through the cracks and I never remember hearing anything about it when it first came out. It starts out pretty good, and is somewhat reminiscent of the intro sequence in the bourne identity, but after the initial 30 minutes or so it goes from bad to worse and then it ventures into WTF land. If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor and don't rent/buy it unless you are a masochist or on a quest to see every Val Kilmer film out there. There are many more titles out there that are more deserving your time. This film (if you can call it that) is a bona fide waste of time. I want my 82 minutes back.


This movie is total dreck. I love Val Kilmer and was very surprised earlier this year by "Felon" (a good movie!). The entire DVD box is misleading. Val Kilmer while being billed as one of the main people in this film, is in the movie for about 2 minutes. Even the summary on the back of the DVD is not entirely true. This could have been a good movie but the direction was horrible and the plot was about as thin as a sheet of paper. Usually when a movie is this horrendous you can sit back and laugh at it. This film though is so bad and boring I actually fell asleep to it (which I never do during a movie). AVOID AT ALL COSTS!


It seems that there is great potential for the story line of this film to be something worth watching. The acting was flat and the story lacked depth. There was too much reliance on camera work, which had some high points. I have to agree with the other negative comments. I only wish I had read them before buying the DVD. The film may be worth watching for free and you are bored to tears before hand. There could have been a lot more plot development with why there are homeless in Moscow (i.e. post-Soviet 'capitalism', rampant drug usage (i.e. increased heroin trafficking from Afghanistan); more development of why the resurgence of Russian Orthodoxy after the fall of the U.S.S.R.; the archaeologists themselves; or even more into the struggle against nihilism.


Val Kilmer is almost nowhere in this film -lucky for him! He plays maybe 30 seconds of screen time and his role is completely irrelevant. After seeing the film I couldn't tell you what "role" he plays in the film!!?? OK... they suck you in the first hour by immersing you in dark underground tunnels. Spooky movies filmed in dark underground tunnels easily suck most people in to last the first 30 minutes to an hour. Then you will begin wondering, "why am I watching this?" I remember thinking how easy it must be for a director/writer to use dark underground labyrinths to make a film. Simply film people wandering around in dark tunnels and you have instant "suspense". But that is where this movie goes no further! We all wonder what goes bump in the night, but there is nothing out there in the dark in this film but more darkness. The story is even worse. Apparently there is an underlying story to the film that I learned of "after" watching the film. But the film uses such poor dialouge that it never came across clearly during the screening. I still don't understand what the writer/director meant to say. Some children trapped underground by a misled sister in Russia? Why? Are they in our time -the same time as the characters? Are they ghosts?

This was an absolutely Horrible film that drew me to write my first IMDb review to warn others to avoid it.


This is by far the worst film i have ever seen it has next to no plot and the plot it does have is very scattered. The story line is lacking in both content, suspense and subtitles, as what would appear to be story line is in Russian. The set appears to be only one room with various lighting effects and at the moment you think something good is about to happen you are let down by the total lack of acting, drama, suspense, horror, gore, story line and mythology. The directing style has been done to death(The fisheye camera). It would seem that the only action in this film is within the last 10 - 15 minutes and the action is made worse by the actors inability to portray the suspense correctly. The only interesting thing about this movie was my dog barking at the surround sound.


If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.

A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.

Absolute tripe.


Take a few dark and stormy nights, fog coming in from the coast, obsession and doubt, two brothers who have a mysterious connection based on hatred, a suspicious disappearance, a shoe in the night silently grinding out a glowing cigarette butt, and, finally, a tremulous heroine who finds herself threatened as much by her own doubts as by one -- but which one? -- of the men around her. Sounds like we might have a good 80 minute noir. Instead, under the direction of Vincente Minnelli and with two A-list leads, Katharine Hepburn and Robert Taylor, Undercurrent becomes a nearly two-hour matinée melodrama, a long slog of threatening angst amidst the perfectly groomed, coifed and dressed cast. When you glance at your watch half-way through a movie and with a sinking heart see that you have another hour to go, both you and the movie probably have problems.

Minnelli, in one of his earliest non-musical movies, doesn't lay on the rococo hothouse approach as heavily as he later was known to do. Still, what is basically a simple story of greed, murder and obsession is turned into an endless Katharine Hepburn vehicle. Hepburn shows us in carefully lit close-ups how to demonstrate fear, love, anxiety, giddiness, happiness, doubt, suspicion and terror. Robert Taylor is more or less along for the ride.

Hepburn starts the movie as the tomboyish Ann Hamilton, an energetic young woman in slacks who helps her father with his inventions. Their housekeeper is determined to get her married. When Dr. Hamilton decides to sell an important formula to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), it's love at first sight. Garroway is the smooth, handsome, dynamic inventor of the Garroway Distance Controller, which was vital in the war, and which has turned him into a hard-charging millionaire manufacturer. He's a captain of industry, as one of his many Washington friends says. Ann Hamilton, now Ann Garroway, may still be a bit of the tomboy, but her husband shows her how to dress and how to be a successful social hostess for all those Congressmen and judges her husband knows. She learns fast and eagerly. They both are obviously and blissfully in love.

But wait. The canker is about to gnaw. Ann realizes she knows nothing about her husband's family. None of his employees or friends seem inclined to talk about them to her. When she learns bit by bit that Alan's mother died in the old family home in Middleburg while seated at the piano, or that he has a brother, Michael, who has disappeared, Alan becomes very quiet...and sometimes goes into a rage. He always apologizes. But wait once more. Did his mother really play the piano? Didn't she really die in bed? Wasn't Michael caught taking money from the family firm and Alan sent him away? All this plays out against the exquisite hotel suites, the manicured country home in Middleburg with the horse stable and the tasteful ranch house by the sea. Everyone in the movie except employees are dressed to the nines. There are exclusive cocktail parties and intimate dinners for twenty. Even in a black- and-white movie, Minnelli can't help but give us dining tables filled with crystal and china, tasteful and elegant furniture and lots of gowns.

By the end of the movie, when all is finally known, when Ann on horseback is chased along a high, extremely well-designed mountain trail by the bad guy on another horse, when she is threatened with death by boulder and her pursuer finally meets death by horse, it's a relief. Even Robert Mitchum, who plays Michael, is unable to bring much tension to the movie. What might have been in lesser hands a taut little B-movie, instead with the A list is just an overwrought melodrama, too big for its bones.


The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.

Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.

Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.

Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.


"Undercurrent" features a top-notch cast of wonderful actors who might've been assembled for the perfect drawing-room comedy. Alas, they are pretty much wasted on a 'woman's view' potboiler--and a paper-thin one at that. Katharine Hepburn is indeed radiant as a tomboy/old maid who finally marries, but her husband is deeply disturbed and harboring dark family secrets. Director Vincente Minnelli has absolutely no idea how to mount this outlandish plot, concocted by Edward Chodorov from a story by Thelma Strabel, and the friendly, first-rate cast (including Robert Taylor, Robert Mitchum and Edmund Gwenn) is left treading in murky waters. ** from ****


Misguided, miscast, murky, interminable lunacy given the high-gloss MGM A-budget treatment. Kate Hepburn plays a bride who comes to suspect her rich, handsome husband (Robert Taylor)is not the dreamboat she married but a psychotic killer. MGM's attempt at a Hitchcockian thriller is doomed from the start by a turgid, muddled, ludicrous script, and the idiotic casting of Hepburn as a jeopardized woman fearing for her life (who could ever imagine Hepburn afraid of anything?) Louis B. Mayer forgot to tell Vincent Minnelli he was directing a thriller, not a musical. Taylor is embarrassing. Only Robert Mitchum, also cast-against-type as a good guy, retains his dignity in a quiet, low-keyed performance. Karl Freund's ravishing cinematography creates images of eerie beauty--and was wasted on the wrong film. End result: Metro's "Parnell" of the 1940s.


In Japan and elsewhere in Europe new technology is enabling filmmakers to bypass the closed shop of the Hollywood mainstream and avoid Ed Wood like visible low budget production values to produce compelling films. What a shame that in the UK we can find examples such as 'Avatar' (name of many a video game) where brain dead attempts are made to imitate so many films - and console games beloved of girlfriendless teens - that themselves are cheap photocopies of clichés abound like testosterone fuelled kangaroos. Check out a bit of the synopsis:

"Set in futuristic London, 2024, it tells the story of a Team of Virtual Reality Virus Exterminators faced against the ultimate Internet virus."

Go back and read that quote again - avoid guffawing - and try to find a single original idea in it. This should have seemed a tired, sad concept in 1993, never mind 2003. Ah, but there is more - the 'ultimate virus' has already caused planes to crash, infected the air traffic control centre, etc. It has been developed by a 'child genius' and manifests itself as a scantily clad, athletic, mammary jiggling discount Lara Croft imitator who does a great line in snarling and cod martial arts moves straight out of the playground - the living product of adolescent fantasy. Oh, and she is accompanied by 'Predator' like sound effects to emphasise her remarkable powers.

The whole thing has a 'futuristic' vision of stunning originality - the Lloyds building filtered with AfterEffects to look somewhat green. The budget does really show - which in this day and age should not. On the whole, a pointless mess of cheese, ham and cliché that Roger Corman would have left on the cutting room floor in his most shameless, desperate moments. Shame that such an alleged labour of love delivered nine minutes of wasted celluloid.


Dark Reality is a Saw like movie that is slightly decrepit. While the plot and story are good, there is a little too much unnecessary nudity. While I feel the film was technically well done, the acting was spotty, it was just a little too dark for my mood while I was watching it. IT basically says that there are a lot of missing people out there that will never be found and are perhaps being tortured by sick whackos. I feel that some information on the captors and their reasons for being so sick would have helped some. It came of as a snuff film, just made for the violent content. If you like to see women beaten, tortured, and killed then this is for you. If you're looking for something a little liter and more expressive and reasoned, skip this one.


8 days no script that's what the DVD tells you is how the movie was made. It's shot in blurry video that's occasionally used to good effect, but it's really partially naked women sitting around in a room for most of the running time. It is very well acted and this helps a lot. But the killer only shows up once in a long time and the girls/women sit and mope they don't try to escape or do anything too interesting, so the whole thing grinds to a stand still after about 20 minutes. Would have been a good short maybe even powerful. Even for eight days they do very little. Why? Because they had no script. How many movies have been made without scripts. Not too many. I wonder why that is? How many great movies have been made from bad scripts. Not too many. Why is that? Working against this major problem, the direction tries and does some interesting things but with what is essentially nothing. Topless girls shot in dark grainy colorless video sitting around will keep some going for a while but not for the short but too long feature length. Actors again deserve praise, if only there was a script.

Also the video quality, or lack thereof, is really low end, they try to use it to advantage and at times some shots look they are from Miami Vice, the recent movie that is. But that's not intended to compliment Miami Vice or this failed venture.


I have to start out by saying that the actresses and actor did a fine job for what they worked with. The problem in Dark Reality is you had a poor director who tried so hard to be innovative and evocative he ended up trashing up the film. From start to finish you can tell the film reel quality itself is low, but the poor lightning and shaky camera only hurt it further by obscuring what is going on. The sound is muffled and often times not understandable. I'm sure Huston (the director) would argue this was to induce a state of panic in the audience, but he had more than ample material in which to do it. Having to result to camera and lighting the way he did was a sign of over the top syndrome.

The story is good. A basic sadistic female kidnapper story that avoids cliché by keeping the girl's in a state of despair the whole time for good reason. Billy Bob from Silence of the Lambs treated his victims better than Netwon. The biggest problem with the story is that dead people constantly harass the lead character in her mind, and by the second time they showed up I was fast forwarding as this was attempting to destroy the only decent part of the film.

In the end, the way the director pieced it together showing random blurry things and constant barely viewable scenes (not because of horror, because of the lighting, angles, and camera) ultimately destroyed this film. Huston was obviously trying too hard and if anything it resembled a bad film school project. If you want to see a decent story then it's all right, but be warned the film quality is enough for most to turn it off.


The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!!


This movie looked like it was shot with a video phone, it had very little plot and unnecessary nudity. The movie never really came together or made much sense and for a movie like this, of course, there were some unnecessary boob shots. The director was obviously trying to make the movie subjective and different, but it just never gave enough information on what was even really going on, even in the end i was left with a mixture of anger and confusion. Confusion from the lack of plot, and anger because i wanted my two dollars back from blockbuster and an 1.5 hours of my life back. They should have a payment program for people who accidentally rent this movie.


My girlfriend and I are really into cheesy horror flicks. Especially ones with lots of unnecessary nudity. When we saw the box cover for this movie at blockbuster we thought it would be a perfect movie for the night. We began watching it, already not expecting it to be GREAT, but thought it would at least catch our interest. 20 minutes into the movie we realized that the pace would not eventually pick up and that it was an incredibly boring movie. We tried to get into it, but the plot made very little sense even after reading the back of the DVD box over and over again. The film was shot very dark and it was pretty annoying to try to figure out what was going on in each shot. Each violent scenes were very hard to make out, and you never get to actually watch the violence you're expecting. This is definitely a film without motive that was shot poorly and very drawn out. Each scene was about 20 minute of the same thing and I felt I got the point after the first 5. Skip this film and re-watch another Freddy or Jason flick and you'll be way more content.


I know if I was a low budget film maker I would probably be checking this page to find out what people are saying about it. So I really hope the creators of the movie actually read this! I think you should find a way to repay me for the hour and a half of life I just wasted watching this garbage. Please STOP making movies about something you probably fantasize about. Just stop making movies all together...you are one of the reasons it is so hard for indie filmmakers to make it big. Do the world a favor and get a job a McDonalds or something so you can do something productive with your life! I feel like calling blockbuster to complain that they actually carried this film in their store.


Maybe I saw a cleaned up version, but other than a few flashes of breasts, I'm not sure what over the top nudity these other commenters are referring to.

All in all not as bad as I was expecting by the previous comments, although the end leaves you wondering ... WTF? It was dark, but not so much that you couldn't make out the scenes, and I think it just added to the creepiness and the terror of the situation.

Film quality could have been better, but the acting was pretty decent.

All in all a decently creepy (and yes, brutal) movie with a disappointing ending.


This "movie" will give me nightmares, I will wake up drenched in sweat, screaming "I didn't make this film please don't blame me!" I honestly think it would have been more entertaining to watch a fat guy eating lard in his moms basement for a hour or two, than to watch this crap. I understand money was tight but goddamn what the hell were they thinking there was no thought, plot or effort put into this. This movie needs a warning "Please for the love of god don't fund the drama department a the local JC." On an other note these are the least likable characters I have ever seen, and I have seen movies with Hitler in them. So lastly take my advice the next time you even think about renting this just pop a few hundred Adivl and let the sleep come.


Overambitious and shoddy; and at times too darkly lit. DARK REALITY'S scenario is not even close to being original. Dark and dank basement. Kidnapped prisoners. Fearful survival. Carey(Alisha Seton)tells her family and friends she will be backpacking across Europe. She doesn't make it out of town. She is grabbed from a rainy sidewalk, drugged, and awakes chained in a dungeon. She eventually realizes she is not alone and upon meeting a few of her fellow captives there is different thoughts on survival. Her cell mates start dying off one by one. Can she garner enough strength and courage to see daylight again? Others in the cast: Laila Dagher, Rachel Oliva, Eva Derreck, Arthur Bullock and Jen Parker.


From reading the back of the box my first thought was that this is probably a knock off of Saw 2. I couldn't be further from the truth. It seemed to me like they gave somebody with downsyndrom a camera phone and $10.00 and told them to make a movie. The plot didn't exist and neither did the acting. It was almost as if I was watching a silent film about grass growing. It didn't surprise me at all to find out later that the entire film was "improvised". By the end of this "film" I had lost the will to live and I may have gotten AIDS just from viewing this piece of cinematic crap. It was about 70 minutes that I could have spent doing something that was less painful. Like jumping off of a building.


The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home.

cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening

cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in

Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.

And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.


This movie has the feel of a college project over it, who wants to do a blair witch project meets saw theme. But it isn't successful. The cinematography is poor, and the acting even more so. The characters, in my opinion doesn't come off as being credible at all. The editing of the film isn't really working as intended either. There are a lot of poor effects, which I believe are put in there to try and add a horrid effect. But to me it just gives me a feeling of indifference.

I would stay away from this movie, unless you are a dedicated movie freak, who likes to watch "different" and indie "horror" movies. However, I believe this movie is not worth watching, for the average person. You will get no pleasure out of the poor effects, and the handycam feel, which this movie bestows on it's viewers.


I had looked forward to viewing this movie, it seemed anyone who had seen it loved it. I was completely disappointed. The acting was so overdone. The script seemed like the writer had gathered 25 different scripts from various movies and randomly chose dialogue and pieced them together to form one plagarized script.

Spoilers: Was any cliche omitted in this movie? There was a mobstyle hit, homosexuality, prostitution, a serial killer, a fire, numerous godfather wannabees, the main character in love with the prostitute, cross dressing, torture by the police, Hannibal Lechter style mutilations, I could go on and on.

Line's like (the godfather wannabe to the prostitute)

-"Ben senin arik calismani istemiyorum" (I don't want u to work anymore)

-"Ben calismasam kirayi kim odeyecek?" (Who would pay the rent if I didn't work)

Unrealistic scenes: We never saw a single policeman during the serial killer scenes, yet when the main character disappeared his father was taken in by the police and tortured for weeks.

The only way I can make sense out of this whole movie, is if the version I had scene was severely edited from the original. I definitely do not recommend it, and would greatly enjoy discussing it further with anyone who would care to do so.