I first saw a poster advertising this film on a street in Helsinki, Finland in June of 2000. What caught my attention was the proud proclamation advising all readers that the movie, although itself French, had been "Banned in France". Upon returning home to New York, I discovered that one of the "Art House" movie theaters in the City was screening the film, and so (with my Finnish fiancee) decided to see what all the fuss was about. Boy, did we ever.

From the comments read here, and the reviews I knew the movie was violent and sexually explicit. Not necessarily offended by either of these two conditions, I went with an open mind to see what had perturbed the sensibilities of our Gallic cousins. Presumably, as anyone who is reading this will know, the story involves two women who embark on a crime and murder spree in France (the movie has English subtitles). The resemblance to "Thelma and Louise" however, ends with that; the sex is unusually graphic (and in copious supply) as is the violence (a lot of stomping to death, and a lot of blood and other organic matter splattering after bullet impact).

On an intellectual level, one could make the case that the film's very essence is the relationship of sex and violence (as manifested by the only sex these women know: one is a small-time prostitute, and the other has earned money from time to time by performing in pornographic films. When they, during their descent into crime and murder, have the upper hand over their sexual situations, they react only with the same violence and brutality that they themselves know and understand. It is important to note, however, that the victims of their rampage are not only creepy men interested in creepy sex, (of which there are several)but innocent passersby, a woman at an ATM, for example, as well.

I myself do not really understand why the repeated "porn-movie" shots were all that necessary, (except to depict the physical contact as cruel, unpassionate and debased) and the unrelenting gore did get rather tedious after the first few violent spasms.

It is a coarse and crude movie, but in fairness, it is dealing with coarse and crude people and equally unpleasant circumstances. From one point of view, the lives of the French underclasses is explored, and it's pretty grim; a travelogue for France it definitely is not- perhaps that's why the French banned it.


This is one of the rare movies that I did not immediately discuss with my friends after watching it. This wasn't because it had particularly entranced or impressed me. The contrary, it had given me nothing at all.

Why? Because somehow, everything was so much overdone that I couldn't take this film seriously anymore. There was so much sex and violence that I got the strong impression that the film was trying very, very hard to be offensive, as if it was aiming at superlatives in ugliness, rather than in telling a convincing tale about two women caught in a spiral of crime.

Baise-moi had been described as "Thelma & Louise with actual sex" to me. Well, it is true that the main idea is similar. There are two women traveling through the country because they've committed crimes and know that their lives are finished now, that the police are going to catch them, and they decide that now that everything's over anyway, there is no way to hold back.

Baise-moi had been described as a feminist film where women, who had suffered from male dominance in the past, exact revenge upon the men that they encounter.

This is something that I had never interpreted into this film, simply because none of these women had ever been innocent, and because they do not just kill irresponsible, violent men, but also men that they seduce themselves, men that show the sense of wanting to do protected sex. And they kill women. No, they are in no way better than the characters that they encounter and murder in hideous, brutal ways.

How easily the "heroines" decide to murder, and how much pleasure they take in it, made it absolutely impossible for me to relate to them in any way, or even take them seriously. It was just all too much. Too much sex, too much violence. I got the feeling that sex and violence were only there in order to create a superlative in ugliness, rather than in conveying a story, or making a point.

Baise-moi left me with no impression, hadn't set me thinking, because it was so far removed from any real world. So constructed, unrealistic and over the top.

There was nothing that I could do with this film, there was simply nothing about it to think about, other than "Why did they make this terrible film?" Had the intense unpleasantness going on in this film, served a purpose, I'd easily accepted it. But since I found nothing, since the film's story appeared to be not more than an excuse to squeeze as much and as ugly sex as possible into one film... I filed it away under "unnecessary torture", decided to never ever, EVER, watch this film again, and I now consider this to be the worst film I've ever seen.

Worst, not just because it really isn't my cup of tea to watch people get raped, rape, have sex in other forms and kill one another... but because whatever it was that the makers wanted to tell the world with their film... if they wanted to say anything at all... it just didn't work. And there's nothing else that could save this film, because it's also filmed in such an ugly style.


A movie about a French girl who gets raped by street hoodlums. The rape scene itself is shot in all it's gory detail with all the male and female organs and their interactions clearly visible to the camera. In a fit of rage, the victim grabs her friend's (or was it brother ?) gun, shoots him and runs off with the weapon. She meets this prostitute who has just seen her pimp shot down, they team up, and make off towards Paris. A series of crazy, meaningless and wild killings follow, the girls seem to enjoy every murder more than the one before. One poor guy gets shot in the ****hole. There are good doses of sex thrown in between the numerous killings.

The movie is not the most violent I have seen, I would say Saving Private Ryan probably had more violence in it. If violence is what you are looking for, then there are lots of other movies out there. And if it's sex you are out for, then I would suggest one of those XXX ones.

I went to see the movie because of all the hype the media was giving it. The movie itself is no big deal, just a lot of violence and sex shot with something like a hand-held camera. I was surprised this movie had a 15 year age limit in Sweden, if 15 year-olds can watch this movie, they should be able to watch XXX movies too.


This film is about two female killers going on a tour to kill random men they meet.

Wow, "Baise-moi" just became the worst film of all time in my list. The plot is crazy, pointless and unnecessary. The whole film is full of violence and sex, and I am sure no sane parents would want to show this film to their children. I don't understand what people get out of by making this film, or watching this film. Maybe someone somewhere has their perverted desires fulfilled. There is simply no excuse or reasons for the existence of this perverted and depraved piece of work.

The only consolation I offer myself is that I watched it on fast forward, so that I have not wasted as much time.


While it's true that the movie is somewhat interesting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired (much like Blood Orgy of the Leather Girls, I Spit on Your Grave, and Born in Flames, all superior). I don't think it's not porn, but porn is in the eye of the beholder: if it functions as porn for somebody, who am I to say that he/she is wrong? I was rather puzzled by the statement in Winkimation's generally thoughtful review ("Such a Shame") that "for once we actually see men's faces when they come." A few years ago I did occasional freelance reviews for an adult mag and I recall seeing plenty of men's faces when they came. I think this is probably more common when the film features on of the few male porn "stars" (and especially when that male is the director). Though I unsurprisingly can't refer to any specific titles, I know that there are some instances in Ron Jeremy's, uh, work. I also don't know that I'd agree that a man is necessarily showing vulnerability in his face when coming.


Well, how to make a movie as provocative as possible? This cartoonishly straight shocker tries by having two low-life Paris women (one prostitute, one recently raped ex-porn actress, no less) lash out and go on a national sex-and-killing spree- of men in particular.

Very short running time gives you a hint of the experimental nature of this violently hardcore "Thelma & Louise"- but it's done completely without irony or contemplation for any possible feminist message... And since we don't get very close to the protagonists, the violence actually feels muted and numbing- and maybe that's a good thing.

As a liberal advocate of freedom of expression, I always welcome when the "serious" movie industry dares to contain full-on sex scenes. But the question is: Does it work for the movie as a whole? Is it any good? Here, not very, although we're given a new meaning to the phrase "a shot in the ass"!

3 out of 10 from Ozjeppe


I'm sick of the "open mind" argument. I'm generally quite open-minded, but this sort of line is basically made by people who enjoy things that should not be "enjoyed." You know what, there is a reason so many people are disgusted by this. And just because someone out there isn't doesn't make it less so. There is, after all, a reason for the existence of the feeling of disgust, and no amount of "open mind" or "pushing the envelope" should eliminate that feeling. Otherwise we're no better than senseless living things.

Back to the film. Another argument is that this film puts women in the roles normally reserved for men, which may be why men don't like it. But just because it proves revolting for more men than would otherwise doesn't make it great. Maybe men shouldn't be turned on by what's dominating the movie industry, but is the answer for women to do the same? Maybe, if you don't like movies, TV, and entertainment having so much sexual objectification of women, so much violence, don't watch them.

And if you're a director, don't make them.

Otherwise, some day someone will ask for an open mind when what happened in this "movie" happen in real life.

Heck, some people seem to like it so much.


Another French film with absurdity. Baise-Moi(F*ck Me) tells the story of two young women who come together to kill and f*ck. One of them is a porn star who escapes from her community after being raped and killing her boyfriend. Second one is a hooker who kills her flatmate and sees her boyfriend being shot dead. After those incidents they meet at a tube station(both misses the last train)then the whole thing starts. They find a bound and come very close. They abuse men sexually, take drugs, drive around the country and have lots of sex. Thats all about Baise-Moi really. We can see that they have no mercy for their victims. They even kill a woman for her money. Both actresses are real porn stars in France that affects the movie in two different ways. They look so comfortable in sex scenes, nonetheless, they can't make the whole film worth watching as ,to me, the film does not require no further ability of acting than that. It is a version of Thelma and Louise on a different level. I could recommend you loads of things to do instead of watching Baise-Moi. So, bother to watch if you wanna see a pointless, kinky film. * out of *****


I never really understood the controversy and hype this movie caused. Especially in French and the neighboring countries (in Belgium, where I am located, for example), "Baise-Moi" was announced as THE most shocking and THE most thought-provoking social drama you could ever experience. Yeah right! It might be a little shocking, maybe (how often do you see someone getting shot up the arse?), but the weak and pointless plot surely didn't cause me to think much. "Baise-Moi" is another one of those "blame everything that goes wrong on society"-films and they're generally not very convincing. About 99% of the people functions perfectly well in this society so why would you blame this exact same society for the vile and hopeless acts of two deranged nymph-girls? The two main characters and their miserable lives are introduced separately and in flashes. Nadine just killed her roommate; Manu shot her brother and the two meet in an abandoned train-station, late at night. They decide to travel around France together, leaving a trail of sex and blood behind wherever they made a stop. Although we're constantly exposed to pornography and violence, this film is very boring to sit through. Like the girls are indicating themselves all the time, the dialogues are lame and the people they run into (and kill) are very uninteresting. If people want to make porno movies, that's fine by me, but please don't pretend that it's art-house film-making. If you leave out the swearing and the hip camera-work, all there is to see is (not so) arousing pornography. Cool soundtrack, though!


This isn't a good movie. Plain and simple. Take out the hardcore sex scenes and what you have is a mediocre plot, average acting (at best), plodding direction, and dull dialogue. Add in the grot and you've got mediocre plot, average acting, plodding direction, dull dialogue, with lashings of hardcore porn. Trouble is the porn's nothing special either. So it's not a good movie, and nor is it a good porno. It fails on both counts. They can say that women made this movie and they were intending to do this with it, and that with it, etc. But talk's cheap, the end result is what counts, and what we have here is a mediocre movie with some sex thrown in for shock value to try and con you into wasting your time watching it. One of those movies where you'd rather have the time you spent watching it back.


I had to watch this movie for professional reasons and can only say it's a complete waste of time. When running, Baldwin looks like an ape, Characters are dull, same story has been told 1000 times better in other movies. I think everything has been now said about this film, but IMDb requires me to write 10 lines. So:Boring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivialBoring and trivial


I saw this at my local supermarket and I knew that Debra was in it so I decided to buy it (out of support for that sexy woman!) The plot and acting in this movie was terrible (with the exception of Debra Wilson; and I'm not just saying that because I love her, she seriously was the only actor or actress who had any emotion in their acting and voice!) What I didn't get at the beginning is why the wife didn't just get back in her car instead of running at random like that. It was so stupid. And it's LA (NOBODY saw her being abducted on a public, residential street--NOBODY...yeah, that's realistic!) Also in the park, when Charlie stole the woman's cell phone (for some stupid reason) they were hell bent on finding him (and at one point) when they did they had him at gunpoint--over a CELL PHONE! In reality I doubt the LAPD would go out of their way like that for a stupid cell phone! The lady could've walked up to one of many of those cell phone booths and have it replaced! The kids acting skills sucked too (I think they were reading from a cue card or had somebody off camera whisper their lines) because they'd be asked questions and would look around and then answer in a questionable voice (i.e.-"yes I do miss daddy?") Also how could there be all of those snipers be in the trees and on building rooftops in LA WITHOUT being seen?! I see this being played at 3 AM on USA.

Debra Wilson fanatics will enjoy her parts. She's the only actor with any real acting skills (Debra, sweetheart--stop doing these cheap D-grade, direct to video films...maybe that'll change with the upcoming film Whitepaddy.) She puts some jokes in there (like when one of her superiors comes up and asks her who's she talking to, she screams at her computer and goes "Damnit, Charlie!") I gave it a 4/10...a 4 only because of Debra's good acting skills.


Ugh. Stephen Baldwin. I never noticed until I got the DVD home and saw his name in the credits. Double ugh. What's worse, HE'S the NAME in this low budget, mindless, wandering, wannabe shoot'em up. I mean, where did they find the guy to write this refuse? Driving a caterpillar in the LA City Dump, while hoping to break into the movie game? The whole plot is ridiculous situation piled on ridiculous premise. Baldwin is as convincing as a poster boy for American Gothic, sans pitchfork. His whole acting repertoire is looking like he needs the potty and then looking like he found it.

So, there you have it folks: bad script, bad acting by no-name actors, low-budget setting and a hero that's about as convincing as a girl scout looking for a cookie customer as an action hero. It's too late for me to get my money back on the DVD, but you can spare yourself-- unless you're one of those who likes to look at the dogs for a laugh...frankly, this one is too boring to be funny.


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. When I was trying to watch this I had flu and i was pretty open minded for any brainless entertainment. Unfortunately this was too much. How, so many totally ungifted actors can be in one movie? This movie makes porn look like European art-movie. Cast just speaks out their lines without any emotions; special thanks to Charlie Snows (Baldwin) soon-to-be-ex-wife who talks about her divorce like the rest of us talk about the weather. Just horrible (and funny).

With lots of booze and friends this might just make it as a background entertainment and few laughs, just like Ed Wood-movies. The plot is a joke and soundtrack straight from some cheeky soap-opera.

Hopefully nobody paid to see this movie.


I rented this film when my girlfriend was away, hoping to see some serious military/specialist action.

After 10 minutes of watching this "movie" I was so terrified and horrified and sick of the quality of everything in this film that I was ready to destroy the rented disc with a flame thrower. Luckily I couldn´t find one. I´ve seen many bad films. But this is not even bad, it is total garbage and it does not even deserve to be counted as a movie here on IMDB.

I feel sorry for the people who have been involved in the making of this total disgrace. Hope it wins some Oscars though :D.


This is 1 hour and 24 minutes of pure boredom!!

In this 'Action'- movie, even the gun Baldwin uses (HK G3A3) sucks. It was sent to recycling by armed forces worldwide in the mid eighties, and is now only used by terrorists, bank robbers and military museums.

If I had known this movie was this bad, I would rather watch 10 episodes of MacGyver saving the planet.

No groove, no drive and no feel. Watch the Tupperware-channel  it's more exiting than this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie doesn't deserve a '0' on the scale. Better luck next time, Baldwin. Until then, I'll sit here watch my toenails grow  that is far more exiting than 'Target'.


This movie sucks. The acting is worse than in the films we made when we were 10 years old with a camcorder, the effects look like some 80's computer game and the plot is worse than terrible. Even the worst Van Damme movies make this look crappy. The accent and speech rhythm of the 'bad guys' is so bad it's funny..

I wouldn't recommend watching this unless you are a big time fan one of the actors. 1 out of 10.


Dear Movie Director:

In the future, when trying to create a sense of urgency, it might be best to have your hero *run* instead of jog/shuffle. Especially if you're trying to reinforce a time line. For example, if you're trying to convince the audience that the bad guy really will kill the hostage if the hero doesn't find her, it's probably a good idea to convey the feeling that your hero believes it may actually happen... Let's face it though. Making a *good* movie obviously wasn't your goal. Your goal was to pump out some garbage that will make more money than it cost. Otherwise you might have hired some actors.

Sincerely, Bored Viewer.

This is the worst movie I've seen in a long time. I can't say that it's the worst ever, because I was able to finish it. It was bad, bad, bad though. Dude, where's my refund?


Target is the story of a special agent who, after carrying out orders to assassinate Turkish "Terrorists" (note that this is one of those American "movies for guys who love mindless nationalistic super-patriotic crap movies"), returns home to find that his ex-wife and two kids are taking hostage. Charlie Snow has just a couple of hours to do whatever the terrorists tell him in order to get them back.

This was by far one of THE worst movies I have ever seen. And, had it not been for someone I know actually (and probably, mistakenly) taking it out of the video store, I would never have watched this giant pile of garbage to begin with.

The movie plays out like any generic action movie story I have ever seen before. In fact, these are the kind of things they spoof on variety shows, that is how bad it is. I half expected In Living the Color's 'Homey the Clown' to Mad TV's Will Sasso doing his Steven Segal impression to bust out on the screen half way through, to remind you that this was just an exaggerated action movie, but now our characters are here to spoof how ridiculous it really is. There were not even any good fighting or action sequences. By the way things are played out, you wouldn't even think that anyone was kidnapped, that there were any terrorists, or that anything remotely interesting was going on.

Not only is the story completely and utterly uninteresting, the acting is so terribly wooden. Just watch the part where Stephen Baldwin, as former special agent Charlie Snow, is talking to the kidnappers on the telephone. They tell him that they have his wife, and they put her on the phone. She says "Charlie, help!" or something to that effect. And Baldwin replies "it's okay, honey" in such a deadpan manner, you think he was reading the script and trying to sound out the words phonetically. I imagine that, despite being such a ridiculously bad movie (one that belongs on the bottom 100 on IMDb--a list that they should expand to at least 250 movies and should contain nearly every Stephen Baldwin movie), someone with some talent could have at least made the effort not to ham it up as much. Someone. Anyone. I couldn't get past the fact that everyone sounded like they were reading from a script. Save that is, the only person in the whole friggin movie who has any talent whatsoever (and thus should not have been in this), Mad TV's Deborah Wilson.

This was the capital cheese fest. How truly embarrassing.


I hate to be too critical, but this one really was bad. I like the Baldwin brothers, I just wish there was more talent evenly spread between them. I did like the general plot, but there was just too much 'trying' and not enough actual 'doing' as far as quality acting was concerned.

My favorite character out of the whole thing was bald cop. He reminded me of Dmitri Valtane ( Jeremy Roberts, I believe ) from Start Trek 6: Undiscovered country. Just, without the hair.

If you have Hollywood Video's MVP program and are really trying to get your money's worth, then through this in with one of the three MVP movies you pick up. It's worth it for a few laughs.

The single most impressive special effect in the whole show is the sound of Stephen Baldwin's rifle firing. I suppose that lets you in a bit on the quality and excitement of the rest of the show.


If this film were to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, one would need to create a new rating system, as this one should not even qualify. The film's plot, (if you can call it that) revolves around Charlie (Stephen Baldwin), an ex- special operatives agent who is being targeted by the brother of a man he killed while he was still working for the US gov't. If this sounds like an interesting scenario, please don't be fooled, as this film will not deliver that which its action-themed story suggests.

Comedian Chris Rock once said that when one sees an actor doing a bad film that it makes one want to send the actor $50, given that the actor must be desperate for money to be doing such poor quality work. After watching this film, you may want to send Stephen Baldwin $100.

It appears that Baldwin did not put any effort into his role in the film. In the film, Baldwin is forced to run all over the city of Los Angeles in order to protect his "honeycomb" (wife) from being murdered by the brother of a man he previously killed. However, throughout the picture it appears that Baldwin can barely pull off maintaining a light jog. His laid back performance succeeds in subtracting from any suspense that the film might have intended to portray.

If you are the type of person who enjoys watching very bad films and laughing at their shortcomings, than this film is for you. However, if you are looking for a well made action thriller, it would be best to look somewhere else rather than renting this film.


*The ELITE sniper team that has inserted 24h or so earlier have instead of digging in and making them selves invisible decided to take cover behind a big rock in one of the first scenes. *When the hero "runs" to rescue his wife he actually jogs. *When inside a building and aiming for a target only some 20-30 meter away the hero USES HIS SCOPE. Besides the fact that most non elite soldiers would make that shot from the hip and still hit there is also the fact that the scope probably wouldn't be able to focus that close. *There is a satellite that can actually look horizontally into buildings.

The list is endless... and the film is the biggest heap of crap I have ever put in my DVD player.


1- Stephen Baldwin doesn't care about his involvement in Stephen Baldwin vehicles.

2- The acting in any Stephen Baldwin vehicle ranges from horrible to mildly passable.

3- Writers don't write Stephen Baldwin vehicles, children do.

4- Most of the Stephen Baldwin vehicles revolve around one genre- the Actionless Action genre. It basically consists of crappy action sequences made with little to no effort whatsoever.

5- The director doesn't care about Stephen Baldwin vehicles; he passes his job to an orangutan from time to time.

And now you know.


This movie is so bad that it actually gets funny. One of the worst movies I've ever seen in my entire life. The funny thing was that the trailer had scenes in it that wasn't in the movie. Just by watching the trailer I would have saved a lot of my time. It actually showed everything that happened in the movie except for the conclusion and that was also so obvious.

It's honestly hard to think of a reason why this movie was made. This is just so bad. Horrible.

I would give it 0 out of 10 if that would be possible. There is nothing else to say about this movie.


Curse of the Wolf starts as reluctant Werewolf Dakota (Renee Porada) manages to escape from her 'pack' & into the city where 6 months later she is working in a vet's. The rest of Dakota's pack are unhappy & want her back, their leader Michael (Todd Humes) says she will come back to them but fat Werewolf Franklin (Brian Heffron) picks her scent up & the pack decides to force the issue & get her back using her affections for her human friends including her boyfriend Danny (Dennis Carver). Can Dakota save Danny & finally rid herself of her Werewolf pursuers? I doubt you will care...

Executive produced, written & directed by Len Kabasinski who also had a fairly large role in the film as Stick I was dreading watching Curse of the Wolf since Kabasinski was the man behind Swamp Zombies (2005) which is surely one of the worst films ever made, ever. Unfortunately my worst fears were confirmed & one has to say that Curse of the Wolf is a truly horrible film in every way, both conceptually & technically. Curse of the Wolf is the sort of film where the low budget dictates what happens & the script rather than the script dictating the budget. You get the impression that everything was written & conceived to take advantage of the few sets & actor's they had, you can almost imagine the makers saying we've got a few actor's, some basic equipment & a couple of locations so lets make a horror film around them. The story is awful (Michael finds the location of Dakota by looking at a large dog two women are taking for a walk), the character's are awful (a big fat Werewolf guy who farts a lot), the dialogue is awful (just about every line in the thing) & there's never any motivation for anything that happens (why are the pack so desperate to get Dakota back?), people just do seemingly random things & since director Kabasinski's background is in martial arts he insists in inserting lots of random martial arts fight sequences into the plot. No offence but this is meant to be a horror film not a martial arts one, isn't it? In fact apart from the presence of a few Werewolves you would be hard pushed to describe Curse of the Wolf as anything approaching a horror film. At almost two hours in length it feels like it goes on forever & is so slow & uneventful it's just not funny.

Director Kabasinski was obviously working on a low budget but film-making this bad should be a crime. There's no continuity between shots, the fight scenes look awful & are so poorly staged it's untrue & it's sometimes impossible to follow what's going on be it because of the choppy editing & poor camera angles or the fact that it is sometimes so dark that you literally can't see a thing. Seriously there are times during Curse of the Wolf where the screen is totally black & you can't see a thing, I would hate to have to sit through this watching it on a fuzzy low resolution VHS. The sound is awful too, you can hear the wind & breeze against the microphone! There are also lots of other unpleasant & unwanted ambient sounds during just about every scene. Did the production actually have any lighting gear while making this? It doesn't feel like it. The special effects mostly consist of Werewolf mask's that look like the sort of thing shops sell at Halloween for the kids, basically they look awful.

Technically Curse of the Wolf is as bad as they come, I'm sorry because I know this had a low budget but it's truly horrible to sit through & try to garner some entertainment from. This is high school film student quality, I'm sorry if that sounds unkind but it's a fact. The acting is, well you can probably guess so I'll stop myself right here before I say something else negative, I mean I've done enough of that already & I really take no pleasure in it.

Curse of the Wolf is terrible, both conceptually & technically this is a real chore to sit through. Curse of the Wolf is the type of film where while your watching it time seems to stand still, it's the type of film that lasts for almost two hours yet feels like two years. One of the worst films you or I am ever likely to see, definitely one to avoid.


During the 1990's, several attempts have been made to revive old Matsumoto's series. Yoshinobu Nishizaki tried to revive old Yamato saga in form of a laughably bad "Yamato 2520", which was completely abandoned after mere two episodes. Captain Harlock suffered a confusing and pointless "Harlock Saga", while Galaxy Express 999 suffered having this hack of a movie stapled to its name.

If you've seen "Queen Millennia", you'll recall that it was a wonderful movie in its own way. Maetel Legend tries to tell a sequel to this already concluded chapter, also finding a way to suck at doing so.

This movie takes all the annoying aspects of a generic pulp science fiction movie, mixes it with badly paced melodrama, and to add an insult to an injury, tosses in some of the most renowned characters from Matsumoto's universe.

The only redeeming aspect of this movie is good artwork, but the remainder is so amazingly bad that it can't save this movie from being a total loss.

If you've enjoyed Queen Millennia or Galaxy Express, do yourself a favor and skip this hack of a movie. You'll thank me.


While there is a lot to recommend about Maetel Legend both in concept and finished product, it's ultimately a poor film. Plot wise it's a retelling of Maetel's early life, which is usually unclear; at the same time the writers take the opportunity to tell the story of the Machine Empire. And since Leiji Matsumoto has trouble not including his other work we get a starting point for Emeraldas her sister, Her mother: the Queen of La Metalle and a bit of Galaxy Express 999 to flesh out the film.

In short Maetel is a princess on the planet La Metalle, a planet with an irregular orbit, thus meaning its cycle around the nearest sun is reaching a cold stage and it's artificial Sun is dying. The Planet grows increasingly colder throughout the story, thus increasing the sense of doom. In order to protect her subjects and family the Queen decides that mechanisation is the only way to ensure survival of La Metalle's people. Enter Lord Hardgear, a robot / cyborg who provides the means for the job. Through the film, the characters are left to question mechanisation, will they still be human? Can Hardgear be trusted? Do souls and hearts remain? So for a fan of Matsumoto's work, there's lots to enjoy, questions to be answered, themes continued, except it's obvious that the film is meant to be an introduction, as well as a fan curiosity. The negatives, foremost the animation, while Galaxy Express 999, a TV series from over 20 years ago has shoddy mouth animation and at times sketchy character design, Maetel Legend has all the worst traits of modern animation and thus earns an air of respectability to Galaxy Express 999. The design is well detailed but unfortunately the animation has suffered leaving well drawn characters that 'slide', as in the backgrounds move or the camera zooms, a quick way of animating. However the few, yes few well animated scenes are re used over and over in dream sequences, repetition and in extra scenes. Anyone who's seem the film will wonder how many times Lord Hardgear can drink the same glass of wine.

Next the story, While in concept everything sounds great, the finished product is in fact a series of conversations of plot which are repeated over and over to little effect, the number of times the characters encounter the same problems and learn the same things is practically insulting to the audience and the characters, which are seemingly much more articulate in former incarnations. Add to all of that some terrible character design, that seem lifeless, over exaggerated, and the audience is left with a movie so miss handled it might as well have been rewritten as a different film, at least the newcomers wouldn't be left baffled.

And yet, it really has its moments, the ending at least is surprising. The plight of the citizens of La Metalle was quite affecting and rightly disturbing; I guess I find that whole man-machine theme distressing. It's hard know who to recommend Maetel Legend to, since it's not well animated, written or executed, plus confusing once Leiji Matsumoto's mandatory cross-referencing is introduced. However I can't help but brighten up when the magnificent entrance of Three-Nine occurs, now that's good cinema.

1/5 stars out of 5, 2 if you're a fan.


"Heaven Can Wait" is a crushing bore and a candy-coated, misogynist lie. I can't imagine anyone but film students sitting through it today. Don Ameche is in almost every scene, and, while he has a mellifluous voice that no doubt contributed to his successful career in radio, he doesn't have the charisma to carry this film. Ameche plays Henry, a womanizer. Lubitsch wants to make Henry's sexual incontinence adorable and amusing, and so he directs Ameche to play the part as blandly as possible. The combination of Ameche's lack of charisma and Lubitsch's insistence on blandness results in a lead character who is both deadly dull and completely icky. You wouldn't want to spend any time with this man; he'd put you to sleep. You wouldn't leave him alone with your daughter, no matter her age. Something creepy would happen.

The movie's look is quite boring. Scene after scene consists of static, overly lighted, diorama-style shots of fastidiously dressed Gilded Age stuffed shirts and bustles lounging in excessively busy, Victorian parlors. There's so many ruffles and frills and curlicues, so much lilac and sky blue and pink, you need Dramamine.

This movie hates women as much as hardcore porn, but it presents that hatred with a candy coating and a sweet little bow on top. The contrast between the content of the message and its delivery is sickening. In one of the movie's most hateful scenes, an elderly woman is sent to hell because she's not physically attractive.


Henry (Don Ameche) turns up at the entrance to Hell and recounts his life story to His Excellency (Laird Cregar). The story focuses on his relationships with females throughout his life, and in particular, his relationship with Martha (Gene Tierney). At the end of the film, we cut back to Henry and His Excellency for a very predictable ending.

Unfortunately, there is nothing more to say about the film because nothing happens. Its a sentimental story of one man's life and its very boring. I watched it with my girlfriend and my dad and we all thought it was rubbish, despite the Lubitsch touch. I yawned more than 15 times. Hugo (Charles Coburn) is good whenever he is on screen as the grandfather and there were a few funny moments of dialogue. The colour made it a good spectacle but it wasn't enough to save this plodder from going into the reject pile. In the same mould as "Its A Wonderful World" and "You Can't Take It With You", and so, not surprisingly, it was nominated for an Oscar. A story about ordinary people, none of whom are interesting and with no storyline of any interest. Boring, sentimental and the biggest damp squib of an ending that I can remember...


To some of us, director Ernst Lubitsch, adored for his underlying cheekiness and ironic comic touches, was rather wet when it came to picking material. It isn't that Lubitsch is overrated--on the contrary, he probably was ahead of his time in terms of a visual narrative--yet the projects he became attached to (or was assigned to) are not quite the landmarks of comedy his fans like to label them. With "Heaven Can Wait", a screen-adaptation of Lazlo Bus-Fekete's play "Birthday", Lubitsch is saddled with sleepy Don Ameche in the lead--and the combination of an anemic plot, a colorless star, and a musty flashback-framework stymies the director. A wicked man at the turn of the century "falls asleep without realizing it", presenting the facts of his life in front of Hell's entrance. Ameche...wicked? That was problem number one. The promising opening sequence (set in the Hades lobby) quickly gives way to dreary whimsy, and the supporting cast is of little help. *1/2 from ****


C'était complètement minable : à fuir absolument!

This was an idiotic attempt to destroy classic source material, and thoroughly succeeded!

Do not see this film under any circumstances unless you wish to have your ten euros torn up and shoved up your nostrils by a bunch of vapid, atrociously unamusing characters.

This type of film clearly illustrates the gulf that still unfortunately divides directors and audiences. If the individual (heaven forbid a collective could have conceived this dross) behind this had been considerate enough to watch the version currently playing in French cinemas, he or she would have endured what I was forced to endure, and mercifully rewritten it or just scrapped it altogether. The vein of adult humour being mined here dates, to my mind, back to Fritz the Cat but lacks that film's avant-garde status or even its base attempt at social commentary.

With the proliferation of remakes and increasing reliance on pre-existing source material to fund storytelling these days, one would hope that choosing Snow White, and thus not having to worry about conceiving characters or a radically new story, would have allowed more time for, oh I don't know, interesting animation, smarter jokes, perhaps a coherent film that has something to say and doesn't telegraph its vacuity from the opening frame?

A manifestly appalling production.


I came across this film by accident and wish I hadn't.

Why make a sexually rude sequel (and some gore when a man is beheaded) of a well know children's movie.

Do not take young kids to see this the title misdirects you, it has nothing to do with the original Snow White except for stealing it's characters. Better still don't bother going yourself, it's not worth it.

I could not watch it all, the poor (in comparison to Disney) cartoon graphics, and no plot except on how to totally mess up a classic movie made me want to give up and leave.


I am a fan of good historical fiction, and was thrilled at the thought that someone would take a well written book series and film it. Writing scripts is not like writing regular fiction, but when you have a book you are adapting, it would be nice to actually follow the plot line.

The portrayals of the Vespasians (the actual Emperor, and his 2 sons Titus and Domitian) was horrid. They acted like a cookie cutter Caligula, and were the 'bad guys' in this adaptation. There was a scene with Titus dispensing justice as if he was Caligula (from the movie of the same name.) The way the Vespasianii are portrayed in the books mostly follow the reports of historians writing in that time period - they were fair, and sane, not tainted by the Imperial Claudian insanity.

Helena (the love interest of Marcus Didius Falco) gives as her reason for divorcing Pertinax (one of the traitors referenced in the title) was that he was a traitor, yet in the books it was because he ignored her and she felt that she would be better off marrying someone who valued her as a person.

Marcus in the movie gets a slave named Justus, yet in the books he could barely afford his apartment, let alone afford a slave. There was certainly no romantic interlude between the nonexistent slave Justus and a female gladiator...

On the whole, if you want good cookie cutter roman stereotypes get Caligula, if you want good roman from the classical history viewpoint, get I, Claudius.


I fail to see how anyone who has actually read the M. Didius Falco mysteries could make such a mockery of them. An Aussie has no business in Ancient Rome. Nothing of the books is in this film except the setting and characters, and they are wasted on a plot thin enough through which to read the silly script. Kevin Connor and Lee Zlotoff have a lot of nerve displaying their names in the credits.


Paul Muni and Bette Davis overact monstrously while lacklustre studio hack Archie Mayo seems distracted and oblivious in this racially provocative film that derives its "bittersweet ending" by condoning segregationist attitudes. Heavy handed and poorly constructed the film collapses under its own weight within the first fifteen minutes with an out of control courtroom scene that it never recovers from as Mr. Muni begins to chew up scenery by the yard hollering and howling away in an almost incoherent fashion.

Johnny Ramirez is a Mexican American from the other side of the tracks who through determination and grit attains a law degree from a store front night school. In his first big case involving an auto accident he displays only ineptitude and is quickly made to look the fool by his well heeled opponents and an impatient judge who recommends he be disbarred. Devastated by the setback an angry Johnny takes on a job at a gambling joint where he is befriended by the owner Charlie Roark (Eugene Palette) who likes his style. The owner cuts him in on the place but problems arise with Mrs. Roark (Davis) who also wants a piece of Johnny. She kills Charlie, implicates Johnny and slowly goes mad before he is acquitted and free to be with a high society Wasp who coldly explains to him that they are from "different tribes, savage" and it will never work. When she flees to escape his rage she is run over and killed by a car. Ramirez sells the casino and moves back to his poor neighborhood rationalizing that its best to stay with your own.

In addition to this appalling denouement Bordertown has a series of bad performances to compliment the overall ugliness of the story. Unfair as his plight might be, Muni's Ramirez is so abrasive and arrogant it becomes hard to show sympathy for such a bull headed blunderer. Davis is no better as the less than loyal wife matching the same adolescent emotions of Muni. Her Lady Macbeth mad scenes give no indication that she was about to become the best film actress of her era. Margaret Lindsay as Muni's American Dream is cold, remote and flat.

Bad as Bordertown is (and it is very) it remains an interesting indicator of the times and acceptable attitudes. The rest is just a mishmash of bad acting and uninspired direction.


German emigree and uber-hambone actor Paul Muni who never saw a scene he didn't want to chew up goes "blackface" to play a humble Mexican immigrant living in Los Angeles and working his way up in the world. If this creaky vehicle reminds anyone of Al Pacino's minstrel performance as an uncultured Cuban in the remake of SCARFACE, don't be too surprised. The characters are quite similar, and both get wildly pop-eyed when the script calls for it. Hispanics everywhere should be greatly offended by Muni's over-the-top performance as this giddy Mexican living the American dream, consequences be damned. I guess Benicio DelToro's grandfather wasn't available. A young, bleached-blonde Bette Davis plays one of Muni's love interests; she eventually goes insane for love of Mr. Meh-hee-can Muni. An absolute hoot, Davis is the sole reason to watch this racially offensive claptrap. There is an absolutely delirious near the end when Muni asks the gal of his dreams to marry him -- a white gal of breeding with one of those stilted, stage-like '30s accents that Hollywood loved so much -- and she calls him a savage and a brute, of "a different tribe." Muni immediately transforms into Mr. Hyde and chases her to an untimely death. In the final scene, a repentant Muni tells his sober-faced priest that he is going back to his own people, his own kind. End of movie. Finis. That's all she wrote. Muni was said to have hired a gen-oo-ine Mexican as a chauffeur in order to study this exotic creature's speech pattern and physical habits. Yowza!


The Kissing Bandit was the third and final film that Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson co-starred at MGM with. The first two were Anchors Aweigh and It Happened in Brooklyn. And in both Sinatra wooed and lost Grayson. I guess the third time's the charm.

For romance maybe, but definitely not for screen image. Sinatra in his forty's films once again plays the nice little schnook only this time in toreador pants. Poaching on Tyrone Power's territory laid out in The Mark of Zorro, Sinatra plays the son of a man who was a hotel owner by day and The Kissing Bandit by night. He's gone and left California for an education and has come back ready to take Dad's place, but in the hotel business only. And where does he learn the hotel business, Boston.

Of course some of Dad's former gang members, grown a little old and paunchy led by J. Carrol Naish, want him to lead the gang again. But Frank's just not cut out for the outlaw life. But he does make a good impression on the Governor's daughter, Kathryn Grayson.

Somebody must have had it in for Sinatra at MGM to cast him in this after the bad reviews he got in Miracle of the Bells. Frank's in a part that was more suitable for Red Skelton. But since this was a musical, I guess the brain trust at MGM figured Kathryn Grayson had to have a singing co-star.

In fact the best number in the film are for her, Love Is Where You Find It. Also Ricardo Montalban, Ann Miller, and Cyd Charisse do a dance specialty that is nice. Frank's songs are nice, but nothing spectacular.

In later years, Sinatra would wince at the mention of The Kissing Bandit and with good reason.


Perhaps the director was trying for another PIRATE (Good Garland and Kelly musical) -- but this lame musical epoch falls flat. Sinatra and Kathryn Graysons voices do not blend well -- and their chemistry together lacks spark. The premise of Sinatra as a sweet guy who tries to impersonate his late "bandito" father is okay, but he seems awkward in the role. What's amazing and wonderful here, is how Sinatra can take a rather insipid song and make it seem special -- his phrasing and eloquence as a singer make you want to hear it again. When Grayson sings the same songs it's hard to believe she's not singing something entirely different and not nearly as interesting. She has her big moment with "Love Is Where You Find It" which suits her perfectly and shows off her abilities. The photography is lucious and both stars look appealing as do the costumes and sets. Co-stars Mildred Natwick and J. Carroll Nash put lots of energy into making the impossible work. Aside from Sinatra's singing there is a strange menage-a-tois dance with Ricardo Montalban, Cyd Charisse and Ann Miller. It's fascinating and weird. Montalban and Charisse were a wonderful dancing team and this number is a real oddity.


This must be one of MGM's and FRANK SINATRAS worst films. An oddball musical comedy that fails in almost every aspect. Silly plot has SINATRA trying to carry on his fathers reputation as a KISSING BANDIT. He's no bandit and doesn't kiss!! He does play the "nerdy" character as well as could be expected given the dialog he has to speak. The scene stealer's are J. CARROLL NASH and MILDRED NATWICK. Too bad they didn't have more scenes together. I've given the film two stars because the sets and costumes are superior and one of the songs sung by KATHTREN GRAYSON "Love is Where You Find It", is sensational. Could have had a repirse of that one. Also, a comic type dance number by RIDCARDO MANTALBAN, CYD CHARISSE and ANN MILLER if fun. So for those reasons and those reasons only, it is watchable. KISSING BANDIT is part of the Frank Sinatra early years collection.


A klutzy young man returns West after being schooled in the hotel business via Boston; he quickly learns his friends in Spanish-colonized Old California expect him to fill his deceased father's shoes instead--that of a romantic thief known for kissing his female victims after robbing them. Colorful but silly M-G-M production has a great deal of talent before and behind the camera, but it never takes off. This might have been fun, second-string material for Abbott & Costello, but Frank Sinatra looks lost and embarrassed in the lead. Combination of raucous comedy and musical interludes are hindered by the poor staging (Sinatra is photographed singing at one point in a mirror, but one doesn't concentrate on his performance so much as noticing how odd the star appears reflected in this way!). Kathryn Grayson is the Governor's daughter who falls for Frank, and her high soprano trilling turns her singing scenes into self-parody. Aside from Robert Surtees' cinematography and the decent art direction, this "Bandit" remains kissless. * from ****


Tycoon will never be listed as one of John Wayne's better post Stagecoach film. It's good in spots, has some fine action sequences in the cave in and also in the flood at the climax. But the plot leaves a lot to be desired.

What we have in Tycoon is two men who thoroughly dislike each other and that dislike prevents them from working as a team. Multimillionaire Cedric Hardwicke has hired John Wayne and James Gleason to build a railroad. But then he refuses to give them the needed funds to do the job right.

Things get really complicated when Wayne falls for Hardwicke's daughter, Laraine Day. After a night when they have to spend time alone in an Inca ruin, by convention in South America, Wayne and Day get a shotgun wedding even though nothing happened.

What should have happened is these two should have been locked in a room for 24 hours together to work out their differences one way or another. Their petty spites cause some fatalities among Wayne's crew.

But what Tycoon is most known for is another piece of pettiness. Laraine Day was married to Leo Durocher the manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers when this was being filmed. He was a constant presence on the set, insanely jealous of John Wayne who he thought might be having an affair with his wife. Nothing to it, but he made his wife's life miserable.

Not one of the Duke's better efforts.


This movie was terrible. John Wayne is a brutal actor at times. The lead female playing the role of "Maura" did a good job and tried her best to make scenes believable despite Wayne's inept, one dimensional, over acting. Seriously, did you see him when he was supposed to be talking in his sleep? Ridiculous. And his character became such an awful person in the second half of the movie and then did nothing to atone for his behavior and is still forgiven by everyone including his arch nemesis without even so much as a 'sorry'. The story was completely implausible. We were supposed to believe that two grown men, both tremendous successes in their respected fields, would sabotage a job and risk the lives of innocent men simply because they disliked one another? YOu can pretty much randomly select any scene and it will probably leave you shaking your head in disbelief that someone paid money to have this film made. Its too bad because the only other Wayne films I've seen are the shootist and rio bravo, which were both great movies. Unless you're being paid don't bother watching this one.


Burt Reynolds plays Gator McKlusky, a likable ex-convict just released from prison who helps the feds nab a corrupt small town sheriff. Laid-back Reynolds was often accused by critics of merely phoning these 'good ol' boy' performances in; true, he's on auto-pilot throughout. But in his day, Reynolds knew just how to make a low-key effort work well for himself. Ingratiating and handsome, Reynolds comes as close to winking at the audience as he can without breaking up; he seems to know these backwoods as well as any movie star, while director Joesph Sargent provides an easy pace and a sweaty ambiance which brings the South alive. Unfortunately, the story isn't much, and supporting actors Ned Beatty and Bo Hopkins overact (as usual). Diane Ladd is fine in a small part, and real-life daughter Laura Dern can be glimpsed in the background. Reynolds returned to this character for 1976's "Gator". *1/2 from ****


This film must have done well in the box office, in order to give Gator the budget it deserves. This film had no budget, needed a script rewrite, and a better ending. There is flashes of brilliance in this movie. The boat ride scene, Burt driving the mean machine, and his chat with his parents. You can tell Burt is a Southerner, and not a actor. This movie shows what Gator would be like, Burt's best film. Too, bad this film did not have the same funding and was done on the Rush. 4/10


One commenter said if you like Austin Powers you will like this movie. I liked Autin Powers and was disappointed with this movie. The film works hard, maybe too hard for laughs. Maybe it was that all the villains in this movie were shouting as if the shouting in itself is suppose to be funny. I get where they were trying to go with this flick. A cross between Zorro and the Scarlet Pimpernel but it just doesn't work. Austin Powers if silly but intelligent, Zorro the Gay Blade lacks the savvy of Austin Powers, The Big Lebowski or Kingpin.

I kept waiting for a laugh and while waiting found myself amazed that someone actually got paid for the script. My 15 year daughter also thought the movie was flat. My 17 year old who selected this flick on it's title, walked out after 20 minutes.

It seems many people on IMDb liked this film, but for me it lacked the good timing or jokes of a good comedy.


Though predictable and contrived, not a bad movie. It entertains, which is all Van Damme hopes to do. The omnipresent "twin" device is again used (as in a large number of Van Damme's movies) but it is not bothersome except to long time fans. Natasha is gorgeous and worth watching. Action is decent, nothing spectacular for Van Damme but exciting. I can recommend to Van Damme fans and even to those who aren't but don't mind an action film with a good looking lead couple. The Russian Mob is a nice concept and topical for the day. Clearly, not his best film but by no means his worst.


"Maximum Risk" is a step sideways for Van Damme and just more of the uninspired B-movie action stuff we've come to expect from films featuring the macho Belgian martial artist. The flick has gaping plots holes, goofs galore, a messy conglomerated plot, and a gorgeous Henstridge who spends most of her time looking like she's waiting for a cue. "Maximum Risk" doesn't distinguish itself in any way and will likely not have much appeal beyond the usual young male audiences. (C-)


This is not a good film.

I can usually sit through a Van Damme movie if I have to, as they are usually a bit of a laugh and don't require much thought. This one has no redeeming features.

It has a distinct lack of plot, humour, acting, direction etc etc. A real stinker on all levels.

I have never walked out of a cinema during a movie, although I came damme close here.

Avoid at all costs.


Jean Claude Van Damme's movie career seems to have gone to hell in a handcart so how ironic to see him playing a character who meets the same fate in a literal manner at the very start of the movie ! It's also interesting to note how very , very similar the plots of his movies play out regardless of who the producer , director or screenwriter are . Van Damme usually plays a character who is living in France then due to a set of circumstances finds himself in another part of the globe where he has a brother who dies and it's up to Van Damme to get revenge helped by a character he's just met . Look at AWOL or LEGOINAIRRE or many other films that feature the headline " Starring Jean Claude Van Damme " and they all feature nearly the same type of story structure . This doesn't mean they're identical of course , just very similar and if you've seen one Van Damme movie you've basically seen them all . It's the same with MAXIMUM RISK


Maximum risk is quite surprising to a person that has seen more then on of his movies. Director Ringo Lam made an average action-movie, that can be compared with most of the other mid-quality action movies, what is a special predicate to a `Muscles from Brussels`movie. It has a quite classy style, an interesting atmosphere and, last but not least, the beautyful Natasha Henstridge. Even VanDamme doesn´t make you crying by his acting, he does a relatively good job. Of course you may not compare Maximum Risk (oh, what a creative title!) to `Ronin`, but after watching `Knock off` it´s the hell of a good movie... in special standards, of course.


The Story: Alain, a French policeman, is shocked to discover that he had a twin brother when his body is found in Nice. Investigating the murder, he finds out that he was in possession of a list that details the deeds of the Russian Mafia. Helped by his brother's girlfriend, Alain dodges Russian gangsters & corrupt FBI agents while trying to find the list.

"Maximum Risk" is another one of the long list of action films that feature Jean-Claude Van Damme. As far as things go, it is strictly formulaic. The script sticks to the clichés & the acting is mediocre. There are some nicely done action sequences, with an inventive car chase, a fight in a burning building, an escape through rooftops, a brutal fight in an elevator & JCVD fleeing his enemies over an elevated train line. Director Ringo Lam keeps everything going at a reasonable pace.


The movie is not that bad, Ringo Lam sucks. I hate when Van Damme has love in his movies, van Damme is good only when he doesn't have love in his movies.


Well another shootem up. Typical run around film with guns, revenge, and violence. Not much of a story. In fact I forgot most of what this film is about. Don't rent this one. I think the exercise infomertial would be more entertaining during late night.


A quick resumé: Almost nonexistent, badly chosen musical soundtrack, steady-cam filming done without the steady but with lots of coffee and a hyperactive cameraman, NO plot, and nothing ever really happens. The film goes from one dialog into another, sounding hollow, never achieving depth, never creating the illusion that you really are inside a cobweb of conspiracy, and the everybody-has-an-affair-with-everybody is just a boring excuse to show the main actress in nice underwear. (which, combined with her rusty voice certainly is nice, but nothing to base a movie on) The high point for me is the opening scene, and the film just degraded from there to a point where I just wanted to quit the film about 45 minutes into the story. I regret sitting it out.


If you're an average guy like me and enjoy good acting, good plot, good scripts, novel ideas, or being entertained, you might want to skip this one. I was honestly bored from the opening credits to the very end, but tried to give the film a chance, and watched it all the way through -- only to be disappointed at every turn.

The acting was unbelievably sub par, but I'm not sure if the actors themselves are to blame or if it was the ridiculously wooden and horrible dialog coupled with an even worse script. The plot is very vague and underdeveloped and I think the audience is supposed to derive some kind of deeper meaning from it, or be able to look past it in some way, but honestly to do so would be a waste of time.

The film has a kind of crude sexuality to it which doesn't serve any purpose other than to show off some tattoos and lingerie. No one seems to have any motivation except making money off of some kind of "investment" deal that is never really explained. The connections between the characters aren't terribly clear, and there is little to no character development.

This is either some kind of sub-culture film meant for a very specific audience to enjoy or absolute crap, but you can decide for yourselves.

I gave it a 2 because it is definitely one of the worst films I've ever seen, but probably not THE worst.


You have to start worrying when you see that Michael Madsen is leading the Cast of any movie. I wont go through the list of shame that is his movie career.

I watched 45 minutes and still was not sure what really was going on. The movie consisted of a love hate relationship between Madsen and Argento, Which basically was Madsen insulting her, threatening violence and generally treating her like dirt. She on the other hand loves him, then shes doesn't, then she does, the she desires him, then she loves him again......whats wrong with you woman !!!!

The Script is awful, lousy soundtrack and pointless aggressive and crude sexuality which i believe was added to entice some viewers as the movie has little else to offer. I would have given the movie a 1 but it just about managed a 2 with a little excitement in the last 20 minutes. It did actually answer one question in the final few minutes but i am not going to share that, i will make you suffer for the full movie like i did.


Asia Argento has never done a film (so far as I know, and this includes ones directed by her own father, Dario) where she fails to show all of her anatomy at some point. Sure enough, in the most boring opening dialogue scene ever, poor Madsen has her coming into his office and right there, reminding us that even though her hair is up, she can still stick her fingers in her crotch at any given second (which she does but in such a random "what? am I really seeing that?" kind of way). The DVD box, packaging, makes this look like a femme fatale film so you keep waiting to see her turn into a sleek and minimalist killer.. no such luck. She's verbose, hung up on some aging has been and even worse, has no credible skills in physical agility other than (surprise!) taking off ALL the clothes when any scene allows it. Her accented English would be cool if only she didn't try to make it sound so affected and try to talk like a 12 year old. How about this plot? Weak-minded but simultaneously nymphomaniacal woman is suddenly driven to kill while she already has another affair on the go and is running some cheap drug deal ... huh? what? does anyone have motivation in this movie to do anything other than buy a hamster? The screenplay seems to be oriented by letting everyone talk a lot about the same things over and over (I was expecting to see the worst acting on this appear as a producer who dumped money in it just to have some screen time) - there is nothing going on sub the obvious flaws of Asia's character that at any point in the movie delivers what the DVD cover promises. She's weak... but she knows how to kill. she flails A LOT. She flails naked, she flails half dressed, she even flails in a dead woman's clothing.. she is very floppy and unmotivated. In fact "Floppy" would have been a great name for this movie.. and a shot of Asia passed out looking angry on the cover would have been a better representation ... there are actually shots of her eating airplane food!!! What's that about?

THe ending makes 0 sense - everyone is just annoyingly wishy washy in their intent and their execution of all objectives. The wife of Lester doesn't deliver any REAL vengeance (taking someone to bad karoeke IS life threatening but not really valid).. and Lester just floats around without really making much proclaimation of anything. Totally misleading key art... yeah, we know Asia lost the baby fat of her first born but really, a whole movie trying to pretend like that's interesting enough to drive a film about a passive-aggressive chick is not worth your while. See Point of No Return instead.


Olivier Assayas' film stars Asia Argento as a woman who had a relationship with Michael Madsen. Madsen is a business man who's in financial trouble. In desperation he is going to sell his share of a business to a company called Golden Eagle, a company from the Far East. As Madsen begins his moves away from his company Asia Argento returns to his life. The pair had a torrid love affair that included her doing business favors for Madsen (with said Golden Eagle). Once Argento enters the film the film follows her as we see the tangled web she's woven and how the complications spin dangerously and violently out of control.

I'm not a fan. Actually I was quite bored as the film seems to go from pillar to post for much of the first hour during which I kept wondering what the point was other than to provide a meaty role for Argento. Argento, daughter of director Dario Argento and a director in her own right, is a unique actress. At times stunningly good, she is more often then not going to give you a quirky off beat portrayal of a damaged human being. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't think it completely works here mostly because the script is too "complicated" to support it. I didn't care what was going on so her wounded girl just rubbed me the wrong way(she seemed more nut job than anything else). I'm not blaming the actors but writer/director Assayas who has once again constructed a complicated tale with the sort of parts actors love to tackle, but which leave audiences scratching their heads because they they don't really work.

If you must try it on cable


Tired, garbled dreck. The chemistry between Argento and Madsen was as exciting as a wet doughnut. Their dialogue was dramatically uninteresting. The storyline was a mess. The acting forced. The cinematography lingered on the uninspired. Lazy and pointless. Kim Gordon and her character had no reason to be there. Nor did anyone else for that matter. I couldn't have given two farts for any of the 'characters'. Their emotions skipped and jumped like a junkie who hates his heroin. Empty and dull. Why do I have to write ten lines of text on here to make my point? I think I summed it up in the first three words. But, obviously it's not enough. I think this is the last time I'll bother to waste my time critiquing a film. Anyway, I saw 'Clean' and thought that was quite ineffectual as well. Again, I cared not for the characters, whether they lived or died.


Asia Argento is a sexy beautiful woman who likes to run around naked which isn't a bad thing in it's self, but, when her character talks about all the guys she serviced, and to see her with Michael Madsen and an Asian guy in the present tense of the movie, it made me feel like I needed a condom over my eyes to watch this movie, like a disease was going to rub off on me or something.

The movie felt like it was going for a love triangle/drama/action/??? plot, it just seemed to go everywhere and nowhere at the same time. The acting was great, the plot, not so great. The director needs to at least pick a genre and practice, practice, practice, before trying to do something as complicated as this again, because they are not very good at it obviously.


The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.

The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.

And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.

Give it a big miss.


The trailer is so deceiving... I thought this will be a good film... What was the point in bringing the women in Hong Kong for being killed? They could have done it in Paris. And the fist half hour:

-You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't! -You love me!

-No I don't!Repeat for 100 times... then... Well I don't love you... So i shoot you! :D So here is the reason why movie piracy is a good thing! Imagine if I would have even give money for this torture! I'm sorry for the time I lost watching it... the film makers should pay me

for the inconvenience... Worst film ever seen...


This film was terrible. I thought it would be OK but it just got worse and worse. From the starting scenes it seems to be heading in the direction of another safe predictable rom-com, but the moment he arrives at the house it just disintegrates. None of the characters have any depth and the only person who was anywhere near believable was Tom, although the way he became so easily distracted just annoyed me after a while. The dialogue is ridiculous and the structure of the film almost completely non-existent. In an insulting attempt at comedy the writer/director introduces a new character or event in practically every scene, none of which are realistic, making it very confusing to keep track of what is going on. The plot is barely an excuse for a movie : guy likes girl, house sits fathers home to get to know girl, destroys house, gets girl. A complete waste of time.


Not just the money we paid to rent it or actually go to the movies. I'm talking about how big productions companies waste so much money in things that actually are boring and not to talk about ridiculous. With the millions they used to make a movie like this, because I don't think the actors here would actually work for free or for an insignificant sum. With that money imagine how many good independent movies you could make, or maybe one good Hollywood movie. Its just to rip you off, but not anyone, just the majority of teens that are willing to go and see an Ashton Kutcher movie, just because they are fans of him. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. If you actually look at it in prospective the actors are the same quality of this movie. So i guess I shouldn't be surprise, I actually couldn't have expected more.


I have never seen a movie that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. This is not a funny movie. I must say that the plot line is awful. I did not had patience to watch it so that i only saw half of it, but it was enough for me. The characters are not very inspired. Just terribly annoying. This movie is all about a goofy guy trying to hook up with his tyrannous boss's daughter. When he finally manages to talk to her, she asks him to go at that night at her home to watch her father's owl, and he thinks she had invited him to go with her at a party and to be at her home at 6 pm. He gets to be very disappointed finding out that he only has to take care of the owl and that she has a boyfriend. After her father leaves home leaving precise orders, about taking care of the house and his beloved bird, appears a secretary, a renegaded son and all sort of NOT funny stuff happens in the house. But he finally hooks up with his boss's daughter. TRUST ME THIS MOVIE IS TERRIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!


This movie is perfect for any aspiring screen writer, actor or director. By watching this movie you will see all the things that are wrong with the film industry as it is today. There are so many clichés that it pained me to sit through this movie. Nothing about it is original and every single line spoken has been ripped off from those clichéd movies that we all saw in the 90's. Although it does have a few cheap laughs, overall it is wrong wrong wrong. I was so immensely bored and the movie was so predictable and pathetic i actually noticed how much make-up was caked onto Tara Reid's face to hide those massive bags and wrinkles from her endless partying. Seriously, she was wearing so much foundation you could literally scrape it off and refill an entire bottle of it.

What shocked me though was that so many of the talented and popular cast would sign on for this piece of junk. And i do NOT know how i sat through that horrible screaming that Ashton Kutcher does, you know when he's like angry or something and he shouts his words in this annoying manner? Ashton's horrifying "talking", Tara's face being ten shades darker than her neck, a drugged up owl, a script that seemed like the work of a three-year-old...

Seriously, in my whole life there has been no movie that i have watched that i did not in someway enjoy no matter how bad it was. This deserves an award for being the first. BAD BAD BAD... I don't think there is a single word in the English dictionary that can possibly describe this trashy movie. Today i was trying to re-watch it but i had to turn it off like ten minutes in because i was about to cry from the overwhelming amount of clichés.

Don't even bother to rent this at your blockbuster, it's not worth a cent, as a matter of fact i am willing to pay anyone out there considering to watch this movie so they can go do something decent with their lives.


For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. Not only is it a comedy that fails at being even remotely funny, but there's also just nothing to laugh *at* about the movie. It was even worse than I'd expected. I rented this sucker and still felt cheated out of time more than money. I have never seen a film that annoyed me that much. It is a movie about stupid people that are doing stupid and terrible things. I don't really know either how someone with common sense could actually act in this kind of movie. I have used IMDb for some time but felt obligated to register just to help prevent poor unsuspecting folks from renting or, worse, buying this stinker!! Really a waste of time and money. I must say that the plot line is awful.


Ever wanted to see how low a movie could sink? Well, look no further! This movie has it all!

Racism jokes, handicapped jokes, overweight jokes, suicide jokes, murder jokes, drug jokes, animal abuse jokes, eating dirt jokes, old man young wife jokes, cancer jokes, gay jokes, crap jokes, falling flat on one's face over and over jokes, overuse of blood jokes, rape jokes, pee jokes, alcohol abuse jokes, anal rash jokes, a bunch of people yacking their coffee back up jokes, nudity jokes, see who can say the most swear words in one scene jokes, lesbian jokes, girlfriend abuse jokes, and the list goes on and on people!

The worst part is: none of it is funny! (Not that anyone would find most of those funny to begin with.) It seems that when it just can't get any worst, it pushes your expectations to an all new bottom, as it always seems to find another to make the viewer feel worse. There was one scene that had me almost throw up and almost completely depressed at the same time. I don't think I need to point out which one, but then again, I'm sure there are other scenes that will give people this same feeling.

There was one moment at the end of the movie that actually made sense and was slightly realistic, when suddenly one of the characters in the scene was piled on with the nastiest remains of a trash bag and thrown several feet on the ground only to have a bunch of beer bottles smashed into his head. All of this probably when he least deserved it. So all thought of a 1 more point redemption was quickly regarded. This is indeed a terrible movie. This is one that needs to be studied and bisected into small parts at a film school to teach students what not to do.


For years I hesitated watching this movie. Now, I know why. It was even worse than I'd expected. Ashton Kutcher makes the worst movie mistake of his career, since 'Dude, Where's My Car?' Tara Reid co-stars as the girl of Ashton's dreams, who asks him to babysit her father (and his boss)'s pet owl for the weekend. The rules: 1. No shoes in the house. 2. No people in the house. 3. The boss' son stays out of the house. 4. Don't touch the furniture.

Well, you can pretty much guess by the end of the first twenty minutes, how the rest of the film is going to turn out.

You know, there are films like, "Meet The Parents", where bad things happen to someone, but it's entertaining to watch, and it's delivered in a way, that you can't wait to see what happens next. This, is not one of those films. You know right from the start that bad things are going to happen, and they're mostly stupid things that would never actually happen. It's an extremely frustrating movie to watch, and there were about three times when I nearly turned it off, because it was so bad. But, I paid the rental fee, and figured I had to watch it now.

Tara Reid was good, and I would like to see her in more films. Though, I'm not surprised if this had a hand in hurting her career.

The end result is a happy ending...but of course with the kind of film it is, you would expect nothing short of that.

Don't watch it. You'll sincerely regret it!


This is the first time I'm entering a comment for a movie I haven't viewed till the credits. Reason for this is simple...people need to be warned: this is one of the worst comedies of the new millennium. I usually stay away from a good deal of comedies that are in bad taste but I reckoned this to be watchable. A regrettable decision which was based on other Ashton Kutcher comedies that were (semi-) enjoyable such as A Lot Like Love and Guess Who.

Where those two movies had their charms and laughs, this had none (and I mean none!!). The acting is horrible, especially the 'boss'. Tara Reid was no surprise, how dare she call herself an actress?! The premise is thin and the plot doesn't thicken at all. Not a problem if you manage to keep it funny and/or sweet...but as you probably already guessed, this was not the cast at all! The script felt like it wasn't quite finished and I wouldn't even be baffled if the director did some rewrites while shooting. My dog could've written a more coherent script, seriously. And he's not exactly Lassie either :-).

Stay away from this tripe even if you like silly goof-ball comedies at times (like I do). This low quality movie will not be enjoyed by many...

I (almost) never give a one so therefore...a 2.


This is easily one of the worst movies i have ever seen. There is so much at the house that goes wrong that would not happen it isn't even funny. Granted this is a movie meaning things that won't happen in normal life happen here, however this movie is more far fetched than theories that no child left behind is working. All of these people are in the house and nobody has noticed another, not to mention the damn owl that seems to be coming everywhere but in its cage. I could deal with an owl joke the first few times, but after an hour i just can't take it, i would rather kill myself than see that damn owl again. Did i laugh during this movie? no. Not even once? no. Horrible, Horrible, Horrible. The fact that this pile of garbage is capped off with Ashton Kutcher bending his boss over and taking his pants off in front of everybody just makes this movie ever worse. But wait, the day is saved because the damn owl can fly. WOW AMAZING! However, i do give this movie some cred, its not as bad as Epic Movie.....


This is by far the most awful movie I have ever watched. I have never before rated a movie 1 out of 10. My advice is don't watch it. This doesn't even classify as a movie.

You'd be better off sitting on the couch bored rather than watching this movie. Acting was terrible but what was worst by far was the storyline. Highly unlikely sequence of events which aren't even funny. They are actually very lame and stupid. Very foolish choice by Ashton Kutcher and Tara Reid to act in this movie. Might even upset their careers a little.

When I walked into Blockbuster, the main focus was on this movie , so I decided rent it. I sincerely regret it.

Once you're 10 or 20 minutes into the movie you could basically predict what was going to happen. I was hoping it would get better , but instead it got worse.

I am not exaggerating this. The movie is terrible. Don't watch it. Hope this helps.


This movie has got to be about one of the worst i have ever seen. The humor was crude, hardly funny and been heard a million times before. The start was noting special and it got worse and worse as it went on. I got about halfway through and couldn't stand to watch any more of it. Luckily I was only watching it on TV so it didn't cost anything, but I seriously recommend you do not waste you time or your money.

Nothing in the movie was new. The characters were not at all developed. I actually think it would have been better as a little kids movie in that it was full of stupid unrealistic "funny" events occurring ... thats like what happens in home alone or something. Not to imply home alone was in any way as terrible as this.


"There are some things you just don't do" so says the tag-line of this, a 2003 David Zucker comedy about a young man caught up in one horrendous situation after another entitled My Boss's Daughter, and it's the tag-line which should speak for both the people that made this junk as well as those contemplating watching it. There are indeed some things you just don't do, with the placing of mostly all of the sort of content to be found within My Boss's Daughter counting as wholly items you just should not do to the medium of cinema by including them in your picture. My Boss's Daugther is a sordid; creepy; grotesque experience, a clunky and heavy handed piece which is infantile beyond words and disgusting beyond expression. To see it is to endure it, to endure it is to survive it and to survive it is an accomplishment all by itself  if any of the cast; writers; extras; Hell, even the guys that worked as runners on the set, aid in producing anything as Earth-shatteringly poor as this again, then it'll be either because they've been sent here by the devil Himself to destroy the medium of film or, it'll be because they've most probably garnered employment on behalf of the Friedberg/Seltzer mob.

My Boss's Daugther, (which I'm pretty sure ought to be titled "My Boss' Daugther", grammatically speaking), revolves around its hapless male lead, named Tom Stansfield (Kutcher), and a night in at his boss' house as he chases that seemingly elusive 'goal' that is his young, blonde daughter Lisa Taylor (Reid) - someone whom works within the same department as he does in a towering Chicago office block whilst under the strict eye of Jack Taylor (Stamp). Tom spies Lisa early on, she's taking the subway to work with all the other shmos despite the fact she owns a car and that her father is the boss of the damn company. After trying to talk to her, but having his attempts foiled by a puking baby and a dog for the blind more interested in Tom's crotch than anything else, he finally gets his chance in the office when talk of an after-dark party elsewhere arises and that he ought to come round to her house to visit her - and yes, she does still live with her father. Think Hitchcock's 1960 film Psycho with the gender roles between Norman Bates and his mother reversed and then played for laughs.

The distinct establishment of character is made painfully apparent in the opening scene in which Tom sits on the subway train and travels to work with his yuppie cohorts. They are a ruthless and smarmy bunch, whom it's made apparent swipe the briefcases of those unfortunate enough to get them stuck in the door in the ensuing morning rush, without ever returning them. One day it happens with Tom there, and his wish is to return it, thus pounding into us that he's-not-like-other-guys(!) This, as he first sees Lisa down the carriage and is somewhat shy to approach her as the other men treat the whole situation as if it would be a breeze if they were in his position. This rather obvious and flat-footed attempt to try and get us to 'side' with Tom sits uneasily with what it supposedly takes to earn a place amidst these co-workers in this company.

It is, however, as close as My Boss's Daughter comes to any level of film-making. From a seemingly harmless premise of a boy meeting a girl and wanting to get to know her arrives the comedy from Hell. Tom's arriving at the house will not see him invited to the party, instead he is charged with house sitting Jack's pet owl and generally keeping out of mischief whilst maintaining a spotless house. It's been established Terrance Stamp's character means business in the strictest of manners, firing people for the smallest of things such as the making of a bad cup of coffee. It's not that Jack is a shrewed businessman, he's a cleanliness freak; obsessed with control and a borderline sociopath in his placings of bear traps in the garden so as to keep the children next door off his land. You can imagine, that when we're let into his large and exquisite house with the orders that nothing should go wrong, there's obviously going to be trouble.

The film has fun with this premise of danger for about ten minutes. The first time someone uses the worktop to crack open a beer thus marking the pristine top, you may smirk, but by the time half the house is wrecked and Michael Madsen has shown up urinating all over the rug, you've got your head in your hands. Each joke in the film is set up in an almighty clunky manner before it is played out in a way that is closer to slow and excruciating than slick and faultless, the only thing missing as it follows through to the next gag is the sound effect of someone incorrectly changing the gears to a car as it clunks and creaks onto the next pratfall. Inbetween the gross-out wackiness, the film takes time to roll down a route of yucky, saccharine driven romance as Lisa and Tom bond whilst talking of in-workplace and out-of workplace persona's, and that maybe they have more in common than first thought. By the hour mark, the film's opted for gross out gags and hate filled jibes more than anything when there's an entire scene that exists purely to target paraplegics and a dumb subplot to do with a head-injury sporting neighbour on a blind date in which some truly unwatchable sight gags are unfolded. Throughout, Stamp's character enjoys putting people down and asking if the simplest of tasks are too difficult for them, to which the common-place reply ought to be whilst channeling Jack Taylor: was reading the screenplay first too complicated-a concept for you, Stamp?


To be fair, I couldn't bear to watch this movie all the way thru, so I have no idea if it suddenly gets better half way thru the film. But the first 30 minutes or so are amongst the worst I have seen in a while. Children under twelve might get a kick out of the poorly written, acted, and directed slapstick humor, but adults in full control of all their faculties should steer clear of this stinker.


It was dumb. Sort of like an Adam Sandler movie.

There were a few funny parts but not that funny.

I liked some of the actors in it though.

There were some Sat. Night Live people in the movie. But I wouldn't recommend this unless there is just nothing else better on. And it was still better than any Jennifer Lopez movie.


I was intrigued by the nasty boss character as I am one myself, and the actual boss's daughter was attractive and it was interesting to see an even younger Ashton Kushner, but this movie is so puerile I had to turn it off. It was a waste of time to watch it. When people started peeing all over the living room, it was too much to watch. Painful, awful crap movie. If they had just toned it down a little. Are there really people out there that find it funny and like it? I was relieved to know that IMDb readers rated it so low. The career side to the story was intriguing as well as the young man trying to get a promotion and win the bosses favor. I liked that part. Also, the opening scene with the coworkers on the train was cool as I like his coworker's characters. If you can stomach non-sense movies or you are pretty young, then it might be one you can stomach.


Dreamy young Ashton Kutcher (as Tom Stansfield) wants a date with sexy blonde Tara Reid (as Lisa Taylor). Ms. Reid thinks Mr. Kutcher is gay. Kutcher works for Reid's father, an anal retentive Terence Stamp (as Jack Taylor). Kutcher agrees to "housesit" for the boss, believing it will get him closer to Reid. Mr. Stamp has a pet owl named "O.J.", who becomes a toilet cokehead.

This is a film to get your restricted to "G-rated" pre-teens ready for raunchier "R-rated" fare. It will help if they haven't seen the plot before, and especially like moronic potty humor. Remember, people get paid to act like this.

** My Boss's Daughter (2003) David Zucker ~ Ashton Kutcher, Tara Reid, Terence Stamp


This film made me so angry because of its stupidity that I felt the need to create an account on IMDb to share with you my opinion. I liked Ashton Kutcher in "A lot like love" and this is why I still wanted to see this film despite it's current 4.2 rating. It is highly over-rated. I trusted that an actor (any of them) would judge the script and would not agree to participate in such low/now quality production. It is very disappointing. The theme of home-sitting was much better used in "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo". Things that did not make sense here: fist of all, the house owner leaves his precious pet with somebody who doesn't know anything about taking care of it. Secondly, the rule is not to let anybody in the house, but the house-sitter fails to follow this simple rule. The door is not locked?! And so on..


I bought this thing used at a video game store's "clearance bin". I wanted to get that guilty feeling from watching something I've been warned is too intense to watch; I wanted the shock value. I wanted to feel guilty and bad about watching a "banned film". I was very disappointed.

Cannibal Ferox does not work because it is so campy and fake. Most of the time the camera does not show you the "shocking" stabs, chops, slicing - you just see the aftermath. (They do show a breast hooking in detail). The special effects are just OK. Nothing here that tells you any of the violence is real. The "cannibals" are obviously poor people from central / south America who were dressed up as jungle savages and told to act mean. These people were obviously in on the whole picture to get a little money, or food, or both. Again...just not convincing.

However, like everyone else has said, there is some real killing of animals going on here. That is the extent of the realism. To me, that was more shocking than any gutting, chopping of scalps, or castration, and even then, the animal deaths are not that gory at all - maybe just sad.


Like anyone else who bought this, I was duped by the "20 pieces of extreme gore" and "banned in 20 countries" or whatever it says in the box. I have to admit I am a huge gore fan and I am always amazed when films can lay it on thick and look convincing doing it. Tom Savini, Rick Baker and Greg Cannom are some of the best in the business. The revolutionized make-up effects in the 80's. Today, you don't need them as everything is done on computer. But computers cannot compare to the visual wizardry that these three men could conjure up. But I digress.

Watching fantastically gory films like Fulci's Gates to Hell or even Savini's crowning achievement, Friday the 13th the Final Chapter, you can appreciate all that goes into making a terrifically gory film. You can't tell the difference between reality and magic.

I can't imagine another reason why anyone would see Cannibal Ferox but the gore that is ostensibly omnipotent in this film. If that is the reason you seek this film, then you are wasting your money. As many other reviewers in here have noted, most of the gore is an aftermath. You don't see the torture, or the bloodshed as it happens, you see whatever it looks like afterwords.

The gore? Well, it's here, but not as much as one would hope, or expect. A man does get castrated and a women does get hanged by her breasts, but other then those two scenes, and one involving a scalping; there is nothing really much else to this film. The scenes of gore even in these three mentioned, are still pretty tame in comparison to what you were hoping for. Maybe it's just me and my sick and twisted experience in the horror and gore genre, but I was expecting a bit more. Call me sick or twisted, but isn't that the only reason people are watching this film in the first place? I honestly found myself bored in a lot of places.

Cannibal Ferox is just another film that tries to capitalize on a craze of a superior film. While Cannibal Holocaust is not exactly a great film, it is much better than this tripe. If you go out of your way to buy this for $20.00, you will feel cheated.

3/10


One of the most notorious of the banned "Video Nasties" of the 1980s is also one of the most excessively over-hyped. "Make Them Die Slowly" is about what you'd expect from an Umberto Lenzi-directed jungle potboilerinventive (yet poorly rendered) native torture techniques, some ridiculous "social commentary" (yes, even sillier than "Cannibal Holocaust"), and lots of guts being chewed. The film's exploitative violence, though, is often only shown in brief close-up, and never dwelt on for very long, which diminishes its effect (interpret that how you may). The dialog is Lenzi's usual silliness, as our male heroes show their affection for females by calling them "tw@t" and the like. The cast of familiar faces (including Lorraine De Selle, Giovanni Lombardo Radice, Zora Kerowa, and Robert Kerman) does their best in the face of the escalating idiocy (including a completely ludicrous "castration preservation"), but cannot save this overworked, lousy effort.