There's no use trying to describe in detail the convoluted, overly melodramatic plot involving Civil War bitterness, a crooked town boss, and other complications. It's all bad.

Stella Stevens, Andrew Prine, Bo Svenson, William Smith, Tim Thomerson and Lee Majors are all good actors that may not be big stars (or big stars anymore) but always made fun movies.

Here, they're all wasted on a picture that looks like it was shot in a wild west tourist trap, with costumes borrowed from the local high school theater department. In fact, most of the acting appears to be on the high school level too, which might not be so bad if it weren't so pretentious.

The name of Ed Wood is invoked way too lightly these days. I think in this case the comparison is warranted. However, I suspect that old Ed would have made a more entertaining western than this.


I am not sure who is having more fun, the people that wrote the reviews or the director of the movie. I could not go any longer reading this comments or watching this movie, I had to say something.

I can see a low budget western film that is done with passion and interest on the detail, but using a garage with art deco lettering, pastel colors, actors that seem to be falling sleep because the script is so boring and the boom getting on the way of the camera every two scenes, that is definitely not my definition of "one of the best western movies produced in the new Millennium".

Please if any of you guys had friends in the movie just say it!


The seasoned actors in this do know how to act and have proved that before but the Director, who also wrote and produced this travesty, is incompetent on so many levels. O.K. it's low budget but I know films students with lower budgets and lesser known actors who can do much, much better. For example, since there were people involved who should know better some of the gun rigs were totally out of place and never existed in those days. The stunt work was clumsy - the story stale and hokey. If some one gives you a copy of this use it for a coaster. By the way, I love westerns and have known many stunt men and even went to high school with one of the actors so I was looking for it to be good.


I simply cannot believe the folks that made and performed in this movie really took it seriously. The skits on SNL look more real. Everything was laughably fake. The goofy gunfights, the ridiculous fist fights, the dialogue, the sappy background music, and even Bo's blind eye. Had it been billed as a comedy, it still would have made more sense but still would be bad. I can see this as "entertainment" only if you get a room full of stoned college kids watching it like it were Rocky Horror Picture Show. Imagine some of the stuff you saw on Blazing Saddles, like Mongo knocking the horse down or the old lady gettinf stomach-punched. Now imagine the producer wants you to take those scenes seriously and you get the gists of this disaster.


Not sure if this is just a lousy movie or if it was intended to be a mockery of a "B" Western. Story line was so-so but the filming, editing and acting were just plain bad. Plus the music in the background was irritating to no end, too loud and just non-stop. Many times you could not make out the dialog over the background music. I'm in SASS (Single Action Shooting Society) and do some Old West shooting with them, and a lot of the actors are members of this group, so that's why I bought it. If you have no interest in this group of people, or that sport, you certainly most likely wouldn't even have this little bit of interest to help out with the film. The acting of even the veteran actors (particularly Stella Stevens) left a lot to be desired also.


This has got to be the worst case of over acting since the silent era. Not just one or two actors but virtually the entire cast. Lee Majors and Bo Svenson were fine but the rest of them look like their first time acting.

So the budget was not tremendous. Much of the costumes and set were believable but there were many things that jump out at the viewer to let us know that they couldn't double check or get all of the props to match the period.

I can't think of one aspect of the film that I liked or didn't shake my head. Your time will be better spent burning lint collected from your bellybutton.


Hell to Pay was a disappointment. It did not have anywhere near the substance of a B Western movie, and should in no way be compared to a fantastic movie like Silverado. The dialog was dull, the plot was torpid, the soundtrack was overbearingly unnecessary, and the acting was awful. Even the professionals could've taken some lessons from the Sunset Carson School of Acting. The only positive thing about this movie is that it showcased some of the top Cowboy shooters in the nation, but you can see them in a better light in any SASS video. The packaging of this feature makes it very enticing, and the preview is decent, but it's all over after that.


You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.

It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.

The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.

Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.

There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.

Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons.


I do not know which one was first released earlier in 1970 . Cannon for Cordoba is an "Europen Western" It was made in Spain. This means this is fairly inferior to Sergio Leone's so-called #Western Spaghetti and to the Real American Masterpieces of John Ford, Sam Peckinpah, Howard Hugues,John Sturges and Anthony Mann, in my order of merit. This order is not to be interpreted as all John Ford Westerns are better than all by Sam Peckipahn's. I think IMDb's 100 Sort them out all pretty well.

The worse about this firm is the Casting. George Peppard is fit for a sergeant's role, Raff Valone for a "Maffia Capo" and Giovanna Ralli to a "puttana" in "Piazza Vennezia" in the sixty's in Rome.


After slightly over 50 years of avid film watching, I've come up with some simple rules for making good movies.

1.	Introduce your main characters early, certainly within the first half hour 2.	Keep your characters to a minimum. If adapting a novel, combine characteristics and actions of minor characters

 into one person 3.	Make sure your characters actions have credibility; if necessary, create additional scenes to establish motivation 4.	Keep the action clear. Violence does not have to be explicit, but it must not be confusing, either 5.	Get the best music money can buy. Frequently it matters more than acting, photography, etc. 6.	Usually if a movie isn't very good within the first 10 minutes, it's not going to get any better

`Cannon for Cordoba' is a textbook example of what happens when these simple rules are not followed. Elmer Bernstein's score is rinkydink, one of the worst I've ever heard in a modestly budgeted movie. This is altogether surprising considering Bernstein's credentials (`Man With the Golden Arm,' `The Magnificent Seven,' `The Great Escape,' `Sons of Katie Elder'). Paul Wendkos' direction is lackluster and confusing. Performances vary from very good (Don Gordon, Peter Duel) to terrible (Raf Vallone, Giovanna Ralli, Gabriele Tinti) with the usually reliable George Peppard falling somewhere in the middle. This should not be surprising, considering the mediocre direction and amateurish script, which breaks rules 1, 2 and 3.

Don't waste your time. I give `Cannon for Cordoba' a `3'.


His significant charisma and commanding presence are about all that keep this afloat, but Fred Williamson has done far better urban action films including many of his later, vid-released fare. The big studios' Williamson films of the early-to-mid 70's rarely had the punch of their mid-level counterparts, and this is a prime example. Clumsy action, little violence, and the PG rating is nowhere near questionable. Worth a look for Hammer completists in any case.


BLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of "Shaft" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.


Ahem.. I think I'll be the only one who's saying this but yes, I was a lil bored during the film. Not to say that this is a bad movie, in fact it's a very good attempt at portraying the innermost emotions - dilemma, sorrow, love.., esp it's the director's debut (read from somewhere, is it true?). I felt that something's not quite right, maybe it's just me, I'm not drawn to the characters enough to immerse me in their world. This is a simple story, about ordinary people, ordinary lives. Through simple and short dialogs, the director tries to relate a simple guy's life, and how copes with the news of his illness by laughing it away every time. Oh ya his laughter was kinda cute at first but gradually it gets to me, such a deep hearty roar for a gentle man! I must say, I didn't feel the impact that most readers felt, in fact I was more drawn to the trivial scenarios like spitting of watermelon seeds with his sis that clearly shows that they're comfortable with each other, the granny who came back for another shot - this is kinda melancholic, the thoughtful gesture of writing down the procedures for his dad - hmm but this is predictable.. Don't misunderstood that I'm an action-lover, independent films are my cup of tea! Perhaps I just have a really high expectation after watching many deep films that have stronger imagery. Some Asian films worth the watch:

Tony Takitani (depicts loneliness) Wayward Cloud (only 1 dialog) My Sassy Girl (I like it!) 4.30 (loneliness as well) 15 (gangsters lives in local setting) Before sunrise and Before sunset (I just have to mention these even though they are not Asian films. Fans will understand!)


If I were to rate this movie based solely on the acting/script/production, etc., I would give it one star. All these elements are awful. I can partially forgive this, in light of the film's $250 budget. The movie does contain many entertaining scenes, mostly those of the unintentionally funny variety. Some of these include: a 14-year-old kid stealing and driving a bus, teenage hooligans (one of whom is sporting a Joy Division t-shirt) getting scared away from harassing the film's protagonists by a woman brandishing an obviously fake firearm, and an encounter with a plastic bull's skull in the Arizona desert.

I would have given it 5 stars just for the entertainment value were it not for the presence of that horribly annoying, morally pontificating old granny. I had to dock one star just because of her. Who the *bleep* makes a wedding cake with black frosting, anyhow?


I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.


Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible.

I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.

And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch "Shark rosso nell'oceano" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior "Jaws" (as if you didn't know).

Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).

Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the "Jaws" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.

This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.

Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the "Bad Theatre" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on "Saturday Night Live"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.

Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this "horror" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.

No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as "Shark rosso nell'oceano"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?


I'm not sure what the director and editor were thinking when they were editing this poor excuse for a film, but whatever they thought of didn't help this movie, it only hurt it, and it hurt this film badly. The acting, for once, isn't the problem, it's the horrible editing, scenes will end for no apparent reason, while in the middle of an action sequence or people will be cut off in mid sentence. I'm not sure what the story was, but it didn't really matter, since what I did see was fairly uninteresting. Just bad all around, a huge "Jaws" rip-off and not a good one at that. The MST version was funny though. 7 for that, none for the film itself.


Sometimes it's hard to judge how bad a film made in Italy or Spain really is, because they all seem to use the same stable of 9-10 ESL trained voice actors to supply the English voices for release in the US. And things are always lost in translation anyway -dialog, character shtick and plot elements written for the expectations of European audiences may not go too well with our American ideas of what is funny, hip, or dramatic. I imagine that the team responsible for making the translation for the sound track of this movie to English had about 3 days to do it from start to finish, and they probably each earned the equivalent of an installment payment on their used Fiat to do it. In other words, pure hackwork, tossed off in one or two takes and never reviewed or redone by someone with a real ear for the American language.

Watching "Devil Fish", I can imagine that if you were an Italian watching this presented in your native language, you might find it a mildly amusing little piece of fluff. You'd laugh at the 'in jokes' and the amusing drunk, you'd gasp at the monster and the villainy of the bad guys, and you'd ogle at the attractive pair of Peter and not-quite-Daryll Hannah as they couple on the beach for no apparent reason in the middle of a search for clues about a man-eating monster who has already killed one of their friends.

But since the jarring voice acting and tin-eared dialog keep yanking we Americans out of the film experience, we can't help but notice that the editors had serious Attention Deficit Disorder, that no one on screen can really act so much as project an Attitude, that the stated reason for the creation of the monster makes absolutely no sense, that the action sequences have all the impact of a cereal bowl full of cooked oatmeal and that the director, screenwriters and producers really hate women.

Don't even THINK about buying or renting this movie - watch only on cable TV on Saturday afternoon with one of several beers in your fist, or with the help and protection of Mike and the Bots on MST3K.


boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.

They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter "Pey-tah", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.

The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!

The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this...


WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

 The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.

 The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.

 The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.

 Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese.


Never before has such a large cast of ugly people gathered together to make an equally ugly film.

Something huge and horrifying is loose in the waters off the Florida coast, something that leaves half chewed up bodies behind in its wake. Unshaven beer dependent Bob thinks he has caught the Thing's "evil voice" on tape. Bob's assistant, the amazingly unattractive and painfully skinny Stella, decides to enlist the help of slimy ladies man Peter, an electrician whose equipment may be able to help them locate the mysterious creature. But anyone who sticks their nose too far into the mystery winds up dead, killed by a baboon faced hit-man with a bad perm. What is the terrible secret behind the Sea Killer?

Ugly scientists have torrid affairs, inept cops and doctors puzzle over the increasing numbers of corpses, Stella and Peter make out on the beach and characters we don't care about are killed off or munched up. The Sea Killer, a weird combination of an octopus, a shark and a pair of large dentures, never really seems as threatening as it should. The conspiracy behind the monster's creation makes no sense whatsoever. None of the characters are particularly likable, and the ones who might be are killed off immediately. This is a poorly shot, badly dubbed, plot less mess. The whole thing is so scuzzy and smelly it made me long for a hot bath. I've had sushi plates scarier than this film. Avoid it, unless it's the MST3K version.


A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!

Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.

This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.

Score: 4 out of 10


This stupid, anti-environment wannabe "Jaws" is sad, pathetic, boring, poorly dubbed, and stupid. There is nothing redeeming about it.

Plot follows some shark/octopus creature-thingy that appears off the coast of Florida and kills some people (including a boring, stupid couple with a whiny wife and a silent husband who stabs himself with a fork for some reason). His ascent to the surface is always represented by a vague sideshot of something bumpy over and over. It makes no sense, it's horribly boring, and it's conspiracy plot sucks.

There are moments of camp that cannot be ignored: the same shot of the boat of the couple of the opening sequence THREE TIMES; the doctor slamming a dying patient's chest twenty times with a difibulator without stopping, even though he's clearly dead; the porno-esque soundtrack; the shot of the couple making love on the beach, with three different thems ("That us is getting ahead of us!") doing this; the ancient computer that sounds like Kermit the Frog; a beer-guzzling scientist screaming "I know!" a la Dr. Smith; the list goes on and on.

Oh, and everyone drinks at least thirty bears in the course of the movie (much noticed by Mike and the 'Bots) . . .

The MST3K version is their best episode, but it's certainly better than the movie itself. "This is how I like to go fishing, guys . . . with a flashlight and a flamethrower . . ." - Crow

One star for "Devil Fish"; seven for the MST3K version


movie I have ever seen. Actually I find it one of the more entertaining episodes of MST 3000 I have seen. Not that it was good, but for anyone who has seen Manos: the Hands of Fate knows this one wasn't two bad. The monster in the movie looked terrible, everyone wore upsetting swim suits, and the plot was laughable. I still don't have a clue as to why they made the monster, they never really gave a good reason. The lead female had to be the scrawniest gal I have ever seen. They would have done better if they cast the gal that was killed at the beginning as the lead. On the plus side the dolphins acting was great!!!


I wish I had something more positive to say about Devil Fish, but I honestly can't seem to come up with much. I can't even come up with many of those "so bad, it's good" kind of moments. Devil Fish is just plain old bad. The plot is completely derivative (Jaws, anyone?), the acting is wooden, the characters are uninteresting, the special effects are beyond bad, and the score is annoying. Add to that the seemingly inept direction of Lamberto Bava and you've got one stinker of a movie. I think, however, that the film's biggest sin is its lack of a budget. It doesn't appear that Bava had much to work with. By 1984, the Italian film industry was in full decline  especially as far as genre films go. The funding available to Bava was most probably very meager. Film's like Devil Fish that rely on special effects just never had a chance to be good. It's not the only Italian film to suffer this fate. There are a number of Italian movies made in the mid-80s whose ideas and concepts far exceeded what anyone could realistically have expected given their budgetary limitations.

However, having said all that and noting the film's many weaknesses, I can't bring myself to rate Devil Fish lower than a 3/10. I've even considered rating it higher but can't because I realize how bad a movie it is. Why don't I rate it lower? Well that's hard to explain. Despite the many problems found in the movie, there's something about Devil Fish that I inexplicably enjoy. It could be as simple as my love for low-budget, cheesy, Italian movies. Maybe my taste in movies is horribly skewed, but I enjoy what I enjoy.

The Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment of Devil Fish is actually very enjoyable. I rate Devil Fish a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale. The guys do a fine job of poking fun at the movie's many flaws. One very astute observation comes very early in the commentary when Tom Servo notes, "Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should"  highlighting yet another of the many weaknesses to be found in Devil Fish.


This cheapo exploitation flick is some genuinely insipid stuff, courtesy of spaghetti land director Lamberto Bava, who wisely left his name off this junk.

The basic crux of this outing concerns the discovery of some brutally mutilated individuals being washed-up on shore in the Caribbean. Authorities initially believe them to be victims of shark attacks, but as the investigation unravels, turns out to be something much more sinister.

All of this ultimately amounts to very little however, we have here - poor dubbing complimented by similarly weak script, which often consists of nonsensical jabbering, and is really of little consequence for the most part. Acting can only be described as sub-par, which is par for the course in this instance. Truly lax direction doesn't help things either.

Special effect mainly is for numerous close-ups of various gory bodies missing limbs, and so forth. Of course, there is the obligatory creature which periodically emerges at feeding time, which looks something like a big monster octopus thing, where its animation only consists of its pointed teeth ascending and descending in rhythmic articulation. Overall, the end result is none too convincing, sure, but admittedly is almost entertaining in a cheesy kind of fashion.

It seems what the film makers were going for was a sort of low-rent hybrid of Jaws and Piranha, but the final product is just a bloody shambles, much like the corpses incessantly shown throughout this picture. I find it difficult to think of any redeeming attributes to warrant viewing this, so moreover, strictly for incurable monster movie addicts.


I really wanted to like this film as I have admiration for Italian rip-off cinema (especially Jaws rip-offs!), but the simple fact of the matter is that Monster Shark isn't very good. All the signs of this being a great piece of trash are there; we've got one of the kings of trashy cult cinema, Lamberto Bava, in the director's chair - one of the best ridiculous cult actors, Michael Sopkiw, taking the lead role, and a central creature stupid enough to give even the best that this sort of film has to offer a run for it's money, yet somehow the film still manages to be rather stale. The fact that the 'monster shark' doesn't feature too often is probably a good thing given the creature design, but there's never enough elsewhere to pull the film through without it. The plot focuses on a resort off the south coast of Florida (or rather, somewhere in Italy) where several local people have turned up in the water with arms and legs missing. It's not long before the local authorities decide that this creature has never been seen before, and it's up to a motley crew of various sea experts to catch it alive!

The main problem with this film is that it always feels very pointless, and since there is little in the way of characters or plot development, even the least demanding of viewers are likely to start getting bored before long. This sort of film is hardly famous for being brilliant, although the fun element of films such as 'The Last Shark' and 'Killer Fish' is unfortunately absent for most of the running time. The thing I love about lead actor Michael Sopkiw is that he always seems like he's taking himself seriously no matter what film he's in (although he only ever made four). This is certainly the case here, although Bava never really allows him to completely dive in, and often he feels as much like a spare wheel as the rest of the film. Much of the runtime is spent watching the various characters sup American lager, and it's not very fascinating; although Bava does manage to come good by the end with an entertaining flurry of action as the central monster finally gets to wreak havoc upon its would-be captors. Overall, there really isn't much to recommend this film for. As mentioned, I really like this sort of stuff and even I found myself bored on numerous occasions. For hardcore Italian horror fans only!


A man (Goffredo Unger) is found floating in the sea among the wreckage of his destroyed boat, just off the Florida Coast. A helicopter winches him up only to reveal both of his legs are missing below the knees. Dr. Stella Dickens (Valentine Monnier) and her partner Dr. Bob Hogan (Lawrence Morgant) are marine biologists of some sort and are conducting research in the sea regarding Dolphins. While out at sea Hogan hears a strange high-pitched noise. Intrigued he and Stella hire Peter (Micheal Sopkiw) and his assistant Sandra (Iris Peynado) to create a device to locate and track the source, or something like that anyway as it isn't made particularly clear. Meanwhile a scientist named Florinda (Cinzia De Ponti as Cinthia Stewart) who works at a rival organisation called the 'West Ocean International' is brutally murdered when she threatens to expose someone within the organisation. More people are attacked and Sheriff Gordon (Gianni Garko as John Garko) is on the case. Peter, Stella, Hogan and Sandra all set out to sea. Soon enough they find evidence that something monstrous and very unfriendly may be lurking beneath the surface. Together with rival scientist Professor Donald West (William Berger), Sheriff Gordon and the United States army they set out to destroy the monster, but there are other sinister forces at work as someone doesn't want the genetically engineered creature to be exposed at any cost! Directed by Lamberto Bava as John Old Jr. this is a far cry from the classic Italian horror and splatter films of the 70's and early 80's. The script by Gianfranco Clerici, Herve Piccini and Dardando Sacchetti is drearily slow and will put most people to sleep well before the 90 odd minute run time has elapsed. The monster is barely used, large portions of this film are made up of footage of boats and helicopters. Large chunks of the first half concentrate on the not so mysterious 'who's behind it' part of the story. There isn't really any gore to speak of, a guy with both his legs bitten off and someone with one arm is about it. The special effects on the monster itself are generally poor and it is shown in very quick flashes, disappointing. The cast of virtual nobody's don't help make this any easier to sit through. There really isn't much to recommend this film so I won't. Don't bother, you can do a lot better.


Yikes.

I've seen quite a few bad movies in my days, a lot of them in the company of Mike, Tom, Crow and the others from MST3k. So was the case with this one as well and even though I found the movie in itself quite funny, it wouldn't have been nearly as fun without the MST3k commentary.

The movie is a prime example of really bad movies coming out of Europe during the eighties. Horrible music, horrible acting, horrible plot (what little there is), horrible dialogue and really, really, REALLY, horrible editing. Cripes.

This might be called a turkey if it weren't for the fact that it's not unique in any way whatsoever. It's pretty much the same kind of film that almost every italian hack of a director cranked out.

So, try and get the MST3k version. It's a pretty fun episode with Mike and gang in quite good form.


What could possibly go wrong with a movie that includes a bunch of Italians pretending to be Flordians, and some vague-lava-octopus-crustacean-thingy as the hell-induced hellspawn-devil-fish?!?!

Everything is what goes wrong I tell you!

This is a very good MST3K episode because the heckling in right on the ball, which without fault, is easy to do considering this movie is a piece of junk with a lousy and boring plot.

9/10 for MSTied version. 1/10 for un-MSTied version.


The lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of "Monster Shark" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole movie!


There's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.


A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!

Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax.

Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.

Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed.

Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.


This movie is a pure disaster, the story is stupid and the editing is the worst I have seen, it confuses you incredibly. The fish is badly made and some of its underwater shots are repeated a thousand times in the film. A truly, truly bad film.


Muscular 'scientists', unpleasantly thin females in swimsuits, lots of beer drinking.. Yet it's too long to be a beer commercial. Oh, okay, there's some plot about a big shark-like monster that's killing people and stuff. But it's nothing you haven't seen before.


This film has the worst editing I've ever seen. This is yet another film to avoid at all costs unless you view it via MST3K. On their website, they wonder why the Coast Guard cooperated with this film. I mean, they let them use a helicopter!


This is a perfect example of why many people say the 90's sucked when it comes to horror-movies. A boring voodoo-on-campus tale of terror starring the once so promising Corey Feldman (STAND BY ME, THE LOST BOYS, etc). There might be just enough stuff happening to keep you from falling asleep and it doesn't look too cheap, but this still is horror aimed at an audience that were in their very early teens during the 90's. I might have been part of that audience, but still I got as good as nothing out of it when watching it now. And nowadays, teens are used to a lot more and better already, and I can't imagine any of them knowing or caring about who Corey Feldman was. Or, "is", actually, as the dude's still making films. But the only thing still linking him to his days of glory, is the LOST BOYS 2: THE TRIBE sequel that got made recently. And I imagine even that one isn't going to encourage anyone to seek out VOODOO. Just another movie that got lost in 90's horror for obvious reasons.


This is a perfect example of the 90's mainstream horror crap.Nothing is scary here and the film is almost bloodless.Yes,there is some violence,but everything is politically correct like in a TV movie.This is not a completely bad picture,I can safely say that I found it quite enjoyable.However a lack of the originality really hurts "Voodoo".All in all if you are a part of the mainstream audience and pseudo-horror movies like "Scream" are your favourite then you'll love "Voodoo",but if you want something very gruesome avoid this film.


Joe was first released in the US in the summer of 1970. Despite respectable notices, reasonable box office and an Oscar nom, it vanished shortly afterwards and remained forgotten about throughout the 1980's, before being enthusiastically reappraised, somewhat unjustly, in the US in the late 90's. Thanks to this lengthy unavailability, its reputation has gone on to see it placed (inexplicably) alongside the likes of Michael Winner's original Death Wish. Although revenge is a theme, a film about vigilantism this most definitely is not.

The plot isn't worth synopsizing. Its a flabby, hammy and bizarrely stagey ramble about an accidental murder and the unlikely relationship that blossoms out of it. That relationship and the largely class-based quirks of its two leads are exaggerated into ridiculous caricature; these two, and their situation, bear absolutely no relation to reality.

Almost everything about the film is cantankerous and begrudgingly antiquated, which makes the whole thing completely fascinating. Hippies are depicted as snide and exclusive misanthropes, hard drugs either make you sleep or dance around maniacally with lipstick on your face, and most young women are prepared to have sex with strangers in exchange for marijuana at the drop of a fly. Its very much a film of the 60's rather than the 70's, so why some industry luminaries have begun to include it in retrospective conversations about the beginnings of the Hollywood New Wave is a complete mystery. Martin Scorcese of all people even got involved, though probably only to give a nod to the dank, lavatorial hues of the grim urban cinematography, which almost certainly influenced Taxi Driver four years later. But Joe seems very much like a furious tirade against the likes of Easy Rider and Bonnie And Clyde, rather than a continuation of that same insurgent cinematic ethos.

It isn't a film of any real artistic significance - despite Joe's incontinent fury at everything in his world, it remains a story about absolutely nothing - but its value as a cultural museum piece is unprecedented. Shot on and around the streets of New York City during the darkest hours of the Vietnam war, and at a time when America (and, significantly, its cinema) was being revolutionized to the horror of the old guard, the film ends up, in its own completely oblivious and accidental way, saying more about that period of history than numerous infinitely superior movies that directly endeavored to capture it.

But as a film? Despite a really surprising and effective shock ending, this is basically a Michael Winner film, but not as well made. How does that tickle your fancy? ** Incidentally, if you are, like me, a fan of spotting arbitrary background lookalikes, then check out Harold Steptoe at 1:22:11 in the hippy art gallery.


I think this movie can be called the movie of misdirected rage.

The characters of Joe and Bob were relics of the WWII generation who didn't quite understand their kids opposing the war, taking drugs and listening to rock and roll. But I think their real rage was at the fact that America was beginning her long decline from the heights the war left her at.

"Joe" himself is a low-rent Archie Bunker, ranting at all the things that have made him angry, living his life of quiet desperation, until he teams up with Compton, a guy who wants to avenge himself on the hippies who ruined his daughter.

Honestly, most of the movie looks silly, the characters are worse than one dimensional, they're laughable. Peter Boyle was capable of better stuff.


Will Spanner (David Byrnes, the fifth actor to play the role in the series) stumbles onto another bizarre case, this time involving vampires rather than the usual witches, warlocks & demons (he's at the hospital to check on his friend's son who got hurt in a hit and run when they wheel a girl who's been attacked by a vamp in). He brings in Detectve Lutz to help out with the case which revolves around a clandestine vampire organization trying to get a business merger to go through to let them legally own all the blood banks in the world or some such nonsense.

The plot of this movie pretty much takes a backseat to the nudity & simulated sex scenes. (As is to be expected from this series, i guess). So complaining about the lack of good acting, or compelling plot-line, or even convincing characters, I suspect, would fall on deaf ears. If you're watching this film, you don't care about such 'frivolities' and just want some 'action'. Sadly on that front the film fails as well. All the woman are attractive enough but the way the scenes are filmed are just atrocious. Making this more or less an exercise in futility in every conceivable way.

Eye Candy: Both Kimberly Blair & April Breneman show everything; Ashlie Rhey shows full- frontal; Aline Kassman & Mai-Lis Holmes only shows their breasts

My Grade: D


Just after watching the first one and it is very dumb. I happened to watch an episode of Bones first and then the Eleventh Hour. The 11th Hour should be embarrassed.

It is so weak. Stewart introduces himself as a Government Scientist. No mention of what kind of scientist just general sciency stuff. In a program about cloning they bring a caretaker, who was paid to dispose unsuccessful embryos, to a church and made him kneel before the statue of Jesus on the cross and ask forgiveness... and as well tell them where the bad guy is so as they can move the plot on. Now thats science at work :(

There is a dumb, not good dumb, bit where Picard rages at a TV that advertises skin scream that makes you look younger, shouting "It's a lie", as his randy female assistant gets groped by the local hot bobbie next door.

The end of the first episode is like a bad cartoon where the bad old lady, named after Pinnochios daddy in order to move the clunky plot along, waves at Picard from the street as she gets in a taxi. Picard is one floor up and he looks out a window wistfully going... she got away. He could like try to run down.. or maybe ring the cops... or maybe get the number of the taxi and ring it in or maybe had anything other than... I am waving and getting into a taxi now and there is nothing you can do about it until next week ending... mahhahahahah.

Pity it's so stupid. At one point a grieving father is convinced by Picard that even if a replica clone son was born it would never be his son as his son had a soul. Yes that's right folks. The general scientist argues against cloning on the basis that every soul is unique and sure why else would you want to clone.

Although the general scientist Picard finds cloning a bit gooey he's all up for stem cell research and goes as far as to say that calamity will befall humanity if it isn't allowed. He has a pretty strident rant about how important it is. Of course he doesn't mention a single example. That kind of sums up the show. Buzz words and tawdriness.


If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single "Science Adviser" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that "Advisor" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The "Advisor" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up.


How on earth can you have such fantastic actors in such a miserable creation? This is one of the most stylized pieces of rubbish I have seen in a long time. Not only is it poorly written, it is a product of shoddy direction and editing. The cinematography is so horribly manipulative and unoriginal and the montage jumbled beyond belief. The actual ideas behind the plots (cloning, toxic waste, climate change) are all fine to begin with but where the production/direction team takes them is a big cesspool of filth, the likes of which are seen in one episode. And this is a Scientific series? I am a physician and all I can say is that the science in this film is utter crap, almost embarrassing to watch. I really felt bad for the actors involved since they were all extraordinary.


Can I just start by saying I'm a fan of bad movies. And this is a really bad movie. It states on the front 100 passengers, 3000 snakes, but I think it's more accurate to say 12 passengers and about 20 snakes.

The snakes don't do anything particularly interesting, the whole movie in fact just blunders on with little happening. Although there is occasionally a great gore shot of pulsating arms and green goo puke (bad movies have to have green goo don't they?).

But then the ending comes along and will quite literally smack you off you seat in hysteria. and for that, this movie gets a boost up to a 2* rating.

There are certain movies about in the world that you will want to show to your friends, just so you can watch there reaction when a certain event happens in them.

For example The arrival of 'Big Man' in R Kelly's 'trapped in the closet' 'The LINE' in 'Shark Attack 3' (you'll know it when you hear it) The arrival of the mama shark in 'Shark Attack 3' Almost every scene of 'troll 2' The ending of 'Dracula 3000' (just for utter disbelief and confusion) and the end of this movie proudly sits in this category. It's worth sitting through just for that. So get drunk, stoned, whatever your poison is and watch this movie with some mates.

Quite simply, if you like bad movies, get this, but don't get it confused with 'Snakes on a plane' ... there's no relation.

And don't pay more than a fiver for it either ....


So I was energized during my Snakes on a Plane weekend, after the movie we craved some more. Why not Snakes on A Train? How bad could it possibly be, its snakes probably killing people on trains. The snakes were supposed to be rattlers. First off me and my buddies thought the snakes were harmless garden snakes and pet snakes with the same cheesy rattling sound clip. We actually sat through the entire thing completely ready to turn it off (we're too lazy to walk over and hit eject). Next thing we knew we don't know what the heck was going on but something amazingly funny happens at the end. It's one of those endings that you'll rewind a few times just to squeeze the laughs out, because you suffered for so long.

Last 10 min a "8", rest of the movie a 2.


The movie starts in Mexico where a girl has been cursed, she spits on snakes thru green jello and her friend tries all these crazy spells to lift the curse. He does nothing but chant horrible language that does nothing, so they decide to cross the border get on the train to make their way to L.A. to see his uncle to lift the curse. Comic hilarity ensues. This movie has the same snakes over and over! It has garden snakes and pythons that will never bite. They all make the sound of rattlesnakes which makes no sense. The whole movie has some funny lines, some weak effects, but most important a great ending that leaves you like WHAM BAM WHAT THE HECK JUST HAPPENED!!!!! The whole movie is about a 1, but the ending is a 10, so by my crazy math it gets a 3 overall. When blockbuster has nothing else you want, grab this for mindless entertainment!


Seriously i thought it was a spoof when i saw it at the rental store but i realized it was just crap, i can't even believe i didn't shut it off, like we all know those snakes weren't rattlers they were pythons and Gardner's, the acting was lame and oms i still cant believe the ending loll if your gonna watch it just watch it for the end it was seriously priceless way better then 6th sense, i don't even know if the makers of the movie actually thought this title would fly, the only time it is really going to fly is when i throw it in the garbage......just watch it for a laugh it was hilarious in the stupidest way, Don't BUY JUST RENT.


For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.

Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.

"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.

It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.

The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.

Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.


Truly, truly awful. I don't even know where to begin. This is a perfect example of a movie that doesn't know what to do with itself. I'm not sure I could even assign a category myself, except that I'm quite sure it's a slap in the face of everyone, every where. Even the unborn.

At times, I thought I was watching a parody, or some kind of farce. At times, just a bad B movie. But I kept holding out for the porno, which, I fear, is almost(but not entirely), non existent.

Some one advised skipping to the ending. I would definitely second that emotion. The last five minutes are intense, and certainly contain some of the best film making/cgi you will ever see, ever.

Ed Wood would be proud.


I would probably want to give this movie a zero if not for the climax, which involves not really Snakes on a Train, but rather Train IN a Snake. The premise was cooked up far more than likely over the course of a night of beers after hearing about Snakes on a Plane in production (this, in fact, was released to coincide with that film's release). The joke is probably not lost on those who will seek this out; I don't think there would be a soul out there who would consider this anything as a serious action-thriller effort (unless on an ironic level beyond the capacity for rational thought). It's about a Mayan curse placed on a woman who's damned by her family for leaving with another man, and is soon seen sickened and coughing up green slime laced with, of course, snakes. She and her beau go on a train headed for Los Angeles, and very soon after the more-than-cliché characters are privy to snakes overtaking the train- with the originator woman becoming a snake herself.

If it would be worth listing more about the movie I would, but there isn't enough time during the day. All that can be said for the quality factor is that it's almost on-existent; there are student short films with larger budgets. Maybe that was a wise calculation on the filmmakers' end, that there would be so many copies sold, just for the joke factor alone, that they would re-coup their budget in the first weekend. Because by looking at the sets (the trains themselves change randomly in the middle of a scene!), the actors (if you can call them that, with only one other actor- the one with the very thin hair who hits on the one woman throughout the movie- who benefited from the flick being produced), the FX (also next to non-existent, making the effects in Snakes on a Plane seem like Star Wars), and the actual CGI snakes themselves, with the final huge behemoth snake something to behold in sci-fi movie channel terms.

This all means, basically, that it is a laugh riot every step of the way (especially, as cruel as it sounds, when a little girl becomes involved in a snake's "attention"), with the very disregard for good taste working well in its favor. This being said, it is also 100% disposable, like a B-movie sour-flavor lollipop.


Oh. Good. Grief.

I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought "I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad". Well, I was half right.

This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.

Low-budget does not always mean "bad" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.

See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.


There are spoilers but trust me, I'm doing you a favor.

My friends and I like to watch crappy movies every so often. Inspired by Mystery Science Theater and our knack for on the spot jokes; We set out to find movies worth watching that are in fact...not worth watching. However trouble comes into paradise when these movies can only be found if you buy them. And I am a firm believer in not giving one cent to such a group of talentless scumbags. So, as another reviewer has said, films like this are a reason why downloading movies for free should be legalized. I prefer the idea of; instead of straight to VIDEO you have straight to INTERNET. That way the ass-bags who made this travesty won't ever turn a profit. Which unfortunately you know they do. They hire a bunch of actors who can't act, special effects from a high school classroom, rubber snakes you can get at the dollar store, constant vomiting of green jell-o, and the two main characters who seem to switch between being border jumping Mexicans who only speak Spanish, to Arabs to being 100% fluent in English, random nudity, a guy being shot like 10 times including one to the side of the head and living and the most retarded ending in the history of film, book, cave drawings and hustler magazine. The fact that I actually predicted that the jell-o puking snake girl would actually TRANSFORM into a snake about half way through terrifies me...

Anyways, the movie is great to make fun of, but you have to make sure there's at least 4 of you and you're all spitting out jokes in rapid fire, because if there's even 1 second of watching this movie where you're not laughing your ass off, you will feel physically ill. I kid you not. My friends and I were eating chicken wings and now I can't even look at such a thing anymore without being reminded of this piece of Sh!t.

This film is one above Alien Vs. Hunter which is by far the second worst movie ever made. And I've seen lots of bad movies. Incidentally, it's the same production company as this film and that bald guy is in both as well. just thought you might like to know that little fun fact. -100 out 0f 10.


Snakes on a Train starts as Mexican couple Brujo (A.J. Castro) & Alma (Julia Ruiz) cross the boarder into the US, they then illegally board a seventeen hour train to Los Angeles. However Alma's family didn't approve of her & Brujo's relationship & placed an ancient black magic curse on her that turns all her insides into snakes, ain't life a b*tch? As the snakes pour out of Alma's mouth & slither away to other parts of the train they begin to infect the other passengers with the same unusual ailment...

Edited & directed by the Mallachi Brothers (although the IMDb claims it's just one guy using a pseudonym, Peter Mervis) one has to say that I thought Snakes on a Train was crap, it's as simple as that really. It seems the entire film was set-up & made to cash in on the Samuel L. Jackson cult flick Snakes on a Plane (2006) by every horror fans least favourite production company the Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget Hollywood flicks & that style of money & film-making is no more evident than here with Snakes on a Train, making a film just because the title rhymes with a more successful film is not a good starting point. The script by Eric Forsberg is rubbish, for a start Snakes on a Plane was great fun whereas Snakes on a Train is a lot more serious & when you actually break it down & look at it this should have been much more light hearted. In fact it probably would have worked better as an Scary Movie (2000) type spoof. You know something, I am struggling to find one positive thing to say about Snakes on a Train it's that bad. For a start the character's are rubbish & it's impossible to emote with anyone, the story is downright awful & makes no sense (if people spew all those small snakes up where did the huge ones come from? Why did Alma turn into the giant snake at the end? Why did Bujo kill the train driver? How was he going to stop the train once it reached Los Angeles? Where did that typhoon come from at the end?), it takes itself far too seriously, the first seventy odd minutes is so boring & uneventful I am surprised I stayed awake & it's just a very, very poor film on just about every level.

Director Mervis only has a few train carriage car sets which all look pretty much alike so the film becomes very repetitive & dull to watch. There's barely any blood or gore, there are some snakes borrowing under a few peoples skin, someone gets shot & that's about it. The special effects are rubbish too, the giant CGI snake at the end is truly awful & the least said about it the better. It's not scary, there's zero atmosphere & it's a bit of a bore from start to finish. The real live snakes are a problem too, they are just so docile & nonthreatening. If you look at any scene featuring a real snake & an actor the snakes never make any move towards them or act aggressively & in fact always appear to want to slither away in the opposite direction.

Shot in California technically the film is obviously low budget & it show's, basically it looks cheap because it is. The acting isn't great not that the actor's are given any sort of material to work with.

Snakes on a Train is rubbish, I am sorry but that's how I feel & I don't quite know how else to describe it. I really can't see what anyone would get out of watching Snakes on a Train, it really is that bad.


Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.

"Snakes On A Train", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster "Snakes On A Plane" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.

Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.

The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.

The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.

And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.


Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.

Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest

0/10


Looking back on the year 2006,one of the things i will remember most is the "Snakeamania" on the internet for a film called Snakes on a plane.But unknown to me there was a straight- to- DVD rip-off film called Snakes on a train!After seeing this i feel its at best a below-par B-Movie.

The plot:

A husband and wife get on a train to go to Los Angles,to get help form the husbands uncle who is a shaman.This is because the wife's family do not approve of her marring him,so they have put a curse on her that snakes will "become her".Thought with a sixteen hour drive to Los Angles and a group of passengers the include an ex-Narc cop and some drug traffickers.Will they get there in time before the snakes take her over?

View on the film: First the effects:I have to say that while some scenes with the smaller snakes look good in a gory-way,the main effect shots you have to wait eighty minutes to see!Are sadly that bad that they completely kill any good memories of the film(The film makes 198os Video Games look like T2 next to this!.)One of the things i noticed is that there is no screenplay credit on the film! and the directors make the film so anti-climatic it ruins the whole film. Final view on the film:

A below-par B-Movie,with an unbelievably bad ending.


Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film Getting Eaten By A Bunch Of Snakes Is More Entertaining Than This Film


Overall, this is a pretty bad film. But for $5 at PathMark, it wasn't a total waste.

The whole scenario has to do with a guy who is with this lady infected with snakes, supposedly from a magic curse. The actors/actresses aren't names that are big (even though some look like from TV shows), so I won't do my usual Troy McClure thing.

For awhile, the film holds your interest as the couple hop a train and travel to L.A. to see a shaman to undo the curse. There's a bit of other plots going on too; like two ladies smuggling drugs.

But the last 20 minutes turn out to be a total let down. As violent and gory as the whole film is, the grand finale is just totally computer animated.

I saw the unrated version which had tons of language, gore, blood, violence, everything! The bonus features were OK.

Overall Grade: D-


very straight - not happy with the movie.

The main center of the movie is the story where the lady is the mother of all the snacks and all the things.

If they can more explain that how this is happening and all the stuff then it was quite a fun and more rating for this movie.

The end was very short and sudden, till now actor of the movie was to save her then at last he told sorry !! now we are late. OH !! crap.

what was the story , and how this all this thing happen, I think they can put all these stuffs. So the end user like us will be satisfied that yes we are happy with the movie.

any way , but nice idea and nice try so I will say 4 or max 4.5.


Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.

After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.

"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train." - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day)


Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.


I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.

There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered.

Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more.

Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you


"SHUT THE FRONT DOOR" That's what I said when I was told that Blockbuster got a new movie in called Snakes on a Train. Okay, maybe that's not exactly what I said, but you get the point. I didn't need to know who was in the movie, or anything else. All I knew was that I am renting this movie.

I probably should have asked what it was about though. In retrospect, I don't know if I would have really wanted to watch a movie about a Mayan curse that causes a woman to give internal birth to snakes and have them spit out of her mouth. Nor would I want to see a movie that features a guy who looks strangely enough like a pedophilic version of Leif Garrett.

Anyways, while the curse might be interesting on some levels (well, maybe not), there was still promise of these annoying characters getting eaten or at the very least, killed by snakes. So I was willing to sit through the first hour of very little happening other than a Texas Ranger forcing a girl into a nice little titty grope so she can keep her cocaine, or the Hispanic shaman that likes to occasionally stab people. But then, all hell broke loose, and the girl started to spit out more and more snakes.

*SPOILER ALERT* So everything's going well at the end, and I'm willing to overlook the fact that some of these snakes all of the sudden turned out to be 25 feet long. After all, people are getting eaten, so it's all good. But then all of the sudden, and I'm not going to tell you how because that would ruin the best part, one of the snakes is about 300 feet long. Then it proceeds to squeeze and devour the train, with all the graphic artistry of Serpentaur from the old GI Joe cartoons. Unfortunately, I could not make a Nemesis Enforcer connection with this movie. Anyways, so you would think that a snake that big, who ate a train, would be pretty unstoppable. Well not if you know your Mayan voodoo rocks and have the ability to summon tornadoes from heaven. Yeah, that's all I'll say about that.

In short, this movie is bad. Really bad to the point where you might be numb after watching this, or your brain might hurt. I didn't give this a one, because no matter how stupid it was, it still wasn't as bad as Date Movie. So if you like camp or badly constructed B horror movies, this is the one for you. If you think this will actually be cool like its bigger, more infamous brethren, just walk away from the box if you see it. And I'll leave you with a quote from the movie that should basically sum it all up.

"Snakes can't get on a train!" Because that's just silly. Not like they make stops or anything....


This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his "weed" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.

The credits actually say at the end "Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and/or taking a plane". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is "Yeah, I HATE planes!" The credits go on to say "No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool." There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!

the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs.


Last week on Friday, I went to see "Snakes on a Plane" with my friends. It was amazing compared to this horrible film (however, many of the scenes were ridiculously hilarious). Basically, some woman has a Mayan curse where she pukes up harmless harmless garter snakes that, instead of attacking, crawl inside of they're victims. The girl with the bag of coke is pretty hot. On the title screen it says "100 Passengers... 3,000 Venemous Vipers!" Scary, I know. There weren't even 100 passengers on the train. Only a couple of stoners and some other washed out losers. It's worth the five bucks to see the woman turn into a huge CG snake and devour the whole train then get sucked into a huge vortex though. It's just sad that someone would go to such lengths to make a crap film, only to make a few bucks because of the "Snakes on a Plane" craze.


I picked this DVD up for 3.99 at rogers video in order to get enough points to get a better movie for free. I never actually was planning on watching this but it started poking at my curiosity and i finally decided to pop in it the DVD player. The effects in this movie are horrible and cheap. Some of the dialog in this movie sounds like it was written by a swear happy 12 year old boy. The acting is really cheesy in some parts, and the "action" scenes are completely laughable. You'll burst out laughing at some parts which was a positive for me because it kept me mildly entertained. The plot is some girl has a curse on her which causes her to vomit snakes so some shaman has to get her to Los Angeles, there are also two girls trying to smuggle drugs there and a few other people that are unimportant to the plot, not that there really is a plot at all.Don't expect anything from this movie and don't listen to the cover, there are not 100 passengers and 3,000 vipers, there are 10 passengers and 20 random snakes.

As for the DVD, there is a trailer which is almost as laughable as the film, a blooper reel which is just one shot over and over of one actor trying to say train, and the deleted scenes are really pointless, if they weren't good enough to stay in this movie they must be pretty bad. There is also a really bad making of featurette which doesn't really show much at all except that the people involved with this movie were kind of idiots. I can't recommend it unless you want a really bad movie that you can laugh at with friends. I give it 2 kitty cats out of 5.


This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!


Just Desserts was, I must say, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and even the plot line was laughable. I gave it a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1 because I enjoy laughing at excruciatingly corny movies. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but it turned out to be cornier than I expected. I thought it might not be all that bad when it started, but as soon as the name of the competition--The Golden Whisk--came up i began changing my mind. It all went downhill from there. The only thing I did like about this movie, other than snickering at it's absurd plot and dialogue, was watching them cook. However, being a movie about pastry chefs, there were minimal scenes in which they actually baked anything. I would recommend watching the cooking channel instead of this movie. You get to see more food being prepared, and you dodge the pathetic one-liners. However, if you enjoy corny love stories, which is sometimes fun, go ahead and watch.


This Spaghetti Western uses three American lead actors which takes away a little of the typical spaghetti aura. The plot is about an amnesty that the governor of New Mexico gives to all willing criminals to provide them a chance to start a new life. Usually this kind of opportunity is limited to past events but in this film it seems more like a licence to kill because even new crimes (like e.g. threatening the governor) are forgiven. The story is an endless chain of killings where nearly every character has only the purpose to deliver more carcasses. Only the few leads have stamina. Clay McCord is haunted by nightmares related to a childhood event where unsurprisingly he killed a lot of people. In the middle of the everlasting mayhem this kind of reflections lack credibility. Compared with similar films like e.g. BANDIDOS none of the characters in this film was likable for me.

Apart of the weak content which targets certain customers this film is well shot, sets are somewhat detailed and the acting is average.

4 / 10.


I saw this movie over 20 years ago and had rather fond memories of it. Catching again on Cinemax this month, I realized how little discernment I had about films back then. This is an utterly ordinary spaghetti western, with absolutely nothing noteworthy about it. Script, direction, acting, photography are all a big blah. Stick with the Sergio Leone westerns!


I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.

Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html


Watchable but pretty terrible. How shocking that this was the great Gregory La Cava's last directing credit! Even in his better known roles, I don't care for Gene Kelly. He seems to me to be smug, hostile, and self-involved. Here, paired with a minor actress like Marie Wilson, he seems to show those characteristics in spades.

Marie Wilson, playing an heiress who falls for a military man, is exceptionally hard and unsympathetic. The actors seem to be working hard to get past the hard, disagreeable core of the picture and they do OK.

The know-it-all butler is apparently meant to be funny but he seems like an extended riff on the prissy bits for which Franklin Pangborn was famous (and in which, despite their stereotyping, he was generally funny -- unlike this guy.) Phyllis Thaxter is as always very appealing in a rather underdeveloped secondary plot.


The Greek locale for parts of the movie were very beautiful and the photography get all my votes and that's about the extent of my raves for this movie. I found that all the characters were narcissistic archetypes found so often in the American culture and were shallow and uninteresting. Susan Sarandon and Gena Rowlands are easy to look at but I found their characters very narcissistic and unlikeable for many other reasons. When Gena Rowlands sings at a party it made me wonder how this woman could think of herself as a competent star of the stage. I was tempted to hit the MUTE button until she finished singing. Molly Ringwald was herself and Raul Julia's character was so lecherous he was downright creepy. The movie was much too long for my liking and I could not sit through it again even at the point of a gun.


Paul Mazursky misfires on this film. The writing, direction, casting, and acting (with the exception of Victorio Gassman) are all off the mark. I remember the reviews from 20+ years ago being mediocre, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to view. With notables such as Susan Sarandon, Raul Julia (who overacts in most of his scenes) and John Cassavetes, I understandably expected much more. The music picked for the film is jarring, the cuts between New York and Greece confusing, and the overall pace all leave much to be desired. Why Paul Mazursky felt the need to update this story, or add his touch to it is puzzling - this retelling of Prospero and his daughter takes very little of import from the play, and adds not much more. The play is not one of Shakespeare's best anyway, and to gut it even further seems not to be a good decision. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend in this film.


Tempest is based on the classic Shakespearean work of the same name, but bears little resemblance to its source material.

It masquerades as being as cerebral as its namesake, but instead is a jumbled, convoluted, and hackneyed exercise in tedium. The original probed the premise that people have an evil side, which would be destructive if unchecked. Here you just get an uninteresting mid life crisis (yawn) goof ball who is having everything go wrong in his personal and professional life. He becomes endowed with a supernatural power that he uses to try to control his environment; in other words: to get his own way.

Every few minutes, after something else in his pathetic life goes wrong, he finds a secluded place and starts babbling "Show me the magic!" while waving his hands around and making a "serious concentration" expression. From the way these scenes are shot, it looks like he's trying to turn bugs into other kinds of bugs. Turning a spider into a cockroach, maybe, but by this time, you really don't care.

The story has him bolt from his life with his daughter to a Greek island somewhere, then have a awkward relationship with some girl he meets, one of the dullest romances ever committed to film. The story just bogs down and moves at a slower and slower pace. You are never given any reason to like or dislike anyone.

I'll give this a 2 because of the beautiful Greek location shots and the semi-optimistic conclusion (although it isn't clear if the tempest power brought this ending about or not). The spirit of Shakespeare's work has been captured much better in other movies; one notable example is "Forbidden Planet," which gave credence to how the power gets out of control.

As for this "Tempest", its only magic is to cure insomnia.


this 2.5 hour diluted snore-fest appears to be one of the poorest excuses for an adaptation, ever. clearly possessing a budget allowing for breathtaking location shooting in greece, the monies might have been better spent working out a cohesive script with character development and motivations clearly outlined; especially since bill has gone through the trouble of doing this already. the portrayals lacked passion & direction, leaving the viewer debating whether they should bother to care about the demise of the protagonists at all. which brings out another point-the main character of the original work, prospero, is not so named in this rendition despite the fact that most other characters' names are used. enchantment and magic are also markedly absent from this particular piece. in fact, all aspects that made the stage version of 'the tempest' full of wonder and intrigue have been sucked completely from this convoluted version about a self-absorbed, pompous arse who can't figure out how to care about anything beyond the blur of his wealth and power. over all, a lackluster effort at best and a brutally poor imitation of the intended inspiration.