Tagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.

I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.

All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.

And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?

But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.

I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.

I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.

I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.

Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.


the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous


I have never really been interested in cannibal movies before and up until a couple of months ago i had avoided this genre of movie.

I recently had to undergo knee surgery and found i had a lot of time on my hands as i was unable to work, so i decided after seeing almost every horror movie our local video shop had to offer i would take a chance on this.

Christ was it a mistake! I have never seen a movie this bad in all my years of being a movie addict. This is just a pile of s**t pasted to a D.V.D disc and sold as a horror movie.

I have a lot of respect to other horror fans who can switch their brains off long enough to enjoy this crap, They are more brain dead than i ever will be and that is some achievement! 0/10 and thats generous.


Flipping through the TV and saw that The Secret Life of was on; gave George Duran a shot at being the host. I know that Jim O'Connor was very energetic and that nobody could be as much as him, but George was well dull. He really didn't seem to want to be hosting; his voice-overs were monotonous, didn't get involved with the guests. It seemed like he was interviewing guests for Unwrapped, and he just happened to be in the shot. I don't know if George is going to get "better" hosting this show, I doubt it because he has hosted his own show now. The show did seem to pack more info in, but only because we saw less of the host. The formula of this show was very delicate, and I fear it has now been disrupted for good.


Lord, this sucked. There's a particular sort of sexual revolution flick from the 60s that manages to confuse sexual assault with sexual liberation. This film is an example. I lost track of how many times women are slapped, hit, whipped, or spanked in the film. And then there are all the times that women in the film fantasize about being slapped, hit, whipped or spanked (you know they want it, right?). Sometimes it is ostensibly part of safe fetish play-acting. Other times it plainly isn't, but you will wait in vain to see the heroine report to authorities that she has just been raped. Instead we get to hear her being lectured by her rapist about her inability to "let go".

Every scene of this film reeks of misogyny (speaking as a straight, white, married man in his late 30's, not a teenage lesbian women's studies major with a chip on her shoulder, lest you get the wrong idea).

Perhaps the one good thing about this film is that it provides a stark reminder of just how bad things really were for women only a few short decades ago.


I decided to watch this ultra-low budget film from the "Poverty Row" studio, PRC, because it co-starred the exciting character actor, Lionel Atwillplus I really liked the title. Even though Atwill often played in these cheap movies, his excellent style of acting always made the films seem a lot better, as his screen persona was great (his real life is also quite interestingsort of like a bizarre soap opera). The reason I use the term "Poverty Row" is that this was a nickname given to the very cheapest and worst production companies of the era. Many of these weren't even real studios, but production companies that rented space and sets from the major studios at night! Yes, there is a good chance this was filmed after normal working hoursa common thing for such studios.

The story begins with Lionel Atwill telling his friends a story about something that he was involved with years ago. A doctor falls in love with a lady but he's afraid to tell her about himself. That's because his job is putting people to death on Death Rownot exactly a glamor job! The Doc asks his friend (Atwill) for advice on how to break it to her, but regardless she won't have the man. Later, you realize it's because her own parents were criminals.

Later, a man is killed and the lady is implicatedthough it's obvious to anyone with a brain that her sister was involved (and is a bit of a nut) and the evidence against the lady was poor. But, apparently the jury was filled with brainless people and she was convicted and sent to Death Row. Even more brainless is that her old boyfriend was the man who was responsible for her execution. Don't you think someone else might just be able to handle this case?! Until this fateful hour, her friend (Atwill) spends much of the film trying to prove her innocenceand prove that the flaky sister knows far more about the case than she'll admit.

Overall, the movie is only mildly interesting and a bit silly. While it is watchable and Atwill is good (as usual), the rest of the film never really rises above the mundane and some of the acting is pretty shabby. It's sub-par and about what you'd expect from such a low-budget flickand nothing more despite the cool title.


Finally, I can connect the dots between Return of the Jedi and Phantom Menace. We see here where Lucas lost touch with what made the original Star Wars films great and began to descend into the plot less tripe that ruined episodes 1-3. This film is more like one of those cheesy low-budget 80s swords and sorcerer films than anything worthy of being associated with the Star Wars saga. As with the Jar-Jar character, this seems targeted at children (and the toy market). The battle scenes are particularly bad. It was depressing to see Sian Phillips' incredible talent go to such a waste, after her classic performance in I, Claudius.


What a stupid idea. Ewoks should be enslaved and tortured. Utterly useless as a species... Fine you want ten lines of text regarding my unending hatred of Ewoks? Fine, here it is, fool. First of all, they are an inferior race that would be slaughtered en mass had Lucas not pussified the entire series with their foul presence. They're little bears with large asses, and they probably smell like donkey crotch. Yeah, I said it, donkey crotch. They have little to no technology whatsoever, resorting to using sticks as makeshift weapons. I'm surprised they even had access to fire. Their guttural language makes my skin crawl. Can't...suppress...anti-Ewok...RAGE! AHHH!!!


I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.

I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.

The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.

The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.

Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.

No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.


This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.


What the hell is this!? That was my first reaction to this film (actually, my first reaction contained more swearing). This isn't Star Wars! Star Wars is space battles, this movie has none. Star Wars is the Force, this movie only has a retarded witch with a magic ring. Star Wars is lightsaber battles, this movie hasn't got any battle worth mentioning. Star Wars is humor, this movie isn't. Star Wars is a galaxy far, far away, this movie has HORSES in it!!! Besides all of this, how did Lucas get the insane idea to let a five year old baby do the leading role !? Big, big disappointment. Do you like Star Wars? Don't watch this! 1 out of 10


Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.

The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!

But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.


What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations


In short, this movie is a declaration of artistic bankruptcy.

Almodovar is easily the most important European film maker of the 80s and 90s. No other living director has shaped the style and contents of present-day European cinema more than him. It is therefore not easy to say that his latest effort is not just another disappointment after two lackluster films, but rather a complete and total disaster confirming that he has run out of ideas, out of humour and, worst of all, empathy for the characters he creates.

That is not due to the complexity of the story. All Almodovar films are almost impossible to summarize. This time, in fact, it's rather easy if you are familiar with his earlier work. "Broken Embraces" is a remake of "Law of Desire", only this time the director is straight and the jealous jilted lover is a millionaire.

For those of you not familiar with that film, I'm doing a summary. If you don't want to know too much, please skip this paragraph. A blind man, who used to be a famous movie director, seduces a sexy buxom woman reading a paper to him after a chance street encounter (yes, really, that's how it starts). Just then he gets a visit by his agent and best friend. He mentions to her that he has learned from the paper that a certain millionaire has died, which takes the story 14 years back. He can still see and is about to direct his next film. He stars the inexperienced mistress of the said millionaire as the lead, as he is instantly smitten with her. The millionaire discovers their affair via silent videos made by his gay son, which he has lip-synched by an interpreter (a few great scenes: Cecilia Roth). After violent quarrels, the mistress escapes with the director to a seaside resort where he learns that the millionaire, who produced the film, had it released in the worst possible edit, destroying the director's reputation. The couple decides to return, but has an accident in which the director turns blind and the would-be actress dies. Back in the present, he learns that his agent has preserved the film's negatives and starts to reconstruct it.

As in "Bad Education", there are various sub plots to beef up this rather thin story, and as in "Bad Education", the result is more confusing than satisfactory. For instance, the agent's son, who works as a DJ, has an accidental drug overdose - which is completely unnecessary for the plot, and also interpreted rather badly.

Mostly, however, the actors are not to blame, but the way their characters are written. Blanca Portilla as the agent has so many skeletons in her closet that not even a brilliant performance can save the character from ridicule. Lluis Homar is an old man's dream of a protagonist, living in an artificial world where an English alias and a few sweet words can seduce any super model. And Penelope Cruz is the embodiment of this old man's sexual fantasy. Her character is completely lifeless. It remains thoroughly incomprehensible why she would go from one old man, who at least helped her family, to a slightly less old man, who isn't charming enough to convince as either a romantic hero or a passion fuse.

But all these shortcomings wouldn't make this film so awful. However, Almodovar does the worst possible thing of a director (or any type of storyteller) running out of ideas: he quotes himself, something he has increasingly done, and to very little benefit. The film-within-the-film, which "Broken Embraces" uses as a plot-driving device, is actually "Women at the verge of a nervous breakdown" (1988), only this time it is called "Chicks and Suitcases". This rather unimaginative title may give you a hint how this beloved classic is treated here: while the dialog making up the final ten minutes of "Broken Embraces" is a frantic, over-the-top exchange of screwball one-liners in the original film, here it is a stern, colorless, pesky business encounter.

In conclusion, this is the D.O.A. brainchild of an exhausted creator of past marvels, pretty much as awful and disappointing as the last Indiana Jones feature. Maybe not so many people would agree with that, because Almodovar used to be such a genius. I'd rather offer my respect to his accomplishments by humbly asking the reader to watch "All about my mother", or "Tie me up", or "High Heels", or "Matador", all of which bear witness to Almodovar's unique and unmatched talent. A few more film like this, and his legacy may very well be destroyed for good.


I've never been a huge fan of Almodovar, but, generally, I've always found something to enjoy in his films. Unfortunately, I had more trouble finding something to enjoy in Broken Embraces then I would normally think I would.

I find the biggest failure in Broken Embraces to be the characters and the lack of depth they display. The film is essentially a love story, one that is tragic, and one that wants to involve the viewer in their stories. I found this problematic from the beginning.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in as the woman bashfully leaves.

In the opening scene, our 'hero' the director/screenwriter, Mateo, is having sex with a very attractive young woman whom he just met. His agent comes in, and rolls her eyes, as the woman bashfully leaves. Mateo babbles something about needing to enjoy life as the only thing he has left. Having been blinded in a tragic car accident that also killed his 'true' love Lena, played by Penelope Cruz, the viewer might buy into to this notion except the rest of the film really never illustrates why Lena was the love of his life or any depth to his character or any other.

Cruz plays Lena the mistress to an industrialist named Ernesto Martel. From the outset, their union is rather a pathetic one, as Martel clutches jealousy to Lena, and Lena avoids uncertainty of being on her own by staying with the much older Martel. To skip ahead, Martel finances a film for Mateo so he can keep tabs on the star of the film, Lena. Naturally, without any back story, Lena and Mateo fall in love. And, in Almodovar's world it really is that simple. Mateo, in the opening scene, has sex with a sexy young woman, now Mateo falls in love with Lena, later it's revealed he had a son with his agent after their love affair. Her son responds to this information with a laugh and an, "Oh, well." Again, no depth, no understanding for any of these characters, it all just happens. From the beginning of the film to the end, I got no depth of emotion from Mateo. He is flat, and doesn't act much different from one scene to the next.

The one scene I did enjoy was when film producer, Martel, is watching video footage his son recorded under the guise of doing a documentary of Mateo. There are nice a moment of Martel watching obsessively as a lip reading confirms his worst fears. Later, Lena confronts Martel as he's watching the footage and speaks her part out loud matching the video footage of her lips as she talks. Some quite brilliant moments. Rather contrived, but still really fascinating.

Unfortunately, for me, the rest of the film left me rather bored. I couldn't care about these characters or their situations, so no amount of cleverness on Almodovar's part can make up for this lack of depth. I think if you're a fan of his work you'll enjoy this movie, but if you're like me, in between, then you'll find it lacking.


Roy Rogers (as Roy) and sidekick Raymond Hatton (as Rusty) join Teddy Roosevelt's "Rough Riders". Soon, they get suspended in order to "Round-up" the killer of partner Eddie Acuff (as Tommy) along the Mexican-U.S. border; they discover creepy gold runners in the process. Notice how, even suspended, Mr. Rogers is able to get the Rough Riders to join in his Round-up!

This is not one of the better Roy Rogers westerns. The fighting scenes look like choreographed dances. Rogers sings/yodels "Ridin' Down the Trail", one of two relatively ordinary songs; and, a stand-out moment, overall.

** Rough Riders' Round-up (3/13/39) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, Raymond Hatton, Lynne Roberts


A giant praying mantis is awakened from its sleep in the artic region and heads south causing havoc. Boats, planes and trains meet their match with the flying creature. Before unleashing its full wrath on NYC, the mantis meets its doom at the hands of the armed forces in a New York tunnel. The special effects are of course crude by todays standards, but for a ten year old boy in 1957 this was very memorable.

Starring are William Hopper, Craig Stevens, Alix Talton and Pat Conway.


Something strange is happening in remote areas of the Arctic. An Air Force weather station is found wrecked, its occupants missing. An Eskimo village is destroyed. A fishing vessel disappears. Curious spoors are found in the snow. A four-foot piece of a living organism is found near a destroyed airplane. The piece looks like half of the claw of a giant Alaskan crab. The military (Craig Stevens as an Air Force officer) and its experts are baffled. A distinguished scientist (William Hopper) and his pretty assistant (Alix Taltan) are called in from New York. Hopper deduces from this flimsy evidence that they are dealing with a monstrous praying mantis. He's right. The pretty assistant happens to look out the window of the office and sees the hideous face with its bulging eyeballs staring in at her. She drops what she's carrying, claps her hands to her cheeks, and screams in horror.

The mantis begins flying South along the Gulf Stream, pausing now and again to attack major population centers like Washington and New York to overturn buses and eat people. Military weapons don't affect it much but finally Stevens crashes into it in his jet fighter and mortally damages the beast, which comes to earth and occupies the "Manhattan Tunnel" linking New York and New Jersey.

Stevens, having survived the collision, leads his team into the tunnel and kills the big bug with "3RG mines" despite its fierce appearance, threatening behavior, and earth-shattering roars. Stevens and Taltan kiss in front of the body while Hopper chuckles and takes their picture.

Ho hum.

Like the deadly mantis itself, the formula by this time was panting and gasping for air, flopping around, seeking as its prey not human beings but anything at all in the way of a fresh or original idea. As it is, they overlooked one cliché. Hopper should have hurriedly had to invent a Super Duper DDT that, alone, could defeat the insect. That's what the 3RG mines should have been filled with, rather than ordinary explosive.

The model work is pretty good, considering what the budget must have been. Not much money could have been spent on anything else because everything else is pretty routine. Craig Stevens is bland, a face and style made for a TV series. William Hopper looks right -- tall and silver haired -- but his instrument has only one note. The pretty assistant is rather plain, considering her role. The part calls for Joan Weldon or Laurie Nelson. They couldn't act either but carried with them slight but distinct intimations of molestibility. Anything would have helped this fagged-out movie.

I wish the deadly mantis hadn't roared so loudly and so often because you can't roar -- you can't even whisper -- if you don't have lungs. I didn't mind, though, when the monster met its demise in the tunnel. A praying mantis is a graceful insect in its own spindly way and it's great to have them in the garden because they eat caterpillars and whatnot. But when you get right down to it, they aren't really very appealing. The male mantis is smaller and weaker than the female, as in humans, and when the couple are just about through copulating, the female bites the head off the male, also as in humans. But at least human males know when to stop. The male mantis keeps on copulating for several minutes even though he is now without a head. We humans don't have mindless males copulating with goal-driven females. Do we?


This movie starts by showing you a map and then explaining radar and it is quite awhile before you ever see the deadly mantis. Probably a better movie in the 50's this dated piece is a bit to slow moving and the pay off in the end isn't very good. Though it has its moments like when the guy from Perry Mason argues with an old man and when he says "I have narrowed the possibilities to one" excuse me, but when you narrow something down you have a couple or more possibilities not one...if you get it down to one you haven't narrowed it down, but you have in fact figured out what it is. The monster is standard 50's sci-fi fair, better than say the grasshoppers in the Beginning of the End. Acting is sub-par and the heroine is the most unattractive...in fact in some shots she does look like a guy in drag. You see plenty of fighter plane stock footage and other things, but you won't see much at all of the deadly mantis.


Other commenters have described this movie as "classic 1950s SciFi" with clever use of stock footage and documentary footage, and clever character interaction.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Yes, this is classic 1950s SciFi...but 1950s SciFi at its most blindingly stupid worst.

Consider that the Mantis's first prey is a radar station shown first from the air, then on the ground... but the station is (from the air) pictured as on a mountaintop, with snow on one side and semi-cleared dark ground on the other side, but when (on the ground) investigators visit the site, it's suddenly on a flat, evenly white plain, miles from the nearest mountain.

Consider also, the ludicrous pseudo-scientific babble of the highly-recommended expert who is brought in to examine a huge claw. He says "Well, we know one thing... it can't have come from an animal, because every known species of animal has a bony skeleton. Even reptiles and birds have bones." He then goes on to say that some creatures ...snails, shellfish, insects... do not have bony skeletons. Excuuuuuse me ? Let's define "animal", here. Not even in the 1950s could anyone over the age of six take this man as an expert in biology, since he clearly doesn't know what an "animal" is, nor have the ability to name several broad categories of animals who lack bony skeletons (sharks, rays, jellyfish, insects, mollusks, arthropods, gastropods, sponges, arachnids, echinoderms....you get the idea.) The characters are cardboard, 2D stock types... scientist, sidekick girlfriend, big bad monster. Nothing here shows any sense of creativity. No pulse, no life signs.

There're no witty dialogs, the special effects are silly even for their time, and the stock footage is employed with a reckless disregard for continuity. This is B-movie making at its dead worst, with a production crew that clearly couldn't be bothered to try even halfheartedly.

Use sparingly, as sleeping medicine or punishment for small children who're easily offended by bad science.


THE DEADLY MANTIS certainly won't scare any one, but as sci-fi programmers go it is better than most. A volcanic eruption at the south pole thaws out a giant, prehistoric preying mantis at the north pole. Military men go missing. Dr. Ned (William Hopper--Hedda Hopper's son and best known as Paul Drake on television's PERRY MASON) is called in to i.d. the creature--but by this time the creature has eaten up several Eskimo and is en route to the Washington Monument.

About a third or more of the film consists of stock footage: old government educational films, military men in radar rooms, air planes--and would you believe Eskimos putting out to sea? Which explains, of course, why a tribe of Eskimo is attacked in the movie. ("Hey, Guys! Think we can work this in?") Mix in some negligible special effects, some clunky dialogue, and some sexist attitudes and you're good to go. Not as original as THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, but fans of 1950s "big bug" schlock will enjoy it--and the kids will have a good time throwing popcorn at the screen.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I got hold of a discount copy of this. I had seen it several years ago. My only recent experience had been "Mystery Science Theatre" where it was soundly spoofed. One never really gets a chance to get into these movies because of all the byplay. I love the beginnings of fifties horror movies. They give us a pompous lecture on the defense systems near the Arctic. These were there to protect us from the expected Soviet invasion, but they should come in handy, given the threat of very large insects.

This particular one flies. For some reason, despite its exoskeleton made of the stuff grasshoppers are made of, they can still fend off air to air missiles and disable fighter planes.

Anyway, it's more fun--first, the obligatory deranged case who saw the flying thing, cooling his heels in a hospital (it just teaches one--see an insect as big as a house--keep your mouth shut). I wonder if the poor guy got to go home after they found the bug.

Otherwise, this is a pretty ordinary effort. It follows the usual efforts to come up with a way of dissuading the stubborn bug--and leaves us open to other possibilities--the Russians next time. I still get a kick out of these films and this one is serviceable.


So you're a giant mantis and you've been hanging out in the arctic for a while, and you're tired of Eskimos hitting you with snowballs. What's a giant mutant insect to do? Head for the big city, of course! See the sights, maybe catch a show on Broadway. But wait! Just when you find a nice cozy tunnel to call your own, some pesky humans start attacking you!! Argh! Time to smash!

Anyhow this movie is one step up on most other giant bug movies, because it has pretty decent FX for 1957. But that's about it. Avoid unless you really need to see another big bug smash things, or see another Perry Mason actor in a B movie.

4/10


Thirty per cent of this movie appears to be the prototype for the Map Channel. You see a giant map for about ten minutes, then they unleash the stock footage big time while droning(droning, get it?)on about radar. Apparently there's a lot of radar stations in the far north, protecting North America's borders from attacks by deadly polar bears. The bears never show up, but a giant Mantis does. It was frozen in the ice for over a million years or so, until it was released by an earthquake somewhere else in the world(yeah, right. For my money, it was released by global warming). It is a huge prehistoric insect, and it needs lots of food. Since there aren't any cows in the frozen north, it decides to feast on the most bovine-like creatures it can find up there. I.E., human beings. It starts attacking radar stations, probably because the humming from the radar dishes was getting on its nerves.

Enter Col. Joe Parkman, the resident smarmy guy of the film. He's investigating a plane that went down, and is puzzled why there are no bodies in the wreckage. The only thing he finds is one of the claws of the Mantis. Apparently it decided to trim its nails while it was snacking on the plane's crew. Parkman takes the claw tip back with him to be analyzed by a thousand year old scientist.

Grandpa scientist can't make heads or tails of the claw, mostly because he's missed his naps so his mind isn't functioning too well. So he calls in a smug paleontologist played by the guy who was the P.I. in Perry Mason. He and his friend, a transvestite photographer, fly north because he's decided that the claw must have come from a Praying Mantis. Just one the size of a commuter train.

It's Luke warm love at first sight when Col.Parkman first sets eyes on the she-male photographer. The men at the base, obviously having been deprived for many years, think she's the hottest thing to come along since Granny Clampett. Smug science guy and smarmy soldier guy start working together to track the path of the Mantis, which has devastated some stock footage of an Eskimo village. It comes to the base looking for an after dinner snack, and crushes some cheap sets quite effectively. Then it flies south and disappears.

Now comes the tense hours when the civilian ground observer core are called on to sweep the skies looking for anything large flying overhead. I doubt that in reality they would have been told that they were looking for a giant flying mantis that eats human beings, since that would haver caused a panic. Probably they were told to look for a giant 727 that was painted green and hummed because its engine was out of tune.

Col. Parkman goes up in a plane to try to shoot the Mantis down, and botches the mission. The Mantis lands in New York City, probably because it wanted to take in a show on Broadway or visit Sex World in Times Square. The army corners it in the Tunnel, and Parkman and his men don stupid suits that they borrowed from the Orkin Man to go in and try to blow the Mantis up. Success! Well, almost, since the Mantis is still twitching enough that it almost kills the mannish Eve Arden photographer lady. There's a tepid love scene at the end, and the paleontologist takes a picture of the dead mantis because Colonel Hair Grease and Ms. Gender Unspecified are busy smooching. So kind of a nauseating ending.


Watching this film made me wonder, just why was Universal putting out films like this? They had a wonderful string of films with all the classic horror films. The dawning of the atomic age brought on an onslaught of giant creature films. Spiders, ants, praying mantis'. With The Deadly Mantis, we have a giant praying mantis flying around the arctic, scaring eskimos, and being hounded by the armed forces. The bug reaches a tunnel in New York where the soldiers eventually destroy it. Of course, this is all made much more watchable by viewing it on MST. Who thought it was a good idea to start the film out by showing a giant map?


And I am afraid that I cannot imagine why. It really is a genuinely dire and exceptionally boring film. In some ways it is reminiscent of early science fiction when every set had been knocked up on a Hollywood back lot out of whatever was lying around. From the minuscule and unconvincing set (snipers seem to be about ten meters away) apparently made of plaster, to the actors who are also apparently made of plaster with "amusing" stereotypes painted thinly on top, to the oddly warm pool in a frozen cave, to the survival of the cast uninjured when medium artillery shells burst a few meters away on open ground, and finally the awful script that reads like a training manual more than a film.... I really cannot say how dull this is. Even the opportunity to see whether the young James Dean survived wasn't enough to keep me watching for more than an hour. This really is one to be avoided at ALL costs.


I don't think the number of blunders militarily and strategically contained in this turkey can be beaten. Everything in this mess was done on the cheap and made soldiers look really stupid. Examples: at the start the 2-star General is given strategic advice by a Lieutenant and accepts it unquestionably. The map used by the Lt. shows enemy positions but they apparently have only a single narrow valley to use in advancing on the battalion (even though the map showed a dozen more). The rear guard takes up position from which they are clearly spotted by the enemy and exposed. They pound our heroes from high ground but this superior fire power makes little difference. An single enemy tank advances near the end (at the beginning referred to as armored division), proceeded by a solitary infantry point (!) who moves extremely slowly without cover scouting the area, then waives the tank on when he deems it save to proceed - a most bizarre scene. The soldiers take cover in a cave. All around them is ice and deep snow but in the cave not a yard from the entrance is a deep puddle through which they all wade repeatedly - their feet would last mere minutes before they freeze off. Later the survivors wade pathetically slowly and chest high through a river to return to their unit. Remember it is deep winter and the ground is frozen. Yeah right!

And on and on it goes. They yell commands to positions on higher ground, they lay mines near their own position and warn each other not to trample on them (!) At the start, credit is given to some soldier who had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Was he blind, or did Director Fuller just ignore him?Truly the most inept soldiers I've ever seen.

One of them pokes around in his own wounded leg with a bayonet and eventually pulls out a piece of shrapnel, without a wince or a moan. He announces that that should qualify him as a surgeon. Now that was funny.


Although my exposure to world cultures is limited, I do try. This was a film that I tried and hated. Worst of all, after hearing so many people decry the shallowness of typical Hollywood fare and its stereotypical caricatures, I saw characters too outrageous for "Eastenders" being paraded as realistic.

Clint wants out of the drug life and to do this he aspires to be a waiter. Aim high, I always say. Brad Dorif, or a faxed photo of him, or quite possibly a curly wig on a stick, it was hard to tell, offers to hire Clint if he gets a pair of shoes.

Clint, and a huge entourage, apparently wander the whole of England trying to get him some shoes. Eventually, they end up at a suburban home. Whose isn't clear. Mum helps a girl shoot up. Oh, now THERE'S some realism for you! Mrs. Brady may have been a ridiculous stereotype of American housewives, but she never helped Marsha tie off and find a vein. Good God! Dad comes home and sings some Elvis tunes and then chases the kids away.

Why didn't Clint borrow some money and buy shoes at a second hand store? Why didn't he go to a church and ask a kindly nun for some help? Why didn't he hang out in front of a shoe store and panhandle? I just don't know! None of these things seemed to be beneath him. Benevolent groups, like Goodwill and the Salvation Army have stores to help people. I know people who work there! If someone with no money showed up and needed shoes, the staff would give the person some shoes. Maybe not Prada or Gucci, but some form of foot covering. Not many of these groups hand out cell phones to the underprivileged, but shoes are usually no problem. What a dumb concept. The world, or at least the western part of it, simply isn't that cruel. In England, maybe it's from "The Queen's Royal Charity" rather than Goodwill, but people who need shoes do get them.

Aside from the quest for shoes, there was no discernable plot to get in the way of the action. Not that it made the movie any quicker or more bearable, mind you. Despite checking the tape jacket several times, I was not watching the 20-hour extended version, it only seemed that way.

Did Clint get his shoes? Did the cardboard cutout of Brad Dourif hire him at the restaurant? Did I ever watch anything else foreign ever again?

[spoiler] Yes, yes, and yes.

As for the fate of this particular film, I decided to end it all. I took out my S&W .45 and shot a half-inch hole through the cassette. Blammo! (I made sure to rewind it first.) I put it back in the tape sleeve, returned it to the rental store, and amazingly NO ONE EVER CALLED TO ASK ABOUT IT!!! Meaning, of course, that no one else rented it for at least the remaining three years I lived in that city. Others knew something that I didn't. Live and learn.

BTW, if you rent something you've never seen before and someone has actually put a bullet through it, take it as a sign. And if you work at the Kroger video department, I'm just kidding.

Footnote: this classic has yet to see the light of day on DVD, for which we should be eternally thankful to the digital gods.


If I'm to like a movie, I need to care about the lead characters and what happens to them. In this waste-pod of a film, I found myself hoping that they would all die in the end. None of the characters are people that you'd ever want to meet, they all made me sick. If not for a few nude scenes, I would have given this wretched movie a 1.


I bought this film at Blockbuster for $3.00, because it sounded interesting (a bit Ranma-esque, with the idea of someone dragging around a skeleton), because there was a cute girl in a mini-skirt on the back, and because there was a Restricted Viewing sticker on it. I thought it was going to be a sweet or at least sincere coming of age story with a weird indie edge. I was 100% wrong.

Having watched it, I have to wonder how it got the restricted sticker, since there is hardly any foul language, little violence, and the closest thing to nudity (Honestly! I don't usually go around hoping for it!) is when the girl is in her nightgown and you see her panties (you see her panties a lot in this movie, because no matter what, she's wearing a miniskirt of some sort). Even the anti-religious humor is tame (and lame, caricatured, insincere, derivative, unoriginal, and worst of all not funny in the slightest--it would be better just to listen to Ray Stevens' "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex on His Television Show"). This would barely qualify as PG-13 (it is Not Rated), but Blockbuster refuses to let anyone under the age of 17 rent this--as if it was pornographic. Any little kid could go in there and rent the edited version of Requiem for a Dream, but they insist that Zack and Reba is worse.

It is, but not in that way.

In a way, this worries me--the only thing left that could offend people is the idea of the suicide at the beginning. If anybody needs to see movies with honestly portrayed suicides (not this one, but better ones like The Virgin Suicides), it's teenagers. If both of those movies were rated R purely because of the suicide aspect, then I have little chance of turning a story I've been writing into a PG-13 movie (the main characters are eleven and a half and twelve). Suicide is one of the top three leading causes of death in teenagers (I think it's number 2), so chances are that most teens have been or will be affected by it.

Just say no to this movie, though. 2/10.


Yep, Edward G. gives us a retro view of the criminal defense world. First he's an overzealous prosecutor who sends the wrong man to the chair (played passionately, albeit briefly by DeForrest Kelly), then he's so filled with remorse his only solace is the bottle. Throw in a jaded romance, a genuinely rapid descent into penury and no qualms about who he defends, and next thing you know -- Shazam! Black Leg Lawyer (god I love that phrase). He sees the light just in time to save his jaded beloved from the chair. Yawn.

But really, the courtroom action is pure melodrama. See him punch out a witness, see him drink poison, see him argue passionately as he clutches a bullet hole in his breast. Be prepared for melodrama.

The hoot of the film though, is Jayne Russell. With curves defying the laws of gravity and an IQ approached absolute zero, she is something to see. Even sings a bit.


Director Lesley Selander's thoroughly routine outdoor yarn "The Yellow Tomahawk" (1954) pits the Cheyenne against the U.S. Cavalry with leathery tough Rory Calhoun in the middle as the seasoned, buckskin-clad Indian scout who has to lead the survivors to safety. This United Artists western was lensed in color but the TV print that Turner Classic Movies aired was inexplicably in black & white.

The action opens with Adam Reed (Rory Calhoun of "Black Spurs") eluding several Indians and riding up to palaver with his old friend and Cheyenne chief, Fire Knife (Lee Van Cleef of "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly"), who has killing on his mind. Fire Knife warns Adam that his Cheyenne braves are poised to wipe out a nearby cavalry fort under construction because it violates a treaty that the Indians made with the government. On his way to inform stuck-up camp commandant, Major Ives (Warner Anderson of "Objective, Burma!"),about the impending Indian attack, Adam discovers a beautiful wood nymph seductively treading water in a lake. Katherine 'Kate' Bolden (Peggy Castle of "I, Jury") is another of those silly women in westerns that bathe nude in the middle of Indian country without a care in the world. Castle appears to be genuinely nude in her bathing scenes, too, perhaps the most memorable scene of all in this otherwise predictable western. Naturally, Major Ives dismisses Adam's warning from Fire Knife until the commander realizes that somebody has raided his ammunition dump far outside the fort. This is one of the many questions that the Richard Alan Simmons' screenplay leaves unanswered in this trim, 82-minute oater. Why would the cavalry bury their ammunition at a secret spot in the desert rather than keep it on the premises in the fort? No sooner have they made this discovery than the Indians attack, knock out of hero, and leave him as the only survivor. Before this attack, a pair of white prospectors rides into the fort. Sawyer (Peter Graves of "Stalag 17") brings in his partner with an arrow in his chest. While Adam is getting hot water to help in removing the arrow, the greedy Sawyer grinds the shaft in deeper and kills his helpless partner. Later, we learn that Sawyer and his partner had struck gold. The question of the dispersal of the gold is also left unanswered after our heroes survive the ordeal. Adam and Fire Knife have one final pow-wow and Fire Knife demands that Adam hand over Major Ives or everybody will die. Naturally, Adam refuses and the Indians begin to whittle down the whites. James Best in a supporting role as a cavalryman gets an arrow in the back for his efforts. Noah Beery, Jr., plays a aimable Mexican scout pursued by a sexy Indian damsel appropriately named Honey Bear (Oscar-winning actress Rita Moreno of "West Side Story") and Robert Bray of "Lassie" fame is on hand briefly as the ill-fated cavalry officer that Kate had planned to marry.

The biggest surprise in this unremarkable western shot on location in Kanab, Utah, is that the evil cavalry officer Ives, who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children at the infamous Sand Creek Massacre, has been keeping a secret that he is a Native American, too! Ironically, the taut bow that Fire Knife gives out of friendship to Adam at the outset of the hostilities is what our heroic scout uses to kill the stalwart Cheyenne warrior after he has run out of bullets. "The Yellow Tomahawk" concludes on an ambiguous note. The survivors reach another outpost, Fort Ellis, where Adam and Ives furnish their respective reports about the issue to an army general, but we never learn the outcome of this meeting. Is this artistic ambiguity or yet another unanswered question. Producer Howard W. Koch is no relation to "Casablanca" scenarist Howard Koch. Ultimately, "The Yellow Tomahawk" is one of many pro-Indian westerns that appeared in the aftermath of "Broken Arrow" (1950) where the Native American is viewed as a noble savage unjustly treated by some but not all whites. Selander, who made dozens of westerns during the 1950s and the 1960s, makes this minor western tolerable despite its thin characters and familiar predicament. Calhoun stands out of an above-average cast as the always serviceable leading man, and good looking Castle is worth watching for her feminine charms. Peter Graves plays a skunk as was usual in most of his early roles. Actually, Lesley Selander did a more satisfactory dramatic version of this movie the year before called "War Paint" (1953) with Robert Stack. Incidentally, Noah Beery Jr. and Rita Moreno both went on to become regulars on "The Rockford Files".


I happened to have seen this movie this morning on TCM. Very bad acting, low budget and poor plot are the impressions I felt while watching the movie. The only highlight of the movie was watching tender young Rita Moreno, (23 years old), playing a teenage Indian squaw in love with an older man in his 50's. She reminded me of a earlier version of Sue Lyon as Lolita (1962), only a more innocent Lolita. She bounces up and down like a 1950's teeny bopper, almost as if you would expect her to be chewing gum, falling all over this old man, willing to give him anything, as he plays it off like she's a hindrance to him. Any man in his 50's that had a beautiful, virgin, teenage girl willing to do ANYTHING for him and be his bride, would be insane not to take advantage of her. It's too bad that the censorship board back when this movie was released didn't permit more of an expansion of a character such as Rita Moreno's. The only reason why I gave this movie a 3 instead of a 1 is Rita Moreno's appearance in the movie.


This was by far the worst movie I've ever seen. And thats compared to Alexander, Fortress 2 and The new world.

I should go back to blockbuster and ask for my money back along with compensation as it was a truly traumatic experience. For the first ten minutes i was changing the zoom on my widescreen TV because the actors seemed to be out of screen. I didn't think it was possible to make such a bad film in this day and age, i was wrong. While typing this message, I've thought of a good reason to buy this movie. A joke present at Xmas. I'm blaming the Mrs for this one as she picked it, thanks babe.

Be warned.......A true shocker all round!!!!!!


Right on Colmyster. I totally concur with all your sentiments and add these. I came to my PC especially to post a comment on this dreadful (minus)Bgrade movie. I was going to say that in this day and age I am at a loss to comprehend how anyone could possibly make such a woeful movie - but you beat me to it. Anyone reading this and Colmyster's comment, trust me ---- DON't waste you time and money. It's an absolute shocker. The acting is totally pathetic, the script is way worse, and the (so called) special effects are a joke. Surely no-one actually invested money to make this movie? I really cannot think of anything else to say about this so called horror sci-fi product, but must pad this commentary to make 10 lines of comment in order to have it accepted for submission.


No budget direct to video tale of aliens in Arizona involving the military and escaped convicts.

Not bad as such, rather it suffers from the cast and crew sort of going through the paces instead of trying to sell it. Its as if they knew they were in a grade z movie and want you to know they know. Then again maybe they just couldn't get it together.

A misfire of a grade z movie that could have been something if some one cared--and had skill. Why must low budget filmmakers insist on not actually trying to make a something good instead of just making a product.

2 out of 10 because nothing comes together


The Salena Incident is set in Arizona where six death row inmates are being transfered from the state prison for reasons never explained, while driving along the heavily armed prison bus gets a flat & the driver is forced to pull off the road. Then two blonde birds turn up & after seducing the incompetent prison guards manage to get the better of them, the six prisoners are released but in a shoot-out their getaway car is damaged leaving them all stranded in the middle of the Arizona desert. They decide to head to the nearest town, Salena several miles away & take the cops with them as hostage. Once they reach Salena they find it odd that the place is completely deserted with not one single other person in sight. They soon discover that the entire town has been killed by flesh eating aliens & they are firmly placed on the menu...

Also known as Alien Invasion Arizona in the US on DVD & apparently having the working title Terror Town this rubbishy low budget sci-fi horror flick was co-written, co-produced & directed by Dustin Rikert & has no real redeeming features at all, to be frank The Salena Incident is the sort of film which gives films a bad name. The film could roughly be divided into two parts, the opening forty or fifty odd minutes focuses on the prisoners in a thriller feeling opening, the guards & the escape although it's pretty poorly written & staged stuff. The dialogue between the two blonde birds & the prison guards is so bad it's unintentionally funny as the two fit birds chat up the two not so fit prison guards. Funny stuff actually, unfortunately The Salena Incident is supposed to be a sci-fi horror film not a comedy. Then once the escaped cons & their prison guard hostages arrive at Salena it goes into sci-fi horror mode as the aliens turn up & start killing our clichéd character's off which is good because they are annoying. Look, the whole film sucks as it's badly written, thought out & made. I can't really be bothered to go into why but trust me The Salena Incident is awful on every level.

As well as being just a bad, boring & stupid film The Salena Incident is also poorly made. The action set-piece scenes are awful, the aliens looks terrible & are never shown on screen at the same time as the human character's & as such it's sometimes difficult to tell what's happening. The special effects are poor too, the aliens look rubbish & the CGI computer effects are absolutely terrible as well. The editing is poor, the cinematography is poor, the sets are cheap & the whole thing is just an eyesore really. There's a bit of gore, there's some gunshot wounds, someone is ripped in half & a severed hand is seen.

Obviously shot on a low budget The Salena Incident has low production values & looks cheap from start to finish. Filmed in Superior in Arizona. The acting is terrible from no-one I have ever heard of although the actress who plays the female doctor is pretty good looking.

The Salena Incident is a rubbish sci-fi horror film that is terrible in just about every way, not worth 90 minutes of yours, mine or anyone else's time.


If I was still 5 I might find it scary. It is (I guess) a low budget film. The acting is not good, but could be worse - the filming and special effect is awful. The story line is thin and not worth to dwell on. Too much time is used on boring shouting scenes. The chases or fight with aliens, remind me of kids fighting with scary masks on. Some gore with blood and body parts - would scare a 5 year old kid I guess. Apparently scare the crap out of some of the persons in the film.

It is far from reaching anything like the film Tremors.

This turns out to be an "incident" and we see alien ships nearby earth. It make you wonder if any will make a sequel...


The Salena Incident is by far the director, Dustin Rikert's, best film --- which isn't saying much. In his past films (and I use the term "films" loosely), the director takes ideas from Hollywood blockbusters and severely marginalizes them. The Salena Incident is no different. The movie is basically Con Air meets Aliens done with the semblance of your average film school production. The film is riddled with out-of-focus shots and plagued by special effects that would have trouble rivaling most high school computer animation classes. For example almost every on-screen explosion is the same fire effect matted over the screen.

The weak effects and production value are only compromised by a flawed plot and rocky dialogue. In a sentence, the story strings together like an exposition of overused Hollywood clichés. The movie begins with the worst CGI Alien ship ever made crashing into the worst CGI earth ever made and a team of army somethings going down to investigate. Next a bus of prison transports, carrying the worst of the worst from across the state, is overthrown by the prisoners with the help of their blonde girlfriends armed with silicon implants. The prisoners escape and run into the town of Salena where they encounter the aliens who... SHOCK... have escaped from an alien prison transport carrying the worst of the worst from across the galaxy. The prisoners, and their captive police armed with only guns and sad puns have to fight off the aliens and escape the town before the International Space Alliance *rolls eyes* bombs the city into oblivion.

The only real enjoyable parts of the movie are when the actors (who are clearly undermined by the script) are given the freedom to improvise and also when they fight off the smaller of the alien creatures in a flurry of gun fire. Other than that, the movie really isn't worth anyone's time let alone the plastic that the DVD is made out of. How awful was it? Let's just say the Secretary of Defense is about 90 years old, works in a room that is about as high tech 1950's real estate office and is wearing a Looney Tunes tie. Yes, if that wasn't clear enough before, THE MAN IN CHARGE OF THE PENTAGON IS WEARING A TIE WITH BUGS BUNNY AND THE ROAD RUNNER ON IT. The movie basically culminates (HAHAHahhaaa did I say culminates...) with the last remaining soldier running into the group of prisoners and guards and the new formed team fighting their way away from the vicious aliens --- which for some strange reason leads them straight back to the Alien ship? yeah...

The movie has heart but is riddled with horrible direction and even worse camera work. Someone seriously needed to slap the DP and tell him there is more to cinematography than repetitive, stagnant, chest-level shots. This movie really isn't worth renting (if it ever makes it that far) being that it's not as horribly bad as the last films made by the director which reduces the laugh-ability, but it's nowhere near watchable cinema.


During the summer, the cue line for this attraction is really long, since it is a water ride. It's very well-themed, but a lot of the ride's artifacts seem to be out of order. Overall, the ride is not worth it if you have to wait for almost 2 hrs. in line. The drop at the end is exciting, but the whole ride itself could have been better. Creators for Indiana Jones could have prob. helped these Hollywood designers. Also, many times the ride breaks down and causes even longer waiting periods for others. It's also very unpleasing when they only have one raft departing dock open and not the two, like they are supposed to. During Halloween Horror Nights, you ride in the dark, and it's exciting if it's your first time, but if it's not, then don't bother waiting in a four-hour line.


When i saw the first octopus movie it was a laugh see the cheesy acting and appalling effects. This film seemed to make up for the acting, but not the special effects. After Jaws and Piranha, sure, why not make a film about a killer octopus? The octopus invades the New York waters, where 2 police investigators try stopping the rampaging beast before the 4th of July.

A pretty clean plot and descent happenings but the octopus was pretty much appalling, its nice to see they actually made it this time but it looked like a piece of plastic... Better on a big budget really, this film could have been a good watch. There's a continuous amount of errors where it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't research the way octopus live...

Watch this if you like cheap DVD sequels, otherwise your better watching Jaws.


I hated the first movie is really boring and we only get see the Octopus at the end.

The plot Dead bodies are being found in the New York harbor. The police have no clues nor suspects until Nick and his colleague realize the killer is a giant octopus. Everybody, especially the police captain, refuses to believe Nick's story, and soon the harbor will be filled with boats for the 4th of July celebrations...

In this movie we get to see more of the Giant Octopus and Special effects for this movie are really good for it's time.

The acting is this movie not bad but not great too but okay and watch able.

The are some really cheese scenes to movie but if can get past that, You should enjoy the rest of movie.

5/10


This is the sequel to Octopus.

Pff... OK. A lot of stock footage, but pretty good. I'm surprised that they actually had a giant robot octopus that actually didn't look that bad! I was actually quite surprised by that.

The movie overall was just OK fun. It never explained how the octopus got so big, and isn't linked it anyway to the first. But it was still fun.

The ending me and my friend laughed at. Basically, after blowing the octopus up once, the two main characters launch a bomb, and five explosions, most stock footage, appear on screen! We joked that they went to the dollar store and bought a 'five missiles in one' toy! Believe me, it has to be seen to believe! Overall just stupid fun. Worth giving a chance, buying if it's cheap.


I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.


Greetings, Moviegoers! As I watch Octopus II, I contemplate the inherent lameness of the Octopus/Croc/Dino Horror Genre. Many moviegoers may blame the poor acting, nonsensical screenplay, or poorly constructed plot as the reasons that cause the OCD movie to flounder. These reasons may indeed be floundering factors, but it is the inherent difficulty of filming an OCD movie that is at the heart of the lameness.

You see, the technology does not yet exist to make a realistic, life-size OCD and the CGI technology currently used by studios lacks the ability to blend in smoothly with real world environments and characters. Even with clever cinematography, you can only film the semi-dark depths of the sea/semi-dark forest/semi-dark cave/semi-dark corridor so many times before the Sci-Fi aficionado becomes bored with the genre entirely (the OCD sub-genre, that is).

What can be done, you ask? I wouldn't suggest that the genre surrender to cheesiness, but another avenue needs to be explored. We can't really go back to the days of the "Fade-to-Black" cue that someone has been killed. Or can we? If we can't reach the goal of realism, we have to compensate in other ways, such as plot twists, innuendo, and photo-ingenuity.

It will be through ingenious and alternate methods that the disease of lameness, so common to the OCD sub-genre, will be cured.


I purchased this film on DVD for £4, but it was a waste, the film is very bad. The plot is your average monster film, where it kills a few people, the mayor/chief doesn't believe it, and they fight it at the end.

On the plus side, the film quality is very good, and the setting of New York is impressive for a budget film - as opposed to a small coastal town. The acting is reasonable too.

However, the special effects, mainstage in a monster film, are laughable and the addition of a random bus load of kids to the plot half way through just gets weird. The ending is just bad.

In summary, whenever you have a chance to see this, don't - there WILL be something better on.

R-T-C "True horror films don't have a PG rating"


A flesh-eating octopus, where does that guy Boaz(what the..?) Davidson keep getting inspiration? Anyway,even for the low,low standards of both the giant sea animal who kills people-genre and me,this one is just beyond awful.The octopus is one of the lamest,laziest,weakest monsters I've ever seen.I think he just ended up in the (ahum)East River because Sea World got sick of him.The actors can be seen repeatedly helping the octopus choking them.Bunch of idiots,that way he'll never learn!You guys want all the other giant killer octopuses(that's the correct plural,by the way)to laugh at him?Meanies.

Up to stop the octopus are wind,razors that are hard to handle and also special sea agent Nick Hartfield and his partner,who will retire in a week but first has to be eaten by the octopus.Hooray,octopus won the fight!A couple more and he's going to evolve(the scars in my mind stay).Nick of course tries to help him by not doing a damn thing(doesn't he have a gun or something?)but no,that magically doesn't help either.

Okay,enter sea cop's love interest Rachel Starbird.Is this based on some comic book or something?Anyway,together they try to stop the octopus by walking in the park.They hope this helps,cos it's the 4th of July in a couple of days,and the octopus might join the party.And you don't know what he's like when he's drunk.Rachel then gets a school bus from out of nowhere to make sure this movie won't end while Nick feeds the octopus some more sea cops.

But all's crappy that ends crappy,Nick manages to blow the octopus to bits a couple of times,and a bunch of children who happened to be there cheer and laugh.You know,on tummy-vision,this would probably get an R.In real life,I'd say all ages but I kinda like all ages so my final idea is:Suitable for absolutely nobody.There's no sex,no gore,no nothing.Now forget this movie ever existed.Join the club.


Just finished watching this one after getting sick of getting ready for the Michigan Bar Exam. I wanted something that was mindless and that I could just sit back and say, "what the hell were they thinking?" I was not disappointed in this undertaking, but had I been watching this one in a serious mood, I would have been irate. The company that made this thing just spliced CGI footage from the first Octopus and added a little footage with a fake octopus that makes the one used in "Bride of the Monster" look like a masterpiece of special effect footage. Since when does an octopus have fangs? The plot is that an NYPD diver is investigating some murders/disappearances on the Hudson River shortly before the Fourth of July. He and his partner (who is soon to be transferred, or soon to be munched on by a fig bucking octopus) investigate in a rather inept manner (all the while believing that a huge octopus will kill people) and are occasionally accompanied by a female lackey from the Mayor's office. Of course on one believes that an octopus can get that big until the thing attacks the cop and the girl from the mayor's office. Surprisingly, all hell doesn't break loose and only a few cops and a few more civilians are killed.

Really lame. Don't bother with it.


Oh wow, the character shares my name first name! Nick! This movie as bad as the first one, if not worse. Well, at least there's an actual octopus in this movie. An actual octopus that makes a better appearance in this film. By better, I mean, "Longer" the acting is pretty dry and it's hard to sit through. Just to let you know, when this ninety minute film ends not only are you freed from your couch but you get your ability to breathe back. Not only that, but you realise how stupid you are and then commit suicide, realising how horrible life is after watching this film. Really, it shows how desperate horror movies are today, more crap like this is being realised and where the hell have the real masters of horror been lately? This film should have been the final straw, so we can bring back cinematic geniuses in horror cinema, that could make some actually GOOD modern horror films, this movie bites.


As if the world hadn't already got enough cheap Jaws imitations, writer Boaz Davidson decided to make the sequel to his ropey-but-reasonably-enjoyable creature-feature Octopus a complete rip-off of Spielberg's classic, right down to having a concerned cop who no-one believes, and a mayor more worried about his 4th July celebrations than people's lives.

Even in the hands of an extremely skilled director, it is unlikely that this derivative rubbish could have been anything other than hokey B-movie garbage, but with Yossi Wein (yes THE Yossi Wein!) calling the shots behind the camera, a man with a fraction of Mr.Spielberg's talent (I estimate about 1/10000th), Octopus 2 is guaranteed to be every bit as bad as one might imagine!

The predictable and extremely clichéd plot isn't worth describing in much detail (substitute Jaws' Amity Island with New York, and Bruce the Shark with a giant rubber octopus and you'll get the gist), although several points about the film are definitely worth mentioning, simply because they are so funny: all of the octopus attacks involve the actors struggling to make incredibly fake-looking giant tentacles look real, which is hilarious to behold; Bulgaria's capital, Sofia, unconvincingly stands in for New York, and overuse of stock footage makes the illusion even less convincing; best of all, a silly dream sequence that sees the rubber octopus attacking our hero atop the Statue of Liberty, is not only gut-bustingly stupid but also features some truly dreadful special effects.

Davidson's script also doesn't know when to quit: there are several points in this film at which it could've (and probably should've) ended, but the action goes on and on, with the octopus surviving several explosions, and causing a tunnel to collapse (trapping the film's love interest and a bunch of kids), before finally being blown to smithereens by the hero.

Sometimes very silly, always awful technically, but never actually scary, this STV stinker may find fans amongst those who actively seek out cinematic trash. Most normal people, however, would be advised to steer well clear.


Since I am required to write minimum of 10 lines, and this garbage deserves not only a single one, I'll start with the following: 1. I voted AWFUL for this dreadful so called "movie".

2. Let me explain why these turkeys Mr. David Varod produces are shot mainly in my beautiful homeland, Bulgaria (just in BTW, for the illiterate people around - this country is IN EUROPE, based north to Greece and has absolutely nothing to do with Mexico and Uruguay) Some years ago, NU Image has invaded our country and started making crappy mostly direct-to-video releases. Why here? Because here they pay derisively low fees to the Bulgarian crew and to the Bulgarian actors (most of them distinguished ones) which are, in many ways, better than most of their American colleagues. Personally I am ashamed of that fact. The reason is, of course, the greediness of the Americans involved and their wish to get most, if not all of the profit. Actually it would't be so bad if only the production wasn't so filthy and pale. There hasn't been a good picture shot here for years. At present NU image is being sued here over the very questionably purchasing of our national cinema production centre called Boyana Films. No doubt about it there has been corruption, there has been deceit, there has been a lies in this recent purchase. The Bulgarian cinema is dead. Long live the Bulgarian cinema!


If Daphne Du Maurier had set REBECCA in 1950s San Francisco, it might very well resemble this uptight, highly unusual noir from Robert Wise. Valentina Cortese plays a concentration camp survivor who steals the identity of a dead woman and insinuates herself into the life of Richard Basehart (who happens also to be the guardian of the dead woman's son)...it's absurd and over-the-top but also topflight entertainment. Cortese is terrific, slowly falling apart as she realizes the mistake she's made. Basehart is fine if a bit bland...although the lighting toward the end makes him appear very menacing. Fay Baker makes a very good Mrs. Danvers-like caretaker. Wise is a fine director and he keeps things moving at a pretty brisk clip. He also stages a now classic out of control car crash with Cortese (or at least a stunt Cortese) at the wheel.


Has some really good music and performances; Kid Creole and the Coconuts, James White and the Blacks, DNA, Tuxedo Moon, the Plastics, Melle Mel, Vincent Gallo, Lydia Lunch...etc, but aside from this there isn't much more to it. The dialog, especially the narration(by Saul Williams), is actually pretty good, but the performances are all pretty bland or outright bad, no matter how many hipsters are thrown in; Debbie Harry and Jean Micheal Basquit(the latter being the leading role) both still don't have enough cultural cred to keep this film from being a novelty item. It goes for the a Jack Kerouac style roving spontaneity, but doesn't have the insight to keep it moving along, which is where the band performances come in. I guess its pretty balanced in that regard between great music and bad acting, and I did enjoy it, but I just expected more. Though it does have a fairy tale ending.


Nothing but the void, a pleasant one for those who have known the eighties, but well, quite boring for those who are not interested in it. NO screenplay in this film, but a hero wandering in an underground New York full of arstists and night clubbers. It is aimless, pointless and naive. But not entirely unpleasant.


The only redeeming quality of this film is that it shows bands and their music when it was changing in NY during '81. As for the film itself it has at least three major flaws. First of all, there is narration throughout the film, which is not required at all. In the few places where there is some explanation necessary just adding a little dialogue would have gone a long way. Secondly, there was no obvious attempt to synchronize any of the audio, in fact it is quite apparent that most of the dialogue was recorded later with no attempt to match the film. The third flaw was in the ending. I will not give the ending away for those brave souls that would endure the torture of sitting through the film, but it commits a cardinal sin in screenwriting. Not worth the money or time it takes to see this, unless you are a fan of one of the represented bands.


Richard Donner shows off his liberal credentials with this ludicrously overcooked simplistic attack on the politics of South Africa.It's not as if America is the cradle of racial harmony and brotherly love - and further irony is added by the fact that the movie is set in the city that was the home of Rodney King and glorifies the Police Department that did so much towards community relations with their brutal racist behaviour. So Donner's salt and pepper pairing who clearly have a late = developing teenage crush on one another do their own thing with fine disregard for the rule of law or the rules of evidence and no one worries because the bad guys are white South Africans - surely a worrying example of police racism in itself? Inside Rudd's (Joss Ackland - eminently hissable) office the decor is designed and lit to resemble as far as possible the Fuhrerbunker and just in case some rather dumb moviegoers miss the point,he and his men are referred to as "nazis" at regular intervals. For me the only bright spot in the movie was when Mel Gibson turned up at an anti - apartheid demonstration carrying a banner bearing the inscription "End Aparthied Now". The intensely irritating Joe Pesci is introduced into the franchise to take some of the weight off the boys' shoulders by following them around yapping incessantly like a badly-trained puppy.This would be bearable if there was the remotest possibility of him ending up in a concrete overcoat,but sadly he survives to irritate another day. Miss Patsy Kensit seems in a world of her own,perhaps not believing her luck at being cast opposite Mel Gibson who has little trouble sweeping her into bed in his mobile home which appears to have been washed up on a beach somewhere.Shortly after consummating their affair they come under fire from a number of helicopters that fire enough rounds into Mel's caravan to keep the U.S. Army in Iraq going for six months. Fortunately he has a pet dog who is not afraid to cause coitus interruptus just as they are going for seconds and his barking warns them of the imminent attack.I hope he got a special bone as a reward. The film climaxes(without interruption from Mel's dog) on a cargo ship bound for Nazi Germany (sorry,South Africa),when Mel and Danny murder so many members of the master race that I lost count.Despite jiggling around like Bonnie and Clyde under the impact of a hail of bullets,Mel survives,curled up in his partner's arms like a small child with a wise and benevolent father.Take that,Apartheid!


Riggs and Murtough are back but the magic of the first film has disintegrated. The story line is just awful! I mean really, South African diplomats smuggling the mythical Krugerrands into the U.S. It's just painful! And the accents are absolutely abysmal! Can no one get an Afrikaans South African accent right? Or will we forever hear the British or Americans making them sound like drunken Hollanders? The only guy who got the Afrikaans accent right was Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire. Another thing about this movie that i disliked was when Danny Glover so artlessly describes an Afrikaans accent as being shitty! I mean what a slap in the face to the Afrikaans. There's also enough hypocrisy in this film to make me vomit. I mean Mel Gibson's character is like so against the diplomats but then sleeps with their P.A. type! Don't waste your time watching this rubbish non-researched film. If you want to see a film that doesn't completely insult a cultural group then rent Die Hard 2.


Spoilers!!

I hate this one, but it is better than the others after this, they just keep getting worse. I hope Gibson has the smarts to stay out of the next one. A lot of the same with humor, ie the toilet, kids, etc. How much farther can we watch their relationship evolve. Drugs, bad guys why South Africa! I found that unbelievable, maybe South American, some country in the Golden Triangle would have made the script better. It seems the late 80' early 90's had the blond bad guys ie Die Hard, the mighty Ducks play Ice Land Gary Busey in the last Weapon, etc. Hollywood repeats itself over. This one with a similar story has to go over the top. The attacking the police, the beach condo scene, and the fight at the end, and way over the top Gibson's girlfriend killed by the copper attack were too much. Like many part 2's, they get worse, and 3 or 4 in this series picks up speed downhill. 3/10


This television show, is a idiotic waste of time if you want to learn

about animals watch the discovery channel. If you want to watch

nincompoops on television just watch MTV. MTV stands for music television

not nitwit D-listers preforming retarded skits or bratty kids crying

their hearts out for not getting a BMW for there 16th birthday. I bet

that if you like this show I bet you love viva la Bam, and jackass huh? I think my IQ dropped ten points watching this show.

This is a combination of two shows jackass and the animal planet

Some people think this is a good combination.

I on the other hand think it is retardant.

And if you notice its a lot like jackass

and viva la Bam

just a note, this show is horrible


Let me start by saying you know a film is poorly run when extras make the cover. With that said, anyone who says this is the worst film ever is being dramatic, and anyone who says that the film is great is completely delusional. The film "is what it is." And what is that... A modest budget ($4 million, I estimate) studio sequel. The film isn't terrible, but for Road House fans it will be a disappointment. And that brings me to problem one, just as Dirty Dancing wouldn't been what it was without Swayze, Road House isn't the same without him. The lead lacks depth, character, and likability to carry the film. I feel that the lead was poorly cast and the producers should have bent over backwards to get Patrick to do it if they were gonna do a sequel. The other cast was uneven with outstanding actors like Will Patton along side day players who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag. Busey, who I have seen do great characters seemed like he just mailed it in. Ellen was played well, except for not being believable at all as a bayou raised chick. Sherri, the DEA agent at the first bar was hot and a good actress, yet her part was awkwardly small and undeveloped. The writer totally missed all opportunities to add depth and interest to the story and characters. Instead opting for a base one dimensional film. Which leads me to the biggest problem, the script... I got a bad feeling when the credits rolled and there were three script writers separated by an "and" and an "&." It looked very amateur. And that is what the writing was. I heard the original script was better and then a rewrite was done and the hard core sucking began. Some cheezy parts of the film to watch for are... During the first undercover meeting, the obvious drug deal under the table. "Hey lets meet at a crowded nudey bar, I will pull a block of coke out of my jacket and you pull cash out then we will slide them under the cocktail table" WAIT! "Make sure to look cool when you look left and right to make sure no one is looking!" Second, I love it when someone gets shot in the chest and then you see him sitting up happy as a lark 10 minutes later. There are some nasty editing cuts towards the end of the film especially during fight scenes and when the main character is chasing thru doors and runs into a patron. Which brings me to the realism of the DEA training, I won't both to get technical... But jumping thru doors isn't standard training... Nor do typical female agents, who bust their butts to make it in a male oriented field, act like weak characters... Boring! Thanks for the chauvinistic view Heir Director. There is other stuff I could teach a course at a school about it... The sped up fighting, the cheezy dialogue, the recycled story... etc... But aside from all that you just cannot like ex-Mr. Applegate, he totally lacks the humble zen coolness that made Mr. Patrick Swayze such a bad ass. He just strikes me as one of those 5 foot nothing actors who think they are a bad ass, but just like Van Damnit he runs into a real bad ass (Chuck Zito in Van Don't case) and he gives him a lesson about "badassdom." Therefore, that I feel is the major linchpin of the film, if you are a bad ass you are a bad ass, you don't have to try. Example: Swayze! If you are a pretty boy who tries to hard to prove you are a bad ass among other things... Then well... You are why your audience, the Average Joe... Will not rent this film, and if they do they will write reviews like this.


The original Road House was a classic cheesy 80s movie, which although it didn't have anywhere near award worthy writing or acting, was a very enjoyable and popular film, largely due to the presence of star Patrick Swayze and the great supporting cast, along with some excellent fight scenes and eye candy.

16 years later, and MGM / Sony attempts to re-create the magic which left us all quoting one liners and reciting the three rules of bouncing... with a movie which quotes all the original's best one liners and recites the three rules.

Were this an amateur fan made film, it would be seen as a loving homage to one of the most popular of Swayze's movies. As a professionally made film, it falls flat on it's face right into the DVD Bargin Bin, with its continual reuse of lines and plot from the original movie becoming more of an annoying sign of lack of originality rather than cool references to the original.

Having said that, with new lines such as "I'm gonna kill you just like I killed your father" no wonder the screenwriters decided to rehash much of the original script.

I knew this was never going to be anything special, being a Straight to DVD Sequel, but I had at least hoped that there might be a couple of new ideas and fresh things included to live up to the Road House name, but what you get is simply just a 2006 remake of the same film, with a little narcotics added in.

Were I the director, I'd have removed all references to the first film so as not to tarnish the original and it's characters. As it is, we got Patrick Swayze's character now supposed to be dead (killed off screen in a lame way by Jake Busey) and his brother and son now the main characters, who strangely enough have completely different surnames.

My favourite part was that Dalton's 'son' drove the same car his father did, a genuinely cool homage, although it was later ruined by having the car meet its end EXACTLY the same way as its predecessor did. That's a good example of how this film goes too far in including sequences and ideas from the '89 movie.

Also of course who can forget the legendary moment where Wild Bill promises to kill Shane "just like I killed your father" and then proceeds to attempt to dispatch him in a completely different manner. Amazing writing there. I see Schaech is listed as co-screenwriter. Stick to acting, or preferably, nothing.

Overall though, this is an OK film if there's nothing else to watch and you want to turn your brain off for an hour and a half, or if you haven't seen the first Road House, but hardcore fans of Swayze's classic will be totally disappointed almost to the point of feeling insulting at how much of a rip off this movie is of the first. As someone once suggested as an alternative subtitle for this film, "Even Jeff Healy is glad he won't be seeing this one!" Stick to the original Road House and relive the good old Swayze days!


If I had never seen the first Road House, then I guess this movie might get one more star, but even then that makes it a 3 star movie. For that matter I was really surprised as to the relatively high rating it currently has.

In reality, I was not able to finish this movie, as it was painful. Where it went wrong (at least the most obvious way) is that it pretty much parallels the original exactly even though the original plot is still referenced. This doesn't really make sense and doesn't work. Also, the acting is weak...I never felt like I was into the movie yet I felt like I was watching people act. Even good actors like Busey don't work out, probably due to the screenplay or maybe the awkward editing. The strangest thing is that the movie feels like a mid 90's B movie, yet is made in 06. I am not sure as to why, but then again, this often seems to happen with sequels for some reason. The music, the look, and the whole overall feel reminds me of movies you saw 10 years ago on Cinemax late at night. The strangest thing of all is that I am also expecting Ja Rule to come in at some point...often it reminds me of more current movies with rappers as actors.

The most irritating thing is love interest girl who's character seems like a total rip off of the Lois Lane character on Smallville which is also quite annoying. And lets not forget the fakest sounding "southern accents" I have heard since Walk the Line. I realize this is common place in movies, but no accent at all would work better than attempting to sound like you are from that universal hick place on TV where anyone from any southern state (or KY and WV) sound exactly the same. Sure, people in desert towns in AZ sound just like people in Southeastern states 2000+ miles away. That was wearing thin 10 years ago in the B movies where technique came from. Why do writers / directors make such decisions?

Bottom line: I would truly not recommend this if you are a fan of Road House or if you like good movies. Also, if you have not seen it yet, don't spoil it by seeing this version first. The original Road House was one of those accidental classics that people love and watch over and over. It was an unexpected success like American Graffiti, Dazed and Confused, and more recently Office Space, Fast and Furious (only the first one!), and Napolean Dynamite. Why did they spoil it!!!???

They should have never made a sequel to Road House other than a high budget version with the right actors / director. Sure, you can never top the original (ex: Bad News Bears, The Longest Yard, etc.), but at least if you can do it right it will be presentable as is the case with the examples I mentioned. But to make a low budget, off-network, self production of Road House is criminal.


The original Road House is by no means an award winning film. But it is one of the great guilty pleasures of all time. It shouldn't have been that hard to make a sequel. There's no need for a big budget, big name stars, and spectacular visual effects. Even the story didn't have to be original. All it needed was a good time vibe, and some great fist fights. I don't mean Matrix-style "wire-fu", just some well choreographed barroom brawls. Lots of them. There are a couple of decent fights in the movie, but none of them are memorable, and the focus is more on gun play. Plus, the way it ties in to the original film is laughable, bordering on insulting. Johnathon Schaech plays Shane Tanner, an undercover DEA agent who is good with his hands and feet. But here's the kicker...he's the son of Patrick Swayze's character Dalton!!!! Say what????? Let's see, the original Road House was made in 1989. So for Dalton to have a son in his late 20's (maybe even 30) in 2006...well you get the idea. They give it a cheesy explanation that he lived with his uncle Nate (Will Patton) while his father "travelled around a lot". Oh please. That itself almost warranted shutting this movie off. But I digress. Schaech is completely out of his element. Sure he can throw a couple of kicks, but he's got nothing going on as an actor. Plus, he's referred to in the movie by the bad guys as "pretty boy". I've never scrutinized men that closely, but I don't think this guy is too good looking. He looks sick. His face is way too thin, and his sunken eyes make it look like he's going to pass out at any moment. I'd never heard of him before, but I think he should give up acting and go back to his day job. Jake Busey plays the local drug runner Wild Bill. Busey is not a terrible actor. He was good in Starship Troopers, and even made a menacing villain in Hitcher 2. But here, he just chews the scenery in standard bad guy mode. Even his "threating" dialog is yawn worthy. We're supposed to buy him as the man that has the whole town in his pocket. But why? What does he do? Because he wants to buy a bar from Patton "by any means necessary"? Ellen Hollman has the token girlfriend role. A woman with a secret. Too bad that secret is about as difficult to figure out as 2+2. She's the local elementary school teacher who happens to be a former Army soldier. Guess what that means? It means that while she may quiver with fear for the majority of the movie, she'll be ready to smash heads when the fur starts to fly. Oh well, at least she's hot. Actually the fight between her and Wild Bill's girl is the best one in the movie. It's fast, brutal, and entertaining. Which leads me to my next problem with the movie...the fights. As I said Schaech knows how to throw a punch. The same can't be said for anyone he faces in the movie. Obviously the movie will all come down to Schaech versus Busey. Busey is an actor, not a fighter. He doesn't possess the skills to pull of a movie fight. Swayze may have been a trained dancer, but his athletic ability gave him the means to pull off well choreographed fights. He also faced a couple of worthy opponents, and had one killer (literally) move. None of that here. With a couple of exceptions, the fights are forced, poorly staged, and routine. The punches sound like someone smacking a 2X4 on the concrete, and there's even a couple of parts where the sound doesn't even match up to the punch. It's embarrassing. There isn't even the good southern/redneck music of the original. Road House had the Jeff Healy Band, who were a somewhat popular band at the time. This movie features a singer called John Otto, whose music is tepid, and his acting even worse. He's given one line in the movie, which was probably inserted to appease whatever fans he may have out there. Either that, or someone owed him a favor. My final complaint about the movie is one that comes out of just being picky...the continuity. Movies are shot out of sequence, and then it's the editor's job to piece it all together. Well someone should give the editor of this movie a little shove. The problems range from little things like people not looking the same direction when a shot changes, to RE-USED footage at the end of the movie. In the beginning, we are introduced to the bar, The Black Pellican. As the camera moves through the bar, you see the band, the bouncers, and the people dancing. At the end of the movie, when the bad guys have been defeated, we get another shot of the same bar, with insert shots of our hero sitting at the bar with his girl. The problem is, the footage of the people in the bar is the SAME footage from the beginning of the movie!!! I kid you not. It's the same people, standing (or dancing) in the same places, wearing the same clothes. Want to know the funniest part? You see bouncers in the shot that were KILLED earlier in the movie. Do yourself a favor, don't watch this movie unless YOU feel the need to go out and punch someone. This movie will make you angry enough to do it.


I happened to see a promo for this movie on Spike channel last night, it was grouped with a Patrick swazy rerun of another movie he made and thought swazy was in this sequel.....boy was I wrong....I see the screen writer also starred in it, and I'm thinking the budget was a bit tight. I am surprised to see Will Patton in the film he has far better credits to his name to be playing in a "c" movie like this. Bussey jr was trying so hard to portray the image of his father(one of the best bad guy actors ever) that failed miserably the only redeeming qualities in the movie was the chicks,,,,,good looking and with lots of T&A just not worth the time or your hard earned dollar to rent it


Man stop making sequels to great movies. The original was a great movie that was over the top with fights,sex,and one of the coolest characters that graced the screen in the 90's. The story is believable as if your been to bars in the outs of the south you would know. But here comes this piece of junk Roadhouse 2 Last Call. Lets just hope they are serious with the title and never make another Roadhouse ever again.It doesn't have the charm of the characters of the original nor is the story really believable. The Story is more of a Steven Segal type action that even though Roadhouse 2 is a B movie it still doesn't click as some B movie action still sales the movie no matter how cheesy it is. The only reason to rent not buy this movie is that we finally find out the one question is left from the original Roadhouse. Patrick Swayze's character Dalton, is Dalton his first name or last name? Well I'll save you the $4.00 rental fee. Dalton is his first name as in Dalton Tanner. NEVER MAKE ANOTHER ROADHOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!


this movie is a pile of rubbish , and to try and base it the first is just a farce , the main thing that let it down for me was the usage of the one liners out of the first one , which once said by classic actors such as Sam Elliot can not be reproduced in any way , i mean when Dalton phones wade in the 1st , and he ends the call with stay cool that was great , but when the chump rings the DEA agent back home and he ends the call with stay cool it doesn't have the same ring now really does it , there are other ones but I cant be bothered to post em up , but I hope u get my drift ,they should of named this roadhouse wannabe ..........