I was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. "Six Men Getting Sick" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work "The Grandmother" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. "The Alpahabet" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) "The Amputee" is pointless. "The Cowboy and the Frenchman" is just plain silly. "Lumiere" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.


I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the "Faces of Death" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called "driver education" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said "I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!" This film, and another, "RED ASPHALT", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending "driver's ed" in high school!


Supposedly a "social commentary" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, "Nightmare" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised "babe in prison" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of "Gilligan's Island") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D.


Originally aired as an ABC Movie of the Week. This involves two young innocent female college students who are railroaded into a prison camp in a little Southern town. They aren't allowed phone calls and nobody knows they're there. What follows is rape, torture, beatings, humiliation and degradation leading to a very disturbing conclusion.

The TV version was (for its time) grim. No nudity and the beatings were pretty tame but the overall feeling of sleaziness wore one down. The unrated version is even worse--there's plentiful nudity, the violence is extreme and, in one particularly disgusting sequence, we see a crying female prisoner forced to strip while a lesbian guard "uses" her. YUCK! There's nothing wrong with exploitation films but this one just goes over the brink. You get the feeling that the filmmakers enjoy having these poor women being tortured and degraded--all this is shoved in your face like you're supposed to enjoy it. The needlessly downbeat ending doesn't help.

I'm giving it a 3 because the acting is good--but that actually makes the movie harder to watch. A sick, sleazy film. Not recommended.


This movie forever left an impression on me. I watched it as a Freshman in High School and was home alone that night. I think I lost all respect for Robert Reed as an actor having been a huge fan of the "Brady Bunch". I also thought the role of Chuck Connor was horrendous and evil. However, this movie made such an impact on me that I am now a volunteer in the women's state prison doing bible studies and church services and trying to change womens lives, one at a time. What fascinates me is that so few people actually watched this movie. None of my friends watched it and my family is clueless to this day when I discuss this movie because they didn't see it.


Now for the truth, its very very weak storyline - for a Walt Disney film its total rubbish. When the robinson appear, the films all over the place, I was shocked how poor it was. It like "alice in wonderland" gone wrong!. It feels like they were short on ideas some mashed some crazy rubbish together to try and get away with it - and they don't. After that, I sat there wishing for the end. My younger brother lost interest half way through and was confused by the story. The characters are weak and after the robinsons appear you don't care about the ending, you just want the film to finish. Its a film to forget, and forget quickly. If you've got some spare time, don't waste it on this.


This movie started out with some semblance of a plot, then abandoned it for an endless series of random characters and encounters that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. It was impossible to remain engaged with this film. This movie is a very cynical pile of garbage made by some people with animation skills but totally lacking in creativity or storytelling ability. It is a shockingly bad effort coming from a major studio. Clearly there are morale and motivation problems at Disney, not to mention a complete lack of oversight and quality control. That management allowed this movie to see the light of day speaks volumes about their incompetence and desperation. This movie joins my very short "worst movies of all time" list.


I really wanted to like this film, but so much of it is stolen/borrowed from other work -- some of the borrowing is painfully blatant. The New York Times' review pointed out that their singing frog is awfully reminiscent of the one in the famous Warner Brothers' cartoon ('Hello my baby, hello my darlin', hello my ragtime gal...'). But I challenge anyone to watch the Fox/Blue Sky animated feature Robots (2005) and not find ridiculous similarities in: storyline - A young inventor growing up, and a single innovative corporation distributes all great inventions.

cityscape - Extremely similar camera angles capture extremely similar futuristic city environments.

...robots... - The servant robot in the Robinson household has a very similar design to those in Robots, and both films use a sort of retro-futuristic look.

All of this seems to be in sharp contradiction to the obnoxious quote from Disney at the end, implying that the company has been a steady innovator who never looks back (which also contradicts their entire catalog of films in the 90s that were pretty much clones of each other, with some minor tweaks to storyline and ethnicity).

The filmmakers seem unable to let the story speak on its own, and instead constantly send objects and noises flying in our direction, as though we don't have the attention span for anything less.

The villain is really well-designed and brilliantly animated, and he's a pleasure to watch. Much of the rest of the film seems thrown-together. Some of the landscapes look like CGI from the mid-90s.

The film actually opens with a classic Mickey Mouse short. By the end of this cartoon, we are reminded that Disney never did have much interest in innovating or good storytelling -- they seem to think that simply getting something up on the big screen is proof enough of their virtue.


I went to see this with my wife and 3 yr old son. He seemed to like it a lot more than my wife and I did. The writing is surprisingly poor for a pixar / Disney excursion. In fact, I had a very hard time paying attention at all. The movie does look amazing but the story just becomes so weird and long winded that I was hoping my son would fall asleep so I could pick him up and walk out.

Not to say that the film isn't an interesting concept, it's just told so oddly, (bad screenplay?) especially when we "meet the family" for the first time. I know we're supposed to get the impression that the family is wacky but good lord, they could've shortened that sequence by a good 15 minutes (seemingly, I didn't actually time it). By that point I was scratching my head looking for an exit.


I wanted to like this movie. But it falls apart in the middle. the whole premise is a good one and ties up nicely, but the middle runs off tangent. The people I watched with were getting annoyed while it ran off course, and hoping it would end sooner than it did. Another person actually fell asleep during the middle segment! I found myself day dreaming elsewhere during the Schtick parts that had nothing to do with the plot. I bought it for the eye candy and it delivered that well, but it lacks Pixar's writing and soul. I think kids 8 and under will enjoy the ride at face vaule, while missing the plot. People old enough to follow a plot will find it wonders too far to return quickly and easily. Edit out most of the middle section, make it 50 minutes and it would be a solid flick. I wish I had better things to say. But I don't


I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.


I do agree that though this story by Melville just might be unfilmable, this isn't even a credible try. To move the story into the 20th century just outrages the original story's intent and nature; possibly you might have been able to move it over to England, but it must be a period piece. Even our story narrator--the proprietor--tells it in a flashback, going back even further, somewhere around 1800. Towards the end of the 19th century, a strangely disobedient worker would be discarded without a thought. And the 20th century? Come on! Give me an expletive deleted break!!! Even around 1800, such behavior didn't work very well, in view of the ending. And the movie's ending? I don't know what it was, because I didn't watch the entire travesty--I had to stop. This was like setting "Streetcar Named Desire" in Elizabethan England.


A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.


This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.


You might be a bit confused if you watch this silly made-for from the beginning, since the credits list Susan Dey as "Special Guest Star." Um, why would a one-off MOW like this have a guest star? Well, if you stick with it, you'll find yourself paying attention to little else but Ms. Dey's butt, wiggling in a flowered bikini as the "Partridge Family" house babe frolics on the beach to which that imaginative title alludes. Susan's derrière is especially compelling when she shakes it at the camera while teasing and tickling her pseudo-disaffected brother in one mildly incestuous scene. Sadly, Susie and her tush fight a losing battle: the jiggle-TV craze that might have put that bottom over the top was three years off, so that sweet booty just gets a supporting role. In 1976 Fat Freddy Silverman would have put that behind right out front and used this flick as Susan's audition tape for "Charlie's Angels." As is, our Susan was denied cheesecake immortality and had to settle for a very commendable career playing somber, neurotic women.

The view beyond Susan's heinie, it must be said, is not very compelling. The scenery is nice, and photographed in a bizarre, hazy way that briefly fools you into thinking there might be some quirky creative intelligence at work behind the camera. Nope. It's just a typically suspense-challenged 70's made-for-TV thriller that allowed weekly series stars to make some extra cash(and collect some cable residuals, though they obviously didn't know that at the time) and show off their "range." Here we're treated to a TV-scale nuclear family, squaring off against TV-scale thugs who can't decide whether they're a motorcycle gang or a hippie cult (thus the filmmakers split the difference by putting them in dune buggies) and have never learned one of the primary lessons of 1970s television: don't mess with Dennis Weaver (see "McCloud" and "Duel"). The only potential for depth in this movie is in the aforementioned teenage-son character of Steve, played by the long-forgotten (if ever-remembered) Kristoffer Tabori, who is supposed to be rebellious and troubled and might feel some sympathy for and attraction to the lawless mob that is (supposedly) menacing his family. But Steve, as played by Tabori (gosh, why didn't we see more from this wunderkind?), is actually just grumpy and moody and isn't one bit conflicted when big D gets serious and draws a line in the proverbial (and literal) sand. For the sleep-deprived and Susan Deyniacs (there must be some of you out there) only.


I can't believe I waste my time watching this garbage! I did because Leonard Maltin gave it an "AA" rating, and for TV movies this is usually a reliable indicator of some quality entertainment.

The acting was OK, but whoever wrote it should be forever denied access to any medium of communication. The plot is ludicrous, the motivations of the "bad guys" totally absent, and the various family interactions silly and shallow. For example, Dad preaches that violent reaction to aggression is BAD, but he turns out to be an "admirable" person NOT because of his "ignore the idiots" philosophy, but because he's pretty good with his fists...

The ONLY message I was able to glean from this pap was that the nuclear family is Good and alternate living arrangements are Bad. Oh, and Bad people happen to Good people.


Being born in the 1960's I grew up watching the TV "Movies of the Week" in the early 70's and loved the creepy movies that were routinely shown including "Crowhaven Farm", "Bad Ronald", "Satan's School for Girls", "Kolchak the Night Stalker", etc, but this one is just plain dumb.This is obviously the writer's trying to capitalize on the horrific Manson murders from a few years earlier. The movie stars Dennis Weaver of "McCloud" and "Duel" fame as a father who takes his family camping on a beach. The family encounters some hippies who for some reason decide to terrorize the family. The reason for this is never explained, and Weaver's pacifistic stance is hard to swallow. For God's sake, call the police, beat the hell of them or something, just don't sit there and whine about it. The acting is pretty lame, the story unbelievable, etc. Susan Dey looks cute in a bikini but that's about it. Ignore this if it ever airs on TV.


The story is a little slow and a little stupid. Greta Garbo doesn't look very good and I couldn't understand half the things she said because of her accent, which was exaggerated for this role. Melvyn Douglas, meanwhile, plays his normal unlikeable role and Constance Bennett is just so-so except for a couple of her screams, which were funny.

On the plus side, Roland Young had the best role in the film. I wish he had more lines, as he disappeared in the second half of the story. Also, it was interesting to see Ruth Gordon look so young. I had only seen her in those crazy roles she played from the late '60s to the '80s and a whacked out old woman. Story-wise, the best part might have been the final few minutes when we see a stunt man doing amazing things on skis, pretending to be Douglas falling down the slopes. That was amazing and humorous footage.

Overall, I can see where this film - Garbo's last - was not a box-office success. It just drags too much, going on and on about deceptions. It's an annoying story. Garbo knew it, too, and called it quits.


It seems a shame that Greta Garbo ended her illustrious career at the age of 36 with this ridiculous mistaken-identity marital romp. Coming off the success of her first romantic comedy, Ernst Lubitsch's masterful "Ninotchka" (1939), where she was ideally cast as an austere Russian envoy, Garbo is reunited with her leading man Melvyn Douglas for a sitcom-level story that has her playing Karin Borg, a plain-Jane ski instructor who impulsively marries publishing executive Larry Blake when he becomes smitten with her. Once he makes clear that work is his priority, Karin inadvertently decides to masquerade as her high-living twin sister Katherine to test her husband's fidelity when he is back in Manhattan.

It's surprising that this infamous 1941 misfire was directed by George Cukor, who led Garbo to her greatest dramatic performance in 1937's "Camille", because this is as unflattering a vehicle as one could imagine for the screen legend. Only someone with Carole Lombard's natural sense of ease and mischief could have gotten away with the shenanigans presented in the by-the-numbers script by S.N. Behrman, Salka Viertel and George Oppenheimer. MGM's intent behind this comedy was to contemporize and Americanize Garbo's image for wartime audiences whom the studio heads felt were not interested in the tragic period characters she favored in the thirties.

However, Garbo appears ill-at-ease mostly as the bogus party girl Katherine and especially compared to expert farceurs like Douglas and Constance Bennett as romantic rival Griselda. Photographed unflatteringly by Joseph Ruttenberg, Garbo looks tired in many scenes and downright hideous in her teased hairdo for the "chica-choca" dance sequence. The story ends conventionally but with the addition of a lengthy physical sequence where Larry tries to maneuver his skis on a series of mountain cliffs that unfortunately reminds me of Sonny Bono's death. Roland Young and Ruth Gordon (in a rare appearance at this point of her career) show up in comic supporting roles as Douglas' associates. This movie is not yet on DVD, and I wouldn't consider it priority for transfer as it represents a curio in Garbo's otherwise legendary career. She was reportedly quite unhappy during the filming. I can see why.


I've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.

A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).

There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.


Payback is the game being played in this drama and the revenge plot is undone by the absurd story line that sets the stage for the fireworks that come later. Why would a man become involved with the trophy wife of a ruthless mob boss in the gangster's own mansion with suspicious henchmen all around? Why would an unhappy wife encourage the attentions of a complete stranger and expect him to carry her away with him and leave her husband and boredom behind to live happily ever after with her new love? Surely the hero, here Kevin Costner, must have expected a reaction from the cuckold husband that gives the movie an excuse to indulge in senseless gore and violence. Anthony Quinn, great actor that he was, surely deserved better, and Madeleine Stowe is the tragic figure who suffers greatly as she latches on to her prince charming. Stowe is okay but her Spanish accent doesn't work. The cameos of the lesser players are good, especially Miguel Ferrer and John Leguizamo and Sally Kirkland is interesting as a fading rock star.


Faces are slashed, throats are cut, blood squirts, and in end the three main characters are either depressed or they die. They even blow up Kevin Costner's dog with a shotgun. Why would anyone want to see a movie like this? Violence is valid only when the good guys kill the bad guys, not the other way around. Take for instance Underworld and Underworld Evolution where you can enjoy seeing justice done when the demons are slain. In this movie, the good guys are cut up. See the difference? Why would anyone want to MAKE a movie that depresses the audience? Beautiful photography and skilled editing in a motion picture like this is a waste of talent. Let's put this one into the category of the exquisite corpse.


This movie wastes virtually every actor's talents in what could best be charitably called a "potboiler".

Despite it's action-packed 'Top Gun' opening it is all downhill from there with plenty of stereotypes and unlikely situations following each other until you try to choke yourself on your popcorn.

There are so many dead-end story lines in this movie I was guessing at one point it was made by splicing together a discarded TV series.

Quinn's Mexican drug-lord role is laughable and his 'associates' plucked right out of a 1970's Quinn-Martin cop show. Costner's character is wooden and gives us no reason to believe he actually fell in love with Mendez' wife. Nor are we convincingly led to believe the wife is aching for companionship and will jump the first hot body coming along.

Definitely a 'B' movie at best and a huge waste of time for everyone involved.


I just watched this movie and I've gotta say that with such a great premise and great talent this turkey just lays there!!! A friend lent me this movie and I watched with an open mind mainly because he had such high praise for the story.

Well, the movie started off with Kevin Costner as a fighter pilot retiring... why? Why did they make him a fighter pilot? He was supposedly going to be hired by Anthony Quinn's character to be his new pilot... well, we never see Costner go near a plane for the rest of the movie!

Costner runs into a Texan (James Gammon) selling a horse to a big Mexican businessman and Costner tags along for a ride. Without knowing what happened, Gammon is beat to near death and Costner drives him to the meeting, which happens to be with an associate of Quinn! But, nothing comes of it... nada, zilcho! Why did they have Gammon's character? Why did they have the horse sale with the Quinn associate if nothing was to come of it?

Also, after they leave Costner for dead, they make Madeline Stowe's character become a whore, then she attacks one of Quinn's men that was paying for a turn... she stabs him with his own knife, and the next thing she's been moved to a convent! No explanation as to why she was moved, or when it was done!

Too much talent wasted on such a weak script and poor editing!! I only watched this because a friend owned it and let me watch it... I'm going to throw it at him for the 2 hours I wasted of my life watching the blasted thing!


Revenge on us the viewing public perhaps. I sat through this 2 hour movie and i was waiting for the second act to kick in so that the movie lived up to its title. But Costner never avenges his lovers fate she dies and the movie ends. I was left wondering where the rest of the movie was. If a movie is called Revenge then the hero better get some by the end of the film. I had a choice of seeing this or Black Rain at the cinema thankfully i saw The other brothers movie at the cinema instead.i caught up with this turkey on video. there was one good thing about the film and was its beautiful theme tune. Listen to the cd.dont watch this its awful. 1 out of 10


This has to be some of the worst direction I've seen. The close-up can be a very powerful shot, but when every scene consists of nothing but close-ups, it loses all its impact.

Tony Scott has some very beautiful scenery to work with, the backdrops of Mexico, the cantinas, the beautiful estate where Anthony Quinn lives, and the dusty towns Costner rolls through on his journey for revenge. Unfortunately we only catch quick glimpses of these places before the camera cuts to a picture of a big, giant head. Even the transition scenes where Costner is driving alone across Mexico quickly cut to a close-up.

The score is over-dramatic and intrusive, dictating every emotion we should feel. The story itself should have been handled much better. Among other things, too many people pop up out of nowhere to help Costner along - it's just bad writing.

It's a typical thriller storyline, but many others have taken the same premise and done outstanding things with it. Costner's No Way Out had a somewhat similar storyline, but it was a much better movie.

The ending was completely anticlimactic and suffered from the most melodramatic scoring of the film. This movie was never going to be great, but if we saw more of Mexico and less of giant heads this film might have been watchable.


Sorry - this movie is just a cheap TV-Production. I saw very much promotion Material and expect a professionell Movie like "Stormriders" - what i was presented was a Low-Budget-Movie like "XENA" or "Hercules" on TV. No Atmosphere, very boring, more then worse Fight-Scenes. Some good ideas - not more. I hope i will get the Chance to make a movie like this and then i show how to do such a movie!!!

My ASIAN-Tips: "MUSA - THE WARRIOR", "STORMRIDERS", "SHAOLIN SOCCER", "BATTLE ROYAL", "VERSUS", etc.

Sorry for my bad English!


"Shinobi" is one of those movies that thinks the mere act of killing off a character automatically brings a sense of gravitas or emotion to the story. Unfortunately, for the audience to actually care about the people dying, you have to develop the characters, otherwise all you have is a bunch of random acts of violence. The problem is especially compounded when you have TONS of characters, all of whom die.

OK, so if you can't be bothered to make the characters memorable or sympathetic in any way, you can at least make the REASONS for why they die plausible, right? Nope. Here we have a war between two ninja clans, with neither side really knowing WHY they are fighting each other. They kill each other because the emperor says so. Yet even well after it becomes glaringly obvious that the emperor wants ALL of them dead, they still refuse to abandon their meaningless missions. That's not stubbornness... that's just plain dumb.

Fine, fine! There is no character development, and the plot provides no reasonable rationale for fighting. At least they die fighting in cool action scenes, right? Yet again, NO! In fact, many of the fights aren't even fights at all: super ninjas that the movie spent so much time and effort introducing die suddenly (and lamely, in my opinion). I'm talking about things like, "Lalala, I'm walking along and I- *neck gets slashed*." THE END for that character. Not even halfway through the film, I threw my hands up in frustration at the ludicrousness of it.


I have watched anime but I'm not a die hard fan; and I don't read manga. I say this because many of the reviewers who are waxing lyrical about this film seem to have that background. I have seen "St. John's Wort," and although it isn't a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, it made me pick up "Shinobi," especially since everyone seems to love it.

Well, I watched it this afternoon, and fought very hard to keep watching. Yes, it's very beautiful - the slow motion water scenes, the autumn leaves on the trees, even the CGI eye flicker - majestic. I liked the hawk, the costumes, even some of the fight scenes, but overall this was dull as dirt.

It seemed as if someone took "Romeo and Juliet" - the translation even mentions that they are star crossed lovers - and threw in some "X-Men" for good measure. Two of the characters split Wolverine's powers - the guy dressed in a bear costume had his claws and the grey-haired guy had his ability to heal himself. Then you have the girl who has a poison kiss - that's Poison Ivy (from Batman). Why do they give these women such dumb powers? Poison girl shows her leg then kisses you to death. Man, that's some great power for you. And the other girl, can create bugs from this yellow dust that she rubs on her hands. The other woman, one of the star crossed lovers, has the power of a hypnotic stare. Wow.

I sort of made it to the end of the film, by fast forwarding it, and did see a bit more tragedy than I expected. Some people are comparing this to "House of Flying Daggers" and "Hero." Don't make that mistake. They may share similar endings, but that's where the similarities end. "Shinobi" is made by an amateur - the other films are made by an experienced filmmaker.

I would say avoid this film unless you're 12 to 18 years old.


I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.


The bad out takes from "Reign of Fire" strung together, without any real story.

Dean Cain tries to be a real actor, and fails again.

In the end the dragons quit in disgust.

BARF!


I mistakenly kept myself awake late last night watching this thing. About the only thing I could say good about this horrid film is that it could be used by film schools to show how not to make a movie. No proper character development, wait, I'm not even sure they were characters. Set-ups were hokey and inane, and the overuse of split screens was wasted since sometimes they couldn't even synchronize with alternate shots. If I could give this a zero or minus rating I would. Sadly, it isn't even worth the time for a few laughs.

 It's just a sad example of money wasted by Hollywood, and now I waste my time even thinking about it.


Why else would he do this to me?

Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.

Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.

To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?

How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?

Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.

Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.

That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...

Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!

fade to black

my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.

But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.


This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film.


I caught this movie on Sci-Fi before heading into work. If you've any interest in seeing Dean Cain dive and avoid being enveloped in flames at least a dozen times, this movie is for you. If that doesn't peak your interest, well, I'm afraid you'll wish that YOU were the one about to be enveloped in flames, because this movie is pretty bad. The acting, to begin with, is awful, awful, awful. The characters are all completely obnoxious, and the dialogue is worse than your typical Z-grade, Sci-Fi movie. Towards the end, the movie began to remind me of 'Hollow Man' (complete with escape via elevator shaft), except with a Dragon, not a naked, invisible man. Unlike other similar flicks, however, this one wasn't even awesomely bad...it was just plain bad.


Dragon Fighter is the first Sci-Fi Channel (although I guess it's now called Syfy?) original movie I have ever seen. But I have seen one or two others since, and I can tell you that they were stupid, but this one really scrapes the bottom of the barrel. The CGI is done poorly, the acting is bad, the script is ridiculous, and what happens at the very end is unexpected and out of place (if you have seen Dragon Fighter, you probably know what I mean; I didn't want to put a spoiler in my review). Plus, there was this one musical tune that was used in pretty much every single dangerous sequence. That was really stupid; they just played it over and over. And it's definitely not original; I know I've heard that somewhere before (I just can't remember where). This is one to avoid.


The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly "present day") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.

All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called "Bailey Kent" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).

Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.


there are those movies that are bad they are funny, then there are those where you scream "i want that one and a half hours of my life back"...thats pretty much what this is.

dean cain tries to be an actor but fails. the sfx are really bad (repeated scenes and rocks that look like falling paper) and the fake plastic guns that have torches taped on them...the split screen effect used to show multiple things happening at once is just terrible.

this movie cant even be used as one of those simple night entertainers, its just that bad

if i could go negative ratings, i would


It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.

I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.

The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.


Yesterday I saw the movie Flyboys and my girlfriend told me it was the worst movie she's ever seen... Since I thought it was pretty awful as well it got me thinking - which film was the worst film I had ever seen and this was the only film that came to mind.

Unfortunately it was a couple of years since I've seen it but I remember the horribly miscast Dean Cain as cocky military man (pretty boy Cain doesn't do cocky very well). The strange deal with the CGI-helicopter when it would probably be cheaper to rent a chopper than to hire some CGI-guys to make it, but my guess is that they found the chopper as a free sample for some CGI program or the producer's son liked to play with his new computer. And how did it look?? Awful. And when the dragon charges through the corridors of the complex then reuse the same shots over and over - looks VERY cheap.

Avoid this movie - it is truly awful...


Pretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches "Dragon Fighter" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).

I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her again.


When you wish for the dragon to eat every cast member, you know you're in for a bad ride.

I went in with very, very low expectations, having read some of the other comments, and was not let down. Unlike some other cheap and failed movies, however, this one doesn't really remain hilariously (and unintentionally) funny throughout.

-SPOILERS FOLLOW-

First of all, plot it very inconsistent. Looking past the "small" mistakes, such as the dragon growing up in 3 hours, the whole idea it's based on is messed up. See, the movie wants us to believe that dragons came from outer space in the form of meteorites which really were dragon eggs. After explaining this, they show some peasant poking at one with his pitchfork and the dragon pops out. Later, the obligatory "crazy scientist" guy babbles on about how dragons outlived the dinosaurs. So apparently humans were around when dinosaurs were, or we just have a fine little plot hole here. The other major thing is that the lab is blown up with a force "half as strong" as what was used for Hiroshima. Then two guys later walk in to check everything out, and it's almost unscathed! There's even another dragon, which grew out of who knows what. All in all it's very predictable. As soon as the guy mentioned cloning, I guessed they'd clone a dragon. That means that our Mr. Smarty-pants security guy isn't so intuitive and smart as the movie would have you believe, if you ignore that I knew this film would be about, you know, dragons.

Putting that aside, the second worst thing is the "special effects." Others have mentioned the fake rocks falling during the beginning, the CG helicopter, and the dragon. It looks a bit better than a blob, but it ruined whatever it had going for it when it trudged down the hall in the same manner time after time. To their credit, the flying dragons in the beginning looked OK from far away (although the one in the cave is probably the worst one in the whole movie.) These things are funny to watch, however. The scenes where a million different shots of the same person facing different ways are shown are not. Nor are the "introduction" screens with the vital stats.

Coming to the actors, they weren't the greatest, but I guess at least they tried? They seemed more enthusiastic about what they were doing than many of the actors participating in the recent "BloodRayne," for example, and you've got to give them points for that. One thing I noticed though was that the woman who plays Meredith often had her face covered in make-up that was many tones lighter than the rest of her. She looked like she had a bad run-in with some white-face.

The script is bad and cheesy. You don't really notice the music, but it's actually not too bad for the most part.

The bottom line is don't watch it unless you want to see it because you hear it's bad (like I did), although the only funny things are the bad CG effects. Other than that, don't waste your time and money.


What a dreadful movie! For some reason, scientific laboratories and outposts always have a staff of grubby, dirty, mean-spirited, misanthropes living inside. These folks who presumably work together on complicated scientific projects cannot seem to agree on how to survive death at the hands of a CGI Dragon. Spoilers: An extra-nasty scientist whose main acting skill is "leering" and "the sinister stare" has cloned a Dragon. While the lab was supposed to work on this kind of thing, the other scientists are shocked, because apparently they were all way behind in their experiments and got caught with their pants down. The rest of the story is like THE THING, or Ten Little Indians, where the staff is hunted and killed off as they try to formulate a way to escape and/or defeat the "Dragon." The CGI Dragon creature is dark gray, which seems to be the popular color for most of the cheap CGI special effects. It hardly looks better than a cartoon, and the dark gray tones make it difficult to see any interesting details in the body of the Dragon. All it looks like is a gray blob. The acting is less than horrible. These scientists act like a bunch of children who cannot agree on anything, and this makes it easier for the Dragon to kill them off in various attempts to escape, hide, etc. Dean Cain is hardly better than any of the cast of unknown actors in this movie. He seems to sink to the level of his supporting cast. This movie is really, really atrocious. The acting is bad. The story is dumb. The CGI is very very cheap and amateurish. There is nothing commendable about this movie, it is not even a good time-killer to glance at while doing chores or other work.


There have been plenty of unknown movies or movies given bad reviews that I really liked. This was not one of them.

It was overacted and used camera techniques that made me feel like I was watching a soap opera. It was ludicrously predictable and took most of the movie to get going then left you asking "that's it?". Once I decided not to take the movie too seriously and watch it from a purely corny point of view it became more enjoyable. This is one movie that would have wound up on MST3000 if it was still on.


This movie is some of the worst crap I have ever seen. I literally got a sharp pain in my head while watching this movie. The CGI was awful, and the story was just a waste of ink. Dean Cain's character was Mr-Super-Intuitive-I-can-figure-out-anything, except he can't seem to work his own helicopter correctly. The biggest problem was the split screen camera work. I felt like I was watching the Brady Bunch or something, only it wasn't different people in the boxes, just close ups and different views of the same thing. I can only figure that the actors really needed the money, because this movie wasn't worth the film it was shot on.


Once I ignored some of the implausibilities, this was actually a fairly decent horror/monster flick. So, I'll give some of the good points first: - the dragon was quite convincing, especially as she prowled through the tunnels looking for lunch (hint: she likes humans). - the action was fairly non stop, and, after a weak beginning, I got quite absorbed in the storyline. - sorry to say, I was kind of rooting for the dragon - she was probably the most convincing and consistent character in the movie.

Now for the implausible stuff **maybe some spoilers**: - if you were hunting a fire-breathing dragon in 1100 AD, would you charge into its cave with a barrel of gunpowder under your arm? Duh. - a female character with an all-American name, blonde hair and obvious Slavic accent, trying to pretend she's Spanish? Huh? - a lead scientist whose Slavic accent you can cut with a knife, and he's supposedly born in Chicago, educated in USA? - a military helicopter pilot who does his own repairs, flies a huge transport copter with no other crew, and is an expert marksman and combat soldier to boot? OK. Uh huh. I won't even mention his giving 3 different call signs in 2 minutes while communicating with his base.

It's still better than some of the Japanese monster flicks from the 60's, but not by much. If we're lucky, we won't see Dragon Fighter 2, though naturally the ending left that possibility wide open. Or, maybe, they'll hire a real director next time.

In spite of everything, I gave this flick a 4 out of 10. Add 2 more if they rewrite the plot, and Dean Cain gets eaten in the first ten minutes. <grin>


If Alien, Jurassic Park and countless other sci fi horror movies are your cup of tea, add a lot of sugar and you'll get this one down. The film begins in jolly old England around 1100ad and then jumps to present day California. Our hero Carver (Dean Cain) is the new Security Chief and Military Advisor for a Science Lab 400 feet underground. He arrives (Carver is also a helicopter pilot) with the lead Scientist and we soon find out it's a cloning lab and they have something newly found to clone. Is it a Dinosaur or what? As with the above movies, all hell breaks loose and our characters start getting picked off. The special effects on the Monster are pretty good for a "direct to video" movie and Dean Cain does what he gets paid for. But forget the rest of the group as we find out why we have never seen them before. Again, don't go in with high expectations and you'll be ok.


Nothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.

Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.

Avoid this one at all costs.


This movie really, i mean REALLY, sucks. Its got plot holes so big, and 30 foot dragon can fit through them. Not to mention the dragon itself, which is inevitably the worst computer generated image ever to be put on the film real. I mean, when you see something like this, you gotta be thinking "Wow, someone actually made this movie. Then released it. That takes guts". Whoever they are, i'm sure they don't work in the film business anymore.

When i hired this movie, it wasn't in on DVD, so i (reluctantly) took it out on video. The first thing to appear, was a Lord of the Rings trailer, for the Two Towers. This was a very clever move, putting this trailer on the video. It justifies me (reluctantly) giving the film 1 star, otherwise i would have given it zero stars. Maybe the producers though the star attraction of Dean Cain (I think thats how you spell it) would draw in the crowds (uh, to the video store that is).

Next they employed split screen technique (like in Hulk) to (i assume) compensate for what an atrocity this piece of crap film is. On the box cover, we see a picture of our hero, and the dragon. Does the dragon look exactly like the one in Dragonheart, or is it just me? Either way, the dragon in the film looks like a reject from Gremlins 2, and has the CGI of a Nintendo video game villain from the early 90's (perhaps worse). Also, not the Dragons movement as it pursues its victims- its the same F##cking monotonous movement- right leg, left leg, right leg left leg- dom, dom, dom, dom DOM, DOM F#$king DOOOOOM! This just pisses me off. Maybe the filmmakers thought this was thrilling and would have the same effect of Jaws. Why not then have a Dragon POV shot. Either way, that was just funny, much like watching a Weebl toon.

Dean Cain gives many puzzled looks during the film (maybe his coming to terms with the fact that this film could end his career). Don't expect Superman here. The first time i saw the trailer for this film, i thought it was an add for a PS2 game.

As for the story, its so so bad, my 5 year old brother can come up with better ones when he's unconvincingly trying to lie about why he was messing around in my room while i wasn't there. Oh, and did i mention that I F@#KING HATE THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THIS INCREDIBLY STUPID STUPID CRAP ATROCIOUS FILM?!!!


OK.... I just have 3 words - cheesy, cheesy and CHEESY! The only redeeming feature of this movie is Dean Cain. Other than that - it's CHEESEBALL SUPREME!!!!

The movie DOES have some promise in the concept - an underground lab creates a real live fire breathing dragon - basically giving us more of "Jurassic Park" meets "Reign of Fire"..... There are some great possibilities, but they just don't follow through.... The special effects are decent - even though you KNOW the dragon is CGI, it doesn't horribly LOOK like CGI....

I wouldn't lay the blame on Dean Cain (although he IS one of the producers), I'd lay more of the blame on Phillip Roth - the director and writer. It's HIS job to make this film.... and, unfortunately, he failed.


When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.


When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.

Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.

Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....


Saturday Night Live, National Lampoon, and SCTV alumnus are all together in a sometimes funny sketch film.

However, it is very interesting to watch now, at the start of 2005. Twenty years after this movie is supposed to take place, look at how many of their gags have become absolutely true: There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something called "The Pregnant Man" which came true with Arnold Schwarzenegger's dumb movie "Junior" There is a commercial spoof, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, for something featuring Sammy Davis Jr. and Jackie Onasis called "Celebrity Wrestling" which has now come true with a popular show called "Celebrity Boxing" There is a mock movie trailer, that probably wasn't even clever at the time, that features John Candy in a movie about a severed head. Watch this trailer and look how similar it's shots and plot are to Frank Hellenlotter's Basket Case!! And finally there is an ad for a late late show documentary about "a dead dream, the only two left ..." The name of the documentary is ... THE LAST HIPPIES! LOL.

Four prophecies come true!


Stephen Feinberg, who Played the Proctologist and was one of the writers of the movie, passed away in early 2006. I met Steve in Portland in 1993, it was a year latter when he told me that he had been a writer in Hollywood years earlier, working mostly on TV promos. He asked me not to see 'Tunnel Vision', but it was too late, I had seen it already! Actually I had seen it years before, when it was released. At that time I didn't think it was that bad a movie. However seeing it as an adult my opinion was somewhat different. Yes is is a bit puerile as well as dated. Steve admitted it was not a very good movie. That said he was just a little proud of 'The Proctologist' sketch.


This is the worst movie I ever paid to see and with the exception of "They Saved Hitler's Brain" the worst movie I have ever seen period. When this movie came out I was a big fan of SNL and SCTV and therefore was anticipating what I thought would be the funniest movie that could be produced since it did not have the restrictions the TV improv shows must deal with.

The writers must have thought we will throw in some grossness, some flatulence jokes, some cheap sex and hey we have a risky side splitting laughable comedy. The game show skits are nothing more than cheap unimaginable take offs on Let's Make a Deal with stupid grossness. The sit com take off involving the single girl and her boyfriend was just plain bad high school humor. The stun gun advertisement was suitable humor for Seasame Street. The LA subway skit was bland humor using tasteless bloodiness. The french chef walking around blind constantly uttering "there is no difference" with a french accent was, well you get my point.

The only funny skit involved Chevy Chase which lasted for a whole minute. This means you get 60 seconds of entertainment in this movie. Oh yea I've read the comments about the entire country being stoned in the 1970's and you will like this movie if you are high. Well most of the country was not stoned in the 70's. If the inept writers were stoned it must have been on drowsy sinus medicine. There were 4 other people in the theater besides myself when I saw this movie. Of course word did not get out yet about how bad the movie was.


In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. "Amazon Women on the Moon", "Kentucky Fried Movie", "The Meaning of Life", and "Mr. Mike's Mondo Video". Notice how I didn't mention "Tunnel Vision"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal


I missed the beginning but I did see most of it. A friend got it on DVD in the cheap room at FYE.

The skits are all very short, and yet most of them are still too long. The majority of them, they seem to have forgotten to have something funny! Quite a lot of racist/sexist/"homophobic" humor in it, skits based on stereotypes, or skits which use racist terms for people.

I'm trying to remember anything I thought was funny in it, and I'm having trouble.... The logo for the Tunnel Vision network is a lipsticked mouth with an eyeball in it. The mouth opens and closes over the eye like eyelids. Kind of creepy.

What a disappointment. Most of the actors went on to better things, and it's lucky this bomb didn't hold them back.


This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies.


Back in the 70's, when I had first seen this, I was in high school. It was cool then. Now as an adult I look back at it and I say to myself..yeah right. What was so funny? It has it's moments but they are few and far between. It is so dated that the jokes no longer stand up. Show this to a younger crowd and they will be totally lost. If you like this type of humor you may want to stick with Kentucky Fried Movie or Amazon Women From The Moon. Tunnel Vision as well as Groove tube are too dated for today's viewing.


This is a decent endeavor but the guy who wrote the screenplay seems to be a bit in the dark as to what exactly makes a zombie movie cool. No, it isn't CGI bugs and software companies. Actually I'm not sure whether it was a software company - I saw it without subtitles so I had to guess what they're talking about. Anyway my point was - instead of wasting your time animating some dumb-ass bug, why not throw in more zombies and more action. 2/3 of the 20 minutes consist of news bulletins, bugs, some guys yelling about something. And to makes matters worse (more boring) most of the deaths occur off-screen. I realize that's all too common for no-budget movies, but then there were some very impressive effects (well, kind-a of) which left me wondering why did the director (or screenwriter, whatever) chose to focus on how the epidemic started - it's a short, nobody's gonna care anyway.


I bought this DVD after seeing it highly ranked here. It's just a short 20 minutes zombie film. Nothing special about it except for the music perhaps.

Don't buy it! Not even really worth spending 20 minutes to see it. Only if you're really bored...


Steven Vasquez directed and co-wrote with James Townsend, the star, this strange little drama cum horror flick with evidently very good ideas and intentions: make a gay film that takes a different storyline than the usual fare and make a drama that wants to be judged on its merits as a thriller. So why doesn't it work? For starters the film loses direction from the opening frame and wanders rather aimlessly throughout the film, dead set on making a suspense thriller but getting sidetracked into satisfying an audience who wants to see nude encounters. Not that that is a bad thing: it can certainly enhance some films that have been Hollywood successes. The film also tries to talk about coming out experiences in young men and women, relationships, disturbed parenting, the club scene with all the wild antics that accompany such events - and murder. It is all a bit much to cram into a 96-minute film.

Devon (James Townsend) by all appearances is a successful kid with a kind girlfriend Jenna (Sarah Kelly) but he has an eye for boys and visits a bar where he meets Brian (Alex Wilson) who has been down the same path and can offer Devon assistance on every level. They bond, Devon comes out, and the mysteries begin: boys are missing in the neighborhood, Devon's stepfather psychologist Dr. Kirk Tyler (Dan Swett) is not at all what he appears to be and despite Devon's consoling mother Donna (Sonja Fisher) Devon is cast into the streets because of his new relationship. It seems Dr Tyler is in a dark business with hunky Detective Cunningham (Earl McDougle) who apparently is investigating the missing boys... Devon gathers his resources from his understanding girlfriend Jenna and her cronies and together the group unveils the dark doings of Dr. Tyler and his detective sidekick. And through it all Donna radiates warmth and understanding as the perfect mother of a gay boy, etc.

Some of the actors are pleasing to the eye (and there is very little the eye doesn't examine frequently!) but the degree of acting is at an all time low. The only thing that makes us forgive that (and in some cases it is just too poor to forgive) is the feeling of commitment on the part of everyone involved. Yes, this is a low budget movie and yes, the director needs time to learn his trade. But in the end there is something to be said for the involved people to try to take a gay film to a different level. Maybe their next one will be more polished. Grady Harp


There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.

The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.

James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.

The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.


Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.

Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.

It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.


The only redeeming quality of this film is the actual storyline...Otherwise, this movie was terrible. The acting was ridiculously bad, and the set design was cheesy and very tacky. The story was decent, but it was very hard to watch due to all the horrid acting. I wouldn't recommend watching this one...The only redeeming quality of this film was that the actors were somewhat attractive...Especially Ryan Bauer, the man who plays the soap opera star. Some of the editing was well done, but there are continuity errors all over the place...I'm just starting to get sick and tired of watching gay movies that are bad...Can we get a good one soon?


THIS FILM IS LAME, LAME, LAME!!!!! It takes a lot to bring me to over-exaggeration about a movie, but this movie stunk up my house!! I haven't even finished the movie yet and I had to stop to comment on how bad this movie is. I'VE NEVER DONE THAT!! As a consumer, do not spend your money on this film. Wait until it comes out on a cable channel or something. It's barely TV worthy. I REALLY HATE TRASHING A MOVIE, BUT THIS MOVIE IS TRASH! Barely above porn. Should have and X rating! Good plot, some frontal nudity (if that floats your boat), but HORRIBLE high school level acting. Don't know how this movie received distribution. (Must have been a contractual thing.) Really, if you really like watching good movies, don't waste you time with this one. From one movie lover to another. YOU WILL BE MAD AT YOURSELF! Let me say this as well, if you've been through something like this perhaps you can relate and it will have some value for you. In that case I say watch it, you may take something away from it, if not just seeing something that's happened to you being acted out by someone else (has therapeutic value).


Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.

The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of "the public" are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the "shenanigans" seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.

The "stinging one-liners" mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made.


If you've ever wanted to see a film that stresses style over substance, this is for you. To me, Son de Mar is beautiful to SEE, but there's precious little substance, unless mawkish, melodramatic, manipulative love yarns turn you on. This may be one of those famous 'chick flicks' you've heard so much about.

We're about half-way through this film before anything really happens: Ulises (Jordi Molla) goes out to sea looking for tuna, and doesn't come back, leaving his wife Martina (Leonor Watling) and son to fend for themselves. Then, in a furious six minutes of screen time, they bury Ulises, Martina gets married again, and her son grows into mid-childhood. This rapid transposition is jarring, to say the least, and very sloppy: after 40 minutes of more or less hanging around, we're suddenly into a full-blown melodrama, all in six minutes. I think this is called wayward narrative pacing.

Five years later, Ulises (as in the wandering superhero Ulysses; get it?), returns to his 'Penelope' (Watling) only to find she's married to Sierra (Eduard Fernandez), an inexplicably wealthy guy (what does he DO to earn all that dough?) who inexplicably keeps crocodiles as pets. When Martina, in great anger, questions Ulises about his absence, he tells her that he'll take her to the island of Sumatra someday and she'll understand EVERYTHING.

And here's the thing: he DOESN'T take her to the island of Sumatra. The reference just dies somewhere in the script. He DOESN'T really explain where he was and why he ignored his wife and child for five years. He DOESN'T acquit himself as an honourable guy, and the movie DOESN'T fill in the plot holes that are staring at us for at least half of the film. I can only assume that director Bigas Luna wants us to fill in the story lines with the mystical clues (fish, reptiles, the sea) he offers through breathtaking cinematography and evasive dialogue. It just doesn't work. The narrative 'arc' on this film ends up looking more like a wobbly clothesline.

I'm sure Jordi Molla is a good actor, but I just couldn't buy his Ulises as any kind of hero (which is what the original Ulysses was supposed to be). With moist sensuality, he spouts a short stanza of identical poetry from Virgil roughly 2,000 times and each and every time it excites Martina to explosive orgasm. This guy should be rented out to reinvigorate stale marriages. I'm sure Virgil would be impressed. He didn't get laid that often, as I understand it.

This poetic 'device' figures prominently in the film, and I had no choice but to assume it was a gender reversal of Ulysses' famous 'siren song' (i.e. beautiful maidens singing seductively to far-off sailors, who were doomed if they answered the, well, siren call). If this is what Bigas Luna is up to, you can see the problem -- he's offering convoluted symbolism in a snatch-and-grab attempt at High Art. Once again, it just doesn't work, at least in my eyes.

Watling is a beautiful and magnetic young actor, but she gives us a character here who doesn't seem to have much intellectual or even romantic depth. It's beyond me how she could desperately fall in love with a guy who sports a for-rent sign on his face (as in vacant), oily 1960s-style hair that looks more like seaweed, and one of those trendy 21st-century 'beards' (you know, four days' growth, no more, no less). He's SUPPOSED to be a dreamy kind of guy (I think), but those eyes of his suggest he might be suffering more from overexposure to a preposterous script.

But, don't despair, this film is great to look at. Just don't try to connect the dots on the red herrings or think too much about what you're hearing in the way of dialogue. You can do a lost of fast-forwarding on this film (particularly in the first 40 minutes) and you really won't miss much.


Ulises is a literature teacher that arrives to a coastal town. There, he will fell in love to Martina, the most beautiful girl in town. They will start a torrid romance which will end in the tragic death of Ulises at the sea. Some years later, Martina has married to Sierra, the richest man in town and lives a quiet happy live surrounded by money. One day, the apparition of Ulises will make her passion to rise up and act without thinking the consequences. The plot is quite absurd and none of the actors plays a decent part. IN addition, three quarters of the film are sexual acts, which, still being well filmed, are quite tiring, as we want to see More development of the story. It is just a bad Bigas Luna's film, with lots of sex, no argument and stupid characters everywhere.


My nose is bent slightly out of shape as I write this. I had sent a previous comment on this film some weeks ago that has not yet appeared, so I assume it was rejected, even though it met all the usual guidelines.

I found this film interesting for the first thirty minutes, particularly the performance of Jordi Mollà, a veteran actor who has appeared in such major productions as "Blow" and "The Alamo." Leonor Watling is also quite good. Unfortunately, everything sinks eventually under the weight of a truly awful, melodramatic script. There is also an abundance of gratuitous nudity that does nothing to advance the narrative or lend even an impressionistic nuance to what is otherwise a beautifully filmed piece of art.

An actual day trip to the beach at Valencia would be much less arduous than having to encounter these fictional characters again anywhere, anytime.


This Paramount version/ripoff of OKLAHOMA!/ANNIE GET YOUR GUN/CALAMITY JANE isn't all that unusual or innovative. The marketing and intro comments may be there to salvage what is really a pretty bad movie musical western shot on a soundstage and like a live TV show. I don't find the use of the background cyclorama, lit in various scenes with yellow, or pink, or red, or....all that innovative. As noted, it looks more to me like a movie that was produced on a TV budget: All soundstage, with minimal sets backed by the lighted cycs! (Compare to NEW FACES (OF 1952). The actors come off reasonably well, though. And this style was much better realized when Paramount shot LI'L ABNER in 1959. Of couorse, this movie suggests the often repeated question: "what were they thinking?"


I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.


It was Jon Pertwee who said " It`s very difficult to be funny but very easy to be silly " . Well if that`s the case PASTY FACES is " Very easy " . David Baker ( As Director /Screenwriter ) and his cast seem to be under the impression that comedy involves stealing scenes and style from superior Britcoms like LOCK STOCK.. and TRAINSPOTTING , using a completely underdeveloped script and jumping up and down speaking in a very fast voice very loudly . Alan McCaffrey especially suffers from this type of OTT performance but not enough to ruin the film because there`s not enough of a film to ruin .<br /><br />PASTY FACES is terrible on all fronts especially scriptwise . I couldn`t understand why it ended the way it did , it just seemed to stop in a very abrupt and silly manner . Oh and other glaring errors are that you need a visa to visit the USA and a green card in order to work there - This film would have you believe you can get off a plane and start a new life in America without any authorisation - that you still get paid to donate blood in America - People who I know in America , and who donate blood tell me payment for donations stopped several years ago - and that you can buy any type of weapon from a gun shop . As far as I know gun laws in America differ from state to state but no gun shops sell anti tank guns over the counter . So we`ve got a very erroneous view of America from a very unreal and oh so unfunny film . Maybe this is revenge for BRAVEHEART a very Hollywood view of the Scots ? Perhaps , but this doesn`t stop PASTY FACES from being a crap comedy


If John Waters had written and directed "House of 1000 Corpses" after being struck about the head repeatedly with a heavy object, the result would probably be something like "The Blood Shed." It's mildly entertaining for the first half hour, but then it slides into a sort of featureless glop of constant screaming and people doing things to each others genitalia with electric carving knives, cutlery and pliers. Susan Adriensen (Sno Cakes) is incredibly annoying and Terry West (Elvis Bullion) is almost as bad in whatever it is he's doing in front of the camera.

Maybe the best thing about "The Blood Shed" is that it won't take most viewers very long to forget about it.


A female country singer nicknamed "Big T"--seriously, that's what they call her--risks her budding musical career and her life by falling into the company of a sleazy drunkard (Busey) who wants to be her manager. His mother committed suicide, his father's an alcoholic as well, and he has a violent temper. You can imagine where that leads. In the meantime, there's music aplenty, as Parton, with her fluid vocal talents, belts out song after song (at least half a dozen of them about Texas). Steer clear of this mess and check her out in NINE TO FIVE or STEEL MAGNOLIAS instead.


The first point that calls the attention in "For Ever Mozart" is the absence of a plot summary in IMDb. The explanation is simple since there is no story, screenplay, plot or whatever might recall the minimum structure of a movie. Jean-Luc Godard is one of the most overrated and pretentious directors of the cinema industry and this pointless crap is among his most hermetic films. I believe that neither himself has understood what is this story about; but there are intellectuals that elucubrate to justify or explain this messy movie, and it is funny to read their reviews.

My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Para Sempre Mozart" ("Forever Mozart")


...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.


this movie, i won't call it a "film," was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.

but let's have something with a bit more substance.

loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.

but one cameo after another gets old fast.

i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the "greatest generation," as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...

movie.


Really, it's nothing much. I only recommend watching it if; 1.) You're a big fan of any of the main stars. 2.) If you really want to check out the first time Lucille Ball was seen with red hair.

4 out of 10 stars


The main question I pose concerning this film is, how do you film a cole porter musical and only use 3 of his 15 songs! merman and lahr played the lead roles on broadway, here they are replaced by the weaker red skelton and lucille ball. plot changes abound and the fun is lost.

SKIP IT.


Following the release of Cube 2: Hypercube (2003), and playing off the alleged success of the original Cube (1998), Director Ernie Barbarash takes the liberty of bringing us the third installment in the trilogy, the prequel Cube Zero.

Deep in the bowels of a giant and faceless institution, time and place unknown, two low-ranking operators, Wynn (Zachary Bennett) and Dodd (David Huband) sit and observe on monitors the behavior of people that have been placed in a giant network of cubic chambers, some of which are rigged with death traps. Told that the people they are observing are convicted felons who chose this horrific and deadly ordeal over a lethal injection, these observers have had no problem with their jobs until Wynn, a mathematical genius, discovers that one of the prisoners, a woman named Cassandra (Stephanie Moore) never agreed to be put inside the Cube. Suddenly it's realized that perhaps their "jobs" are not what they seem, and that they may be part of something deeply sick and twisted...

For people that have seen and enjoyed the original Cube, this prequel will probably not be to your liking. It's not that the story does not have potential; it's simply that the first Cube film never needed to be expanded on. Standing alone, it is a neat little psychological thriller with very interesting concepts and a certainty about its own message. It was also nicely self-contained. The problem with Cube Zero is that it destroys some of the mystique of the original, attempting to answer questions with more questions but only really resulting in making a mess of what never needed fixing.

What this new film has to offer, which is questions about the psychological nature of authoritarianism and the banality of evil, certainly are good questions to be raised, but probably should have been done so on their own merits, rather than as a continuation of a film that had no such aspirations.

Having said this, the other traits of the film, such as acting and direction and writing, are not awful. There is a bleak, dark look to the film akin to such film noir as 'The Matrix' and 'Dark City', and they have certainly managed to recapture the claustrophobic feeling of the first Cube. Unfortunately for Barbarash, these are not enough positive qualities to save it.


The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.

The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.

The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).

That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.

The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.


The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became "flat" as in a soap opera.

If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like "do you believe in god?", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it.


The screen writing is so dumb it pains me to have wasted 2 hours of my life I'll never get back (where have I heard this before). The acting is so-so. Things change often enough to keep you watching and waiting for something gruesome to happen. Nevertheless there isn't a single original thing in this movie. While the first Cube was a nerdy horror movie, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in the end, cube zero has picked up on that and tries to retell exactly the same story, except this time it makes an obnoxious point of trying to spoon-feed explanations for every detail that the first movie didn't answer. The comic thing is, the director recycles the exact scenes of the first movie that were somewhat weird, and tries to explain them. But the scenes are just copied over, there is no coherence whatsoever. This script is sooo pointless. I can imagine it being written by some half-wit 15 year old with a baseball cap and a pack of beer for a class project. The best part is in the end, they cripple the 'good' wunderkind guy, and he becomes the retarded fellow in the first movie, and you see him when they find him ('this room is green..') in Cube 1997. Goodie gooodie, clap clap, what a twist. First of all, what about if you haven't seen the first one, this doesn't make any sense you nitwit director. Oh, another great idea: instead of the numbers to identify x,y,z coordinates of the room (cube 1997), this time it is 3 letters, each one giving one of 26 possible coordinate values. Duh. Except now permutations don't make much sense anymore..so he lets the letters disappear before anybody can use them..I want my money back.

I guess I had to write this down since there are just so many bad, inconsistent, or just stupid ideas in this movie. Directors/writers should be required to possess some talent.


Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.

Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.

There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?

I understand there is another one in the works.

Blah!


The original "Cube" is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like "Cube Zero."

This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.

What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, "Cube Zero" reminded me of a "Cube" fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel.


This is pretty much a low-budget, made for TV, type of movie intended to capitalize off of the success of the original. I'm a fan of b-movies, and this one might have been good had they not attached the name "Cube" to it, because as is, the director and plot of the original were better, and this movie just about ruined my taste for the entire series. The characters are annoying and clichéd, there are problems with continuity, and several outright production screw-ups. The story hardly gets a chance to develop because of superfluous dialogue and suffers from that. They more or less use the same horror gimmicks over and OVER throughout the movie, and because the first one was so good, this simply turns out as a disappointment.

If this was a stand-alone b-movie, I'd probably give it about a four. The "1" rating I give it was pretty much a statement about how it utterly paled in effects and intelligence as compared to the first.


Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).

I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.

Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).

I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10]


The killings in this movie isn't that bad, but for sure the movie is. It's even worse than that. It's not even worth the wear it might cause when you slide it into your DVD-player.

Not even the wear it causes on your shoulders carrying it from the DVD-store, not to speak of the money and time you spend renting and watching it. Horrible.

It's beyond understanding how anyone could say anything positive about this movie. It was just a bare masochistic tendency of mine that caused me not to stop watching, add to that the group pressure from my co-watchers.

The manuscript is awful, the directing even worse and the acting is plain despicable.

I hope you don't see this as a spoiling your fun, i'd rather see it as a fair warning: Do not waste your time watching this garbage!


i think this one sucked on ice, because it left the cube, and gave us to much information as to the who's and why's. The original CUBE never left the cube, and it left everything to your imagination. This crap fest however, gives you it all. and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source. so i recommend you stay far, far away from this one, and HYPERCUBE, another movie i don't even want to discuss...(i gave it a 2 for the acting only)


This movie was yet another waste of time... Why oh why do I keep renting crap like this?... someone please tell me... *sigh* Oh well. back to the movie at hand: Cube Zero is probably worth it if you REALLY REALLY enjoyed the first movie, (like I did), and just want to check out what's up in the last (hopefully) movie scraped together just to keep some poor actors and screenwriters employed, then of course this is the movie for you. But if you are looking for a good movie with good acting and a fantastic plot... *evil grin* then this movie is definitely for you :-D.... OK I'm lying... At best this movie sucks. OK, I have to admit that certain elements to it was cool.. well.. coolish... and I laughed quite a few times, prolly at the wrong things, but nevertheless I was amused. :-) But all in all the few things that barely makes the "ok" category isn't enough to make this movie worth it at all.. Unless you count "Manos - Hand of Fate" one of the top ten movies EVER!


the only thing that frequently pops into my head while i'm writing this review is,i'll never get that hour and a half back!!! to indicate that i'm not just blowing air, i'll compare the movie to the other movies of the cube trilogy(cube and hypercube)!cube wasn't great but it was original and that made up for some technical flaws!hypercube as a sequel lost the advantage of originality but it came out looking pretty sharp and i even liked it beter than cube(the story was better)! but cube zero in comparison to it's predecessors really isn't worth sh*t!a complete lack of good fx, a very f*ck*d up script and just plain old bad acting don't combine well! example:all of the time during the movie i was thinking it would be incredibly stupid if ... should happen and then it would happen, so it's not very original neither! my advice: don't lose that hour and a half i lost!!!!!!!! oh and i hope this movie crashes and burns!!!!!!!


Checking the spoiler alert just in case.

Perhaps one of the most horrendous movies I have ever seen, Mazes and Monsters felt like I wasted 101 minutes of my life. The only redeeming quality of the movie were scenes that tried to be serious, but just ended up being funny since they were so bad. Evil Dead anyone? Unfortunately for M&M (fortunately for us) it did not develop a cult following and result in a trilogy. This movie tried to address a series of problems that the main character, Robbie (played by Hanks) encountered throughout the film. It ended up being a fear mongering video about stereotypes that helped fuel the D&D is the Devil movement in the 80s.

If you want to avoid wasting your time and money, steer clear of this junk.

P.S. - Even though the cover looks kinda interesting, which is why I guess my brother bought it, it in no way takes place in a fantasy realm, unless you consider New England or New York City to be such a place.


Many things become clear when watching this film: 1) the acting is terrible. Tom Hanks and Wendy Crewson are so-so, but the parent-child conflict borders soap opera-ish. The other two boys: an overly pouty child prodigy and your stereotypical I'm-a-babe-but-I'm-really-sensitive-inside blonde dreamboat; 2) the film as a whole is depressing and disappointing; 3) Robbie's dreams and episodes are disturbing (acted by Tom Hanks); 4) the inclusion of the beginning love ballads is an odd choice ("we are all special friends"); 5) the weird lines and side plots are not made any better by the terrible acting; and 5) this is a really bad movie. Expect to be disappointed--and probably disturbed.