This short spoof can be found on Elite's Millennium Edition DVD of "Night of the Living Dead". Good thing to as I would have never went even a tad out of my way to see it.Replacing zombies with bread sounds just like silly harmless fun on paper. In execution, it's a different matter. This short didn't even elicit a chuckle from me. I really never thought I'd say this, but "Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D" was a VERY better parody and not nearly as lame or boring.

My Grade: F


'Utter Crap' pretty well sums up what this...."movie" was. I'd rather examine the colon of an African elephant with a penlight than sit through this again. I think I've wasted enough time watching this "movie" - I don't need to waste more by commenting on it further......


This movie is not as good as all think. the actors are lowlevel and the story is very comic-like. I respect fantasy but Lord of the Rings is fantasy...Conan..is fantasy...THIS IS JUST NORMAL HK-LOWPRICE-ENTERTAINMENT...Why did they include this Splatter-tongue, it makes everything worse. The only good thing is the cinematography and the cutter's Job.


This film may have been the biggest let-down I've experienced in renting movies based on IMDb reviews. Overall, I simply found this to be a second-rate movie.

Leslie Cheung is certainly passable as the antihero and Ma Wu handles his character with cheerful competence. On the other hand, Ma Wu's makeup (facial hair) is so obviously phony that I simply could not take him seriously. He looked like an overweight teenager dressed up for Halloween, complete with the $4.95 stick-on beard.

The special effects were so-so, though the "undead" in the cellar were pretty good. The tree-tongue looked like something from a bad 1950s monster flick, though the POV shots from the tongue's view more closely resembled Sam Raimi's trademark shots in the more recent "Evil Dead" trilogy. The pyrotechnics were ho-hum and the final battle is about as dull as you can get. (In fact, it most closely reminded me of the "Lost in Space" episode where the Robinsons are caught in a sandstorm and....)

The plot was not particularly original and has been told countless times in the form of European fairy tales. There was no suspense and no plot twists. In fact, you know right away as you are introduced to the characters who is good, who is bad, and who is going to survive.

I just returned this film to Netflix and then I sat down to write this review. The very first thing I did was check the production date. Yep, it says 1987...not the 1967 that I thought it might be. And that pretty much sums it up: The production values and FX are typical of the 1960s. The plot and action seem much older, as Hollywood was actually producing some interesting and challenging films in the 60s.

** out of *****


"The house of the spirits" is quite awful. I live in South America, in a country that suffered a military dictatorship just like the one the movie tries to describe, and even though everyone knows movies may be far far away from reality, this particular movie treats viewers as both ignorant and stupid. Things are not so simple and linear as appears here, and of course political process are much more complicated and interesting that the plot in "The house...". If you can't show that complexity on screen is better not making a movie at all. There are a lot of examples of how can politics be seriously taken in cinema, without so many commonplaces. In some parts I felt that Carmen Miranda may appear within parrots and palm trees. When you talk about certain things you must be not only careful but respectful to your public's intelligence.


We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.

One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.

If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.


This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.


I read the novel some years ago and I liked it a lot. when I saw the movie I couldn't believe it... They changed everything I liked about the novel, even the plot. I wonder what did Isabel Allende (author) say about the movie, but I think it sucks!!!


This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read!


The direction struck me as poor man's Ingemar Bergman. The inaudible dialogue was annoying. The somber stoicism that all characters except Banderas' showed made me think they were drugged. I think the director ruined it for me.


I regret that I've seen this movie. Can't believe that the creator of Best Intentions and Pelle the Conqueror could make such a bleak and boring film. What a waste!


Isabel Allende's magical, lyrical novel about three generations of an aristocratic South American family was vandalized. The lumbering oaf of a movie that resulted--largely due to a magnificent cast of Anglo actors completely unable to carry off the evasive Latin mellifluousness of Allende's characters, and a plodding Scandinavian directorial hand--was so uncomfortable in its own skin that I returned to the theater a second time to make certain I had not missed something vital that might change my opinion. To my disappointment, I had not missed a thing. None among Meryl Streep, Jeremy Irons, Glenn Close and Vanessa Redgrave could wiggle free of the trap set for them by director Bille August. All of them looked perfectly stiff and resigned, as if, by putting forth as little effort as possible, they expected to fade unnoticed into lovely period sets. (Yes, the film was art directed within an inch of its life.) Curious that the production designer was permitted the gaffe of placing KFC products prominently in a scene that occurs circa 1970--years before KFC came into being. Back then, it was known by its original name: Kentucky Fried Chicken. Even pardoning that, what on earth is Kentucky Fried Chicken doing in a military dictatorship in South America in 1970? American fast food chains did not hit South America until the early 1980s. "The House of the Spirits" should have been the motion picture event of 1993. Because it was so club-footed and slavishly faithful to its vague idea of what the novel represented, Miramax had to market it as an art film. As a result, it was neither event nor art. And for that, Isabel Allende should have pressed charges for rape.


When I found out there was a movie that had both my favorite actresses Meryl Streep and Wynona Ryder, I went through the roof!But I had a hard fall after watching this lame movie and I still have the bruise.First of all the character that Jeremy Irons (an actor I still admire even after this disappointment)plays was just awful. He treated his family like crap, especially his sister, played by Glenn Close. I could not get close or sympathize with any of the characters and I'm no prude, but the sex scenes were really unnecessary or they could have been toned down. Wynona and Antonio's characters could have been developed a lot more and their romance could have been much more passionate. And what was with Meryl's character and her "mystical powers"? Why didn't they go into this more? This film had a lot of dead ends and the bottom line is that this is a really lousy movie and there was a lot of wasted talent here.


There's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them.

Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated "pro" wrestling match.

Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom.

If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.

Not recommended.


I'm glad I rented this movie for one reason: its shortcomings made me want to read Allende's book and get the full story.

Pros: the movie is beautiful, the period is depicted well and consistently (to the best of my knowledge), and Meryl and Glenn do good jobs.

Cons: This is the worst acting job I've ever seen from Jeremy Irons--I kept wondering if something was wrong with his mouth. (And I hate the terribly English way he says "Transito.") Winona Ryder does nothing believable except look young and idealistic. Most of the other performances are OK, but so few things hang together in the character arcs and the relationship development that I was frustrated and angry well before the end.

I'm very curious now whether this movie is typical of Bille August's work. I may have to drop another couple of bucks to rent Smilla's Sense of Snow.


I managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.


Forget Plan 9, this is the ultimate fiasco, a costume drama, ineptly directed, scripted, acted, etc. This film is based on Isabel Allende's not-so-much-better novel. I hate Meryl Streep and Antonio Banderas (in non-Spanish films), and the other actors, including Winona, my favourite actress and Jeremy Irons try hard to get over such a terrible script. Plenty of mistakes (like, for example, since when does it snow in Xmas in Chile?) and very cruel, with tons of that evil named "magic realism", this stands out as the worst movie of all time. It totally sucks!!!


I confess--Emma, in my opinion, is the single greatest novel ever written. It is as close to perfection as any mortal creation can be. Jane Austen reaches the pinnacle of her art here.

Unfortunately, this is at best a palimpsest.

Comparison to the Gwyneth Paltrow version is inevitable--that version is far more faithful to the witty spirit of the book and far more enjoyable to watch.

There are some good elements here--Kate Berkinsale (having previously played Flora Poste in Cold Comfort Farm, clearly Emma's smarter spiritual twin) is a wonderful Emma. Raymond Coulthard makes an appropriately decorative Frank Churchill. The production is handsome, but the interiors are far too dark.

However, there are several major problems. The first is Mark Strong--first of all, he doesn't look right for Mr. Knightley. This is perhaps because he plays the role like a censorious Victorian parson. It's badly out of tune.

The second problem is one of length. Simply put, the film is much too short--to get the right kind of feel, it would need to be twice as long.

Finally, and most significantly, there is the quality of the adaptation. Austen is an adapter's dream--all the dialogue is there already. It only needs to be pruned down and arranged properly. Andrew Davies seems to think otherwise. First, this is a rather gloomy film, and the last thing Emma should be is gloomy. More significantly, Davies has seen fit to rewrite the ending as some sort of bucolic feast. What planet, or minor work of Thomas Hardy, is this come from? It is utterly out of the style and spirit of the novel. And I believe that it is hugely presumptuous to try to make improvements upon--perfection.

Watch the Paltrow version, or watch Kate in Cold Comfort Farm.


Emma is my favourite Jane Austen novel - Emma is well-meaning despite her flaws, so readers can forgive and love her, and the relationship she has with Mr Knightley, which is warm, familiar, respectful but playful, generating that warm, fuzzy, romantic excitement. Mr Knightley is the perfect man, and Emma is as close as you could get in those times to an independent, clever, confident woman - remember, she is only 21, and was sure to have matured and grown out of her flaws. Who doesn't want to be Emma? Who doesn't want to be told off by Mr Knightley? This version of Emma gives you no sense of the things that I love about Emma. I couldn't even finish watching it, I just found it so awful. I couldn't see that warm, generous side of Emma, which drives the reader to love her: The patience and warmth she shows to her father; the closeness between her and Mrs Weston, which demonstrates her willingness to put her friend's happiness above her own (as she sacrifices the only equal companion in her household by forwarding Miss Taylors marriage). Mr Woodhouse's character in this adaptation just appears bizarre, rather than just quaint, elderly and a bit trying.

This adaptation most importantly fails bring to life the relationship between Mr Knightley and Emma. Their relationship is built on mutual respect and affection: Mr Knightley is indulgent of Emma's minor faults trusting that her intelligence and genuine care for others will never allow her to go terribly astray; and Emma looks up to him, though playfully hiding this and continuing to use her own judgement. The dressing down he gives her right at the beginning of the show completely overstates the argument between them, and ruins all possibility of portraying the nature of their relationship as I've described above. Mr Knightley is also insufficiently attractive to bring to life the sexual tension between the leads (or to inspire any admiration from the female viewers).

Really horrible. I can't understand why anyone who truly like the novel Emma could like it, unless it miraculously redeems itself after the point I switched it off.


This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.


The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).


As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair "off". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.

All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead


Where do I start? Per the title of this film I expected some degree of authenticity, in the end I was severally let down. This is not the story of Lale Andersen or the song Lili Marlene, rather it is a Hollywood (or pick your film making hub) story loosely based on some real life characters. I should have had a clue when I heard a heavy English accent giving the intro to the movie in German; the blood red text (title, artists) should have been the 2nd clue. The story line is contrived (Lale was not tricked out of Switzerland Rolf Liebermann's parents, there is no info that Liebermann helped smuggle Jews from Germany, the original song had been recorded outside of the control of the NS regime not while under control, the record played at the station was picked up in Vienna while a Lt. was there on leave, etc, etc) the costumes are poor and incorrect for the time frames (SS black uniforms used every where from border guards to staff positions, these went away from daily use once the war started, etc), the characters are stereo types (SA bullies in a club once they were essentially out of power). Don't waste your time.


I am terribly sorry, I know that Faßbinder still is called one of the greatest directors in post-war Germany and that most of his films are considered "master-pieces", but when I see "Lili Marleen" today, in 2004, I wonder what everyone is up and away about this movie! The acting is simply terrible - Hanna Schygulla is all the smiling like an idiot! -, the changings between Nazi-glamour and battlefields are ridiculous, the whole film looks as if it was made within two days in an attic. Probably it was exactly that way and many people seem to take this for "real art", but for me this movie is simply bad & cheap. Compare this to Viscontis "La Caduta degli Dei" and tell me again that "Lili Marleen" is a good movie...


Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****


Well. Astronaut Steve West sits in a plastic space capsule, commenting that "you haven't lived until you've seen the sun through the rings of Saturn", all the while the obvious mid-day sunlight is streaming through the window, when suddenly he has a nose bleed. Next, West is back home in some secret hospital, a melting gelatinous mass who goes berserk and causes a chunky nurse to run through a fake glass door. Apparently, West "gets stronger as he melts", which makes about as much sense as anything in this hopelessly purile, adle-brained moovie. Then this dopey "Army Brass", who looks kind of like Coleman Francis (director of many bad moovies) tries to cover the info up, but goo man runs around killing everyone he sees because he is melting. He attacks a bickering old couple because he is melting. He makes one terrible actress scream and moan helplessly for about 10 minutes because he is melting. He is melting because he is melting. The fx by the slumming Rick Baker are supposed to be the star here, but they just look hokey. The film is poorly shot and everything looks so dark and muddled that it's very difficult making out what's what - not that it would help any. MooCow says who cut the cheese with this one?? :=8P ps - "Didn't you get any crackers?"


Once upon a time some evil people made a movie about a guy that got shot into space, supposedly to go to Saturn, but really only to some stock footage of solar flares, and then he gets a nose bleed, and before you know it, he's laying in a hospital bandaged head to foot, and then an overweight nurse with an ill-fitting uniform comes in and gets eaten by the guy, whose supposed to be melting all over the place but never seems to lose any mass, and then NASA, or at least one guy at NASA, gets upset about it and calls one other guy in to hunt him down, but the guy they sent to hunt the melting guy has to go home and have soup first, and his oddly-shaped wife forgot the crackers, so he can't have crackers, and then he has to go out and look for the melting guy with a geiger counter, and that doesn't really work, so he really only follows the trail of half-eaten corpses, and then there's something about a sheriff, and two ugly old people in a lemon grove, and a women with a meat cleaver, and some kind of industrial plant with trigger-happy security guards, and since I can't tell you how the movies ends, all I can say is Jonathan Demme is in it somewhere with some guy with the stupid name of Burr DeBenning, and if there's any justice in the world everyone connected with this movie died a hideous, violent death and was unable to make more movies, and the world lived HAPPILY EVER AFTER - THE END!


The Incredible Melting Man plays like an extended episode of The Six Million Dollar Man, but with violence and some nudity. I know this film is a bit crummy but I found it impossible not to kind of like it.

The acting and script are not the best. But the effects are good for a 30 year old movie with a budget of $50 - the title character takes quite a while to actually melt but when he does it's reasonably impressive; we also have one inventive death scene involving electrocution. Of note too is the music, it's insane - a cheese-tastic medley of nonsense.

Notable highlights:

* Marvel at the slow-motion nurse who jumps through a pane of glass for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

* Be amazed by a day in the life of a severed head.

* Beware of the psychotic cannibalistic melting humanoid. Called Steve.

* Be astonished when our hero takes a break from hunting the melting lunatic to have a bowl of soup and complain about insufficient crackers in the kitchen.

This film is just too 70's for me to hate it. It's tacky and trashy but I thought it was a lot of fun. You could do a lot worse.


I was thinking that the main character, the astronaut with the bad case of the runs(in his case, his skin, hair, muscles, etc) could always get more movie work after he'd been reduced to a puddle. All he has to do is get a job as the Blob. The premise of this flick is pretty lame. An astronaut gets exposed to sunspot radiation(I think), and so begins to act like an ice cream cone on a hot day. Not only is this a puzzler, but apparently he has to kill humans and consume their flesh so that he can maintain some kind of cell integrity. Huh? Have you ever noticed that whenever any kind of radiation accident or experiment happens, the person instantly turns into a killing machine? Why is that?

The astronaut lumbers off into the night from the 'secret facility'(which has no security whatsoever), shedding parts of himself as he goes. Apparently he retains just enough memory to make him head for the launch pad, maybe because he wanted to return to space.

Thus begins the part of the movie that's pretty much filler, with a doctor wandering around with a Geiger counter, trying to find the melting man by the buzz he gives off. He kills a stupid Bill Gates look-alike fisherman, scares a little girl a la the Frankenstein monster movie, and finishes off a wacky older couple(punishing them karmically for stealing some lemons). Then there's a short scene where he whacks his former General, and a very long scene where he kills a young pothead and chases his girlfriend around. You'd think that after she cuts his arm off and he run away, the scene would shift. But no...we're treated to about ten minutes of the woman huddled into a corner panting and screaming in terror, even though the monster is gone. All I could think was..director's girlfriend, anyone?

The end of the movie is even lamer than the rest of it. The melting man finishes turning into a pile of goo, and then...nothing. That's it. That's the end of the movie. Well, at least that meant that there was no room for a sequel.


Want to watch a scary horror film? Then steer clear of this one. There's not enough beer in the world to make this film enjoyable.

However, there is enough scotch. Single-malt, if you can manage it.

If the previous comments weren't enough to keep you from watching this film sober, allow me to assist. NASA sends one man and two unpaid extras into space to orbit Saturn. A really big solar flare causes Colonel Steve West to bleed from the nose. Things go downhill from there, and wackiness ensues.

I actually read the book adaptation, which was published and released only in the UK. MILES better than the film, and the book was dreadful. At least some pretense is made towards suspense, and some sort of explanation of events is pulled out from the author's (rhymes with 'gas').

Not to say that the film is completely without merit. Rick Baker learned that he really ought to read a contract before signing on to a film, and Jonathan Demme found that he's really better suited to direct.

Yes, there is an MST3K episode featuring this flick, but it is, of course, edited quite a bit. Without the obligatory flashing of the breasts, not even the healing power of scotch can save you.

Please, just go watch Raiders of the Lost Ark if you want to see a guy melt. See Space Cowboys if you feel the need to see astronauts. I can not, in all good conscience, recommend this film to the sober film-going public.


I think that my favorite part of this movie, the one that exemplifies the sheer pointless, stupidity and inanity of the proceedings, comes at the climax of the film. DOCTOR TED NELSON and his unmarried friend the Sheriff have finally cornered the Melting Man on a landing on some stairs in an electrical generating plant. Keep in mind that Nelson has been looking for the MM for nearly the entire film, and that the MM has killed and eaten several people at this point (including his boss), and Nelson is very aware that MM is violently insane and hungry for human flesh and blood.

So the Sheriff has his gun pointed at MM, who is, and I give the movie and Rick Baker props for this, the most disgusting and terrifying object in human form that we have ever seen. And he yells a very important question to DOCTOR TED NELSON: "WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?"

The camera cuts over to DOCTOR TED NELSON, and it's obvious that Ted has no idea what to do next. Apparently Ted was so intent on the problem of FINDING the Melting Man, he never thought to bring along some restraining devices, a lasso, or straitjacket, or a net, or some tranquilizer darts, or maybe a New Age tape by Vangelis to soothe the savage beast.

So the sheriff panics and shoots, the Melting Man goes berserk, and hilarity ensues.

Maybe this explains why NASA has been screwing around with the Space Shuttle program in sub-lunar space for the last 30 years instead of going back to the Moon or out to Mars like everyone knows they OUGHT to be doing. I dunno.

Anyway, that's the kind of lousy, lazy writing and direction that undercuts every aspect of this movie. It's hard to say how good the actors actually are, because the movie has complete contempt for their characters.

Two other incredibly painful sequences also ramp up the stupidity of the proceedings: There is a scene featuring the lumpiest old couple in the world trying to steal lemons from a grove, only to be torn apart by the Melting Man. This scene is a nadir in 70s cinema. I can guarantee you've never watched a more pointless and irritating setup with odder looking people in your entire life. And the Melting Man's assault on the lady who lives in the house where they keep a horse who pees on the walls defies every attempt to process it.(BTW, I think famous film director Jonathon Demme has a walk-on in this scene as the redneck husband who goes in first to check on the house and never comes out again). The only thing that keeps the actress from literally chewing the scenery is that, as I said, their horse has apparently been peeing on it. And we are forced to watch her hysterics for at least two minutes longer than any SANE film director would hold the shot.

Burr DeBenning ought to beat the crap out of IMM's director and photographer. I remember him from an old Columbo episode where he looked MUCH better than he does here - no one's idea of a leading man, but solid and unobtrusive. But no one could possibly be as unappealing in real life as his director makes him look here.

Everyone else comes off a little better except for the old couple (and shut up, I know they were being played for laughs, but I ain't laughing!) but not much.

This definitely falls into the 'So Bad You Can't Look Away' category of cinema disasters. Still, I'd watch it again before I'd watch a lot of other 70's and 80's abortions ( "Track of The Moonbeast" and "It Lives By Night" come to mind), and MST's coverage of it is great fun, so if you get a chance, watch the MST version.


A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense.


I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.

It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.

Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:

"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit."

Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up.

I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.


I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.

There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.

Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the "melting man" handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.

There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?

I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT


I managed to grab a viewing of this with the aid of MST3K, and oh boy, even with the riffing this movie was excruciatingly bad. Imagine someone whose competence with a camera could be out done by a monkey.

The highlights (what little there were) came from the special effects, which were "OK". The acting for the most part was also "OK"; though nothing special, it was of a higher quality than other B-Movies I have seen in the past.

The rest of this movie is dismally bad, The camera work often looks like they've just put the camera man on roller skates and pushed him along. The story (if it can be called that) is so full of holes it's almost funny, It never really explains why the hell he survived in the first place, or needs human flesh in order to survive. The script is poorly written and the dialogue verges on just plane stupid. The climax to movie (if there is one) is absolutely laughable.

If you can't find the MST3K version, avoid this at all costs.


Is this a stupid movie? You bet!! I could not find any moment in this film that was creepy or scary. Stupid moments? Plenty. Stupid characters? You bet. Bad effects? Everywhere! Rick Baker may have gone and done bigger and better things, this is not one of them. Oh well people gotta start somewhere. Dr. Ted Nelson is cheesed. He is the most whiny doctor I've ever seen. He's got a melting man running amok out in Ventura County somewhere, he's not overly happy that his wife is pregnant (probably cause she's 55 years old and weighs 90 lbs) and there's no crackers to be found anywhere. Plus he's got the not-too-helpful general on his hinder wanting to find astronaut Steve. And the local sheriff wants to know what's going on even though Mr. Nelson can't tell him anything. There also some random characters thrown in for good measure who encounter the melting man. Eventually the movie ends and out monster gets scooped into a trash can to become compost. In the end it's just what you need for a great MST episode.


This movie wasn't just bad - it was terrible. After I watched it, I actually felt the need to TAKE A SHOWER to get the filth off of me. There is running 'gag' with an elderly couple making out, it is not funny, but it is disgusting. The monster make up was cool, but that is all. The continuity errors alone will have you angry - at least I was. The editing is really poor.

Almost anything else you could possibly do would be better than spending time watching this movie. Even if your group of friends are into 'bad movies' this one is exceptional in its ineptitude, I couldn't even bring myself to laugh at it. You have been warned.


Many moons ago when I was seven years old, I can vaguely remember seeing a trailer for this movie. It appealed to my naive sense of curiosity and I decided to ask my parents to take me to this movie. Being the wise adults that they are, they told me "Absolutely not! It's a bunch of trash." Of course, I was very disappointed that I would not be the first kid on my block to see the "Incredible Melting Man."

Little time passed - maybe a couple of days. I forgot about "The Incredible Melting Man" and my disappointment faded. Twenty-five years passed until it re-entered the forefront of my thoughts. While surfing through channels on digital cable, I found this long-lost relic of a movie. My curiosity was piqued and I decided to finally partake in this fruit forbidden by my parents. I should have listened to them. The "Incredible Melting Man" is perhaps the worst movie known to man. It makes movies such as "Def-Con 4, "Metalstorm", and "Freddie Got Fingered" look like Oscar nominees. I feel violated for wasting almost two hours of my life watching this vile filth. The story was incoherent and the effects were crude even for 1977. How anyone convinced a film company to produce this movie beyond me.

Don't make the same mistake that I did. Listen to your parents if they forbade you to watch this movie. They were right.


No, just kidding. It was God-awful.

I was watching my local Sci-fi station last night, which plays movies, every night, within a monthly theme. This month it's "Space Turkeys, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombs". Movies so bad, they should never have been made. This was a good selection.

Everything about this movie is thoroughly horrible with two exceptions, the gore make-up (which showed potential) and the editing (which slightly out did the rest of the movie, in terms of being horrible). The acting is horrible all around, the dialog is horrible, the script, the direction. It's not a good movie.

It consists of two forms of special effects, gore and stock footage of space. I'll focus on the gore. Watching this movie, I thought to myself, "What WAS the motivation behind the making of this movie?" People like making stuff, sure, but I was hesitant to think anything good could have come of it for anyone involved. I came to the conclusion that this movie was made as a means to increase the Make-up Effects guy's Demo Reel. He (Rick Baker) actually went on to a pretty nice career, he's worked on STAR WARS (1977), KING KONG (1976), MEN IN BLACK (1996), and even THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN (1981), plus a number of other notable flicks. Other than that, I can't say I've ever actually SEEN a real, live melting man - incredible, or otherwise - but I'd have to say this seemed to be a fair representation of one.

Now, when I think of bad editing, I usually think of maybe a scene where someone's talking on the phone and then, in the middle of the scene, the phone jumps down to his shoulder, or something to that effect. This movie really serves to highlighted the fact that bad editing can take many forms. Specifically, over-long and utterly useless scenes. Just about every scene dragged on longer than it should have, from a little bit of dead air to that crazy-long screaming scene with Cleaver Girl. And that severed head in the river, the head gets thrown into a river (in slow motion), the movie carries on for a couple minutes, and then we cut back to the floating head and watch it fall down a waterfall. While I'm sure they were all very proud of their severed head, WHAT THE HELL??

Lastly, I'll mention the running fat lady/slow motion scene right near the beginning. The jerky slow motion tells me that they didn't shoot the scene in slow motion originally but later decided that it "wasn't working like that" and then slowed it down. Oy vey. In any event, if you should ever see another movie in which a hysterical fat woman runs down a hall and then directly through a closed, glass door - all in slow motion, mind you - remember THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, for *this* is where it all started.

Movies like this are best viewed at home with a bunch of friends. This one's a little slow most of the time but that's just all the more time to come up with your own one-liners. It's not the worst of the worst but it's pretty freaking bad.


Why do I constantly do this to myself? I mean, really, it's right there in the title - "The Incredible Melting Man". What else would I expect? I have to admit, I'm a sucker for just about anything I come across on the Monster HD channel, but the only redeeming feature of this picture would be that truly grotesque makeup job by the legendary Rick Baker. As for creepy, I'll give the nod to that horny old geezer couple sucking on lemons just before lights out. Now they were truly scary.

Something I could never figure out in horror flicks was why a monster's victims wouldn't simply just run away when faced with virtual annihilation. Like the chick in the cabin. You know, there was a door completely visible right there in the kitchen that she could have run right out of at any time. Incredible Steve-O couldn't muster much more than a brisk walk, so why not just blow right by him? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something.

This flick had some of the feel of a 'Tales From The Crypt' episode, but 'Tales' usually had a cool or grotesque twist which often times you didn't see coming. This was one picture that you couldn't quite get a handle on coming OR going. For example, in an early scene, you can clearly make out that Melting Man's eyeball fell out of his head, so how did he manage to get around for the rest of the story? I guess we're not supposed to ask.

At eighty four minutes, this picture was about an hour and a half too long. When it was all over, I was ready to take up General Perry on his earlier suggestion - "I could really use a drink about now".


A few days ago, I watched a documentary called THE FIFTY WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME and this is where I first heard of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. Being a lover of schlocky films, I am making it a point to try to find some of the films from the documentary--not just including THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. In fact, MELTING MAN is the first "bad film" I have seen since then and I must say I am rather disappointed. While it truly is a bad film, it comes nowhere near close enough to make inclusion on this list.

Now before seeing the documentary, I have enjoyed "bad films" ever since I read the book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" by Harry Medved. Despite the same title, the book came out long, long before the documentary and the makers of the documentary never credited Medved with the concept. From the Medved book, I have seen about 35 of the 50 films but have come to an impasse--the rest of the films just aren't available on VHS or DVD. So, I thought I'd try the film by the same name.

The reason I was most disappointed with THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN was that there were a few good elements to the film. First, the melting guy special effects were generally really cool and disgusting. It's obvious that a professional (the famous Rich Baker) was involved in making this look realistic. However, I should also point out that there were also more than a few cheap and cheesy effects as well--such as the floating plastic head and the way the monster ran around after his left arm was cut off--you could see it "cleverly hidden" under his clothes! As for the story, it's just stupid. A group of astronauts miraculously penetrate the rings of Saturn without being crushed. Then, they comment about how beautiful the sun is--as we see closeups of it. This is odd since Saturn is so far from it--it should NOT look this way--it should be a large speck. Regardless, immediately the scene changes and we're told that one of the surviving astronauts is in a hospital. What happened between the last scene and this one? Yep, it's anyone's guess. Well, soon after, the survivor escapes and engages in a murderous rampage as his entire body melts.

Now considering they have a psycho running about who looks like a melting popsicle, you'd think the government would pull out all stops to find and stop him, right?! Wrong. A general engages one lone doctor to find him!! No army, no police--just some dopey doctor. Even after bodies begin stacking up, at no point do the doctor or general do anything to organize a meaningful search or get backup.

Now, given the stupidity of the film, you also wouldn't be surprised to find the following:

When the melting dude is running around near the doctor's house, the doctor gives his wife a powerful sedative and leaves her in the house.

When a cute old couple is driving late at night, they naturally stop in an orchard to pick fruit and are killed.

When a lady sees melting dude, she barricades the door to protect herself. This would be smart IF she didn't have the back door of the house next to her! Instead of just leaving the house and escaping, she just waits!

When a photographer and his model are taking snapshots, the guy grabs his assistant and yanks off her top. Why? Well to give the audience a cheap thrill and make it a rated R flick.

When the melting dude is finally located and the sheriff has a clear shot at him, the doctor stops him--even though by now the monster had killed about a half dozen people.

So, as you can see the film abounds with stupid plot elements. It is a very bad film. But, given the occasionally good special effects, it just wasn't a horrible film like I'd hoped. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but no where near PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in badness and never should have been included on anyone's worst film list.


I can watch a good gory film now and then. I've seen some pretty sick stuff. However, this is one of the few films that I found to be grotesque in a way that was just plain repulsive and revolting. I like gore films when they are fun. I like wen they are a lot of creativity behind them. The gore in this film is not creative. It is sick. It is repugnant. It is completely unpleasant. Because of this, this film is certainly not entertaining. The film is a horror film, but it lacks scares. So pretty much the only reason why one would watch this film is for the gore, but that is the most unappealing and ugly aspect of the whole film, and that's saying a lot. The acting is terrible, the plot makes no sense, and the music is really annoying and WAY too electronic sounding. It all took me right out of the film. Pretty much the whole film is one big long depressing ordeal. There's this guy that has a freak accident in a shuttle and awakens in a hospital to find that his skin is dissolving and melting off. I guess that after that he goes out and eats human flesh in order to slow down the melting process. There's some weird subplot involving an old couple getting chased by a dog, some dismembered head floating down a stream, and an ending involving a man being electrocuted. There were times where I tried really hard to enjoy it, but the only scene in the whole film that I thought was even entertaining was the scene early on in which a nurse runs down a hospital corridor in slow motion. If you like ugly, nasty, ad unappealing horror films, this one is for you.


Rebar is an astronaut who goes on the world's first space mission to Saturn, but of course this being a horror movie things turn ugly and he returns to earth as the only survivor. Stricken with some bizarre condition that causes him to slowly melt and lose his mind unless he regularly consumes human flesh, he kills what apparently is the only nurse in the hospital and escapes to the neighboring town to stalk more victims.

I liked the premise and the monster and gore effects are actually pretty good, but the space scenes are just pasted together out of stock NASA footage and the hospital looks curiously like a warehouse. A very weak script, little character development and overall poor acting keep this one from rising above being anything other than a mediocre slasher flick with the novelty of having a living candle as the killer, and more or less only has its gore effects to hold your interest.

4 out of 10, strictly for the most die-hard monster movie fans.


The plot of " Astronuat returns to Earth as a mutating monster " died out in the 1950s mainly down to the scientific fact that travelling outside the Earth's orbit doesn't humans cause to turn in to mutated monsters , and that the first film to use this plot THE QUATERMASS EXPERIMENT was the only decent sci-fi movie to use the idea . So the idea of having the redundant plot return seems doomed from the start . Alas watching THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN it seems the plot is the least of its problems

First of all this is an incredibly badly made movie . The budget is in single figures and I'm talking about lira not dollars . There is no cinematography to speak of and there's countless editing blunders . For example a photographer takes his ( Barely legal ) model for a photo shoot . Cut to a shot where the sun is directly behind model , then cut to shot of photographer where the sun is directly behind him, then cut back to the model where the sun is ...

The lack of budget drags the film down in other aspects too . According to the trivia page the budget was so low the producers couldn't get any stock footage of Saturn so when astronaut Steve West mentions how beautiful Saturn looks we get footage of the sun . Actually the sun gives the most impressive performance in the film since the human actors wouldn't be employed by a porn studio . If I was appearing in this I wouldn't be scared by the eponymous monster - I'd be terrified of splinters from the rest of the cast . Perhaps we should be slightly forgiving though since the obvious lack of budget manifests itself in things like the actors having to wear their own clothes . A general for instance doesn't wear his nice fancy dress uniform complete with medals - he wears a denim jacket and baseball cap

There has to be suspension of disbelief for a film like this to work but it fails on every level . The tone is set early on in the film where Mr Melty murders a nurse and escapes from the hospital . Instead of the police getting a call saying there's been a murder Dr Nelson just decides to track down his patient on his own own same as he'd look for a missing cat . It's also strange a thoroughly decomposing homicidal monster can walk down the road without anyone noticing , but this is typical of a film where horny 70 year olds stop their car down dark roads for a quickie and people nonchalantly mention their wife is pregnant whilst forgetting to tell the police that there's a monster on the loose .

THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN is Z grade rubbish . I can certainly understand why people enjoy this movie because it does reach the heights of " It's so bad it's good " but apart from Rick Baker's sometimes impressive make up effects it's nothing more than a very guilty pleasure


I just watched The Incredible Melting Man for the second time, and it was even more boring than when I first watched it. I don't understand why it has become such a 'cult classic' when it is so tediously dull. The opening scene looks promising, when the fat nurse drops the canister of blood and runs for her dear life. After this all that really happens is the melting man stalks around some woods and houses, whilst having flashbacks of his life as an astronaut. The makeup is quite good, and his melting gooey face looks fairly realistic. There is a cool scene where he throws a mans head in a river, and it floats until it reaches a waterfall where it falls on rocks and bursts open. There's not much to wet yourself over though, most scenes are shot in darkness and you can't really see what is happening. There isn't much gore, at least in the Vipco DVD I watched.

No, The Incredible Melting Man is not that great at all. I'll give it marks for its cheese factor but that's about it. If you want a TRUE sci-fi/horror cult classic, watch The Deadly Spawn instead!


The movie had so much potential, but due to 70's technology constraints and also a weak script killed the main plot of the film. The book version of the film was much better, and well conceived. If it had been done right in the beginning with sources from the book, it could have been a very cool classic.


I've seen a lot of stupid plotlines in my time, but this one is among the worst. After catching some disease in space, an astronaut comes back to Earth and starts melting. He then goes on a rampage, killing people (how is beyond me; I just watch them, I can't explain them.) This is the kind of movie that shouldn't have been made in the first place.


This film was so predictable, that during the entire time you're hoping that the obvious suspect is innocent, and there's some other big twist still coming. However... it doesn't. He just continues to act creepy, and she continues to ignore it. Mary found very incriminating evidence at his place, and she still trusted him? And what was that "baiting the trap"? There was no trap. She confronted him, he said "excuse me. I have to go kill someone" He left, and that was the end of it. They make attempts to use other suspects, (like that one older carnival girl at the end) but they're completely underdeveloped. Actually, all the characters are underdeveloped. They have no depth, and the setting is just plain strange... who hangs out in a recycling factory?? Its choppy and nothing is well developed. For example: When she leaves his place after having the beer, and he finds the pics and she runs out and he catches her and they end up having sex in that car... what was that? Her reactions weren't portrayed. In the car she acted scared like it could have been practically rape- but then all we see is her showering the next morning. booooooooo It could have been so much better.. sooo much better.


Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****


The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10


I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.

Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to.


Underneath the dense green glop of computer graphics there gleamed the astounding art and skill of Ichikawa Somegoro. Alas: it got lost in all the goo. The scenes of Old Edo -- with the courtesan, drifting on the Sumida, rehearsing and acting in the Nakamura-za -- were all exciting and engaging, taking you back to an interesting and rich era. The action on the Kabuki stage, in which Somegoro excels and excites, was more enriching than any of the absurd high jinks that followed. The skill, the energy in the audience, the colors of the sets, were far more satisfying than all the nonsense that took over plot and performance. What a wasted opportunity! One of the best kabuki actors alive, and he gets lost in the dreck.


This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous.

Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.

When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance.

Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.


If you are studying Welles and want to see just how far he fell after Citizen Kane, this film will prove it. The cheap excuse of making the protagonist a self-admitted dummy to explain how he might fall into such a half-baked scheme fails to explain the absurd courtroom theatrics and ridiculous plot twists that eventually ensue. Don't be taken in by the high rating of this film in the db as I was; all I can guess is that there are a lot of die hard old Welles and Hayworth fans out there.


Oh-so-familiar comedy story about low-key nice-guy Paul (Jason Lee), who after the night of his bachelor party, wakes up in bed with Becky (Julia Stiles), an attractive blonde he met just the night before. After lying about it to his fiancée Karen (Selma Blair), he's forced to tell more and more lies to cover his tracks.

I'm sure most of us have been witness to a story like this at least once before...on film or on TV. The movie is formulaic and EXTREMELY predictable, with an ending you may see coming a mile away.

At least the cast provides some interest and keeps it watchable. Lee is just right in the lead, and Stiles is a lot of fun in a light-hearted comedic role different from the very serious roles she usually plays. Becky is a free spirit who seems to change jobs as often as other people change their clothes.

But you know, this isn't exactly well-written. At least one question is left unanswered: for WHAT, exactly, is Ray (Lochlyn Munro), Becky's brutal ex-boyfriend, being investigated by the I.A.?

And I didn't like the character of Buck (David Koechner), Paul's stepfather; he's a super-obnoxious moron who got on my nerves so quickly I was begging for somebody to punch him.

Add another debit: a gratuitous, uncredited cameo by comic/actor Larry Miller, once again playing a grouch (in this case, it's a little justified - his character is an ultra-conservative minister).

Not good at all, but as usual for me, I give it a three out of ten based on the efforts of the cast alone.


I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.


This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.

That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted.

So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.


Just a regular Jason lee movie, There were some parts of the movie that were funny. The undertone of the move is to live life on the edge I guess. These are the types of movies that I think 14 year old girls watch at slumber parties. It was an all right movie. It is kind of one of those movies you have on in the back ground and look up every now and then to when something catches attention. I think That Julia stiles and Selma Blair are a good combination and would like to see them in a movie with a good story and plot. Its just kind of a boy meets girl movie. This is that perfect movie they would show on comedy Central. I am glad that I didn't see this movie in the theater, I would have been angry. But I guess that's why I didn't see it in the theater.


Wow. That's about as much as I can say right now. Who writes this stuff? Who produces this stuff? What self-respecting actor would agree to 'act' in this stuff? Oh my GOD! I don't know how I made it through this movie, but I assume the fact that I had had like 8 cups of coffee that day was the key element in keeping me awake. Good Lord! It was one of the most droned-out and predictable pieces of cinematography I have ever witnessed...and for the record, I don't EVER plan to 'witness' it again.

I first saw the film when I bought the DVD (MISTAKE #1). I mean...I figured, hey! Julia Stiles. I like her. She's cool. I'll watch it as soon as I get home (MISTAKE #2). I tried to watch it without groaning every five minutes wondering when this bunch of crap would come to an end, really I did. But I was unsuccessful. It was one of the worst things I had ever seen. I mean...what is with that thing where he imagines what would happen then snaps back into real life? That was annoying enough when the father used to do that in 'Parenthood' like ten years ago. The 'jokes' - and BELIEVE me, it takes a LOT out of me to call them that - are stupid, the characters are trite and forgettable, the storyline is entirely predictable...altogether this makes for a movie that should be WIPED FROM HISTORY RECORDS! I should have figured something was wrong when I realized that I'd never heard of this movie. It was most likely a straight-to-DVD.

To anybody who may be thinking of watching this, I have one piece of advice. DON'T! For the LOVE of God...DON'T!!! I'm ashamed to have it in my DVD collection, and I can't get rid of it...Nobody, and I mean NOBODY wants to buy it from me! And I'm talking second-hand and third-hand thrift shops that would buy the mud off your shoes and stick it in the store window. That should let you know just how CRAP it is.


I just watched it. A couple of laughs, but nothing to write home about. Jason Lee looked like he was having fun. The (long) DVD gag reel consists almost solely of him having fits of uncontrollable laughter. Selma Blair seemed to be punching a time clock, but then again, her character was supposed to be a stick in the mud, so "well done" I guess? Jim Brolin was surprisingly funny. (Being married to Babs can't be a picnic.) The soundtrack was hip, and eclectic. Larry Miller, who played Julia Stiles father (hilariously), in 10 Things I Hate About You is funny here as well. He's great, but the best aspect of this movie was the casting of Julia Stiles. I could spend two hours watching her fold laundry, and I feel like I just did.


I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.

With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctivly help out Lee's character.

All I can say is AVOID. I gaurentee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$

3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)


I'm not a big fan of rom/coms at the best of times. A few have been quite good (check of Dream for an Insomniac), but this one is just more of the same but less.

With a running time of 100min, I expect more than 1 laugh every 30mins. The only real belly laugh are when male strangers and friends instinctively help out Lee's character.

All I can say is AVOID. I guarantee there is at least 10 other movies on the shelf that deserve you $$

3 of out 10 (And only cos I'm a big Lee fan)


Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect.

Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law.

Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).

Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.

There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something).


What a terrible, TERRIBLE, film! One of the worst movies I have seen in my life. I usually love movies like this, the whole "A guy meets an eccentric woman who he likes, but he happens to already be involved with someone, who not right for him....". I expected something predictable and I didn't mind. The movies are always entertaining mixing the right amount of romance with comedy, but not this one! Every single joke falls flat and the "romance" makes me want to vomit. The title character is one of the most "please kill me" characters that I have ever witnessed on my television, the "eccentric woman" isn't very eccentric, more like quirky and annoying. The "other someone" is the most reasonable, mature person in this film but also happens to be just as annoying. This films flat out sucks, there's no way around it, don't waste your time.


I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.

The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.


"A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.

The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?

Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time.


The only redemption was the small part by Larry Miller. It seemed that the movie was trying too hard to be "Something About Mary," but I didn't even like that movie and it still fell short of those standards. The actor who plays Paul was great, but Selma Blair is stuck in the stupidity of her Cruel Intentions character. James Brolin was great, but Paul's father seemed like he was trying too hard to be the Randy Quaid character from the National Lampoon's Vacation movies.


Julia Stiles is a talented young actress, who with guidance from a reputable agent has a lot of potential. Obviously, the person who guided her into this travesty is not someone who cares anything about her career. I sat in the theater surrounded by teenagers who left in droves to find another movie to sneak into wondering who thought this movie would appeal to anyone. It was poorly written, the casting director could only have put 1 or 2 minutes of effort into the characters and the director obviously didn't care.


I think Jason Lee has huge potential, but this was the WRONG vehicle in which to attempt to break out as a star. The plot is awful, the comedy is awful. I laughed twice, I think for relief, because in retrospect, they were fairly lame jokes. I found myself scared for the future of Fletch, and had to console myself that it was the film that was flawed, not Lee.

Julia Stiles and Selma Blair are hot, but I recommend looking at the still photos on this website to figure that out, instead of this film. Save your time. 1 star.


This was one of the most boring movies I've ever seen I don't really know why Just your run-of-the-mill stories about guy who is about to get married, and starts to fancy someone else instead. Story has been told a thousand times. Nothing new or innovative about it at all.

I don't really know what was wrong with this film. Most of the time when these kinds of actors/actresses get together to make a film that have already been made a million times before, it's really entertaining. There are usually little clever thing in them that aren't really in any other. For some reason, this one just doesn't hold your attention. You can pick out some funny parts, or clever ideas in it, but for some reason they're just not funny, nor clever in any way I wish I new how to explain it, but I don't Just don't waste your time on this one


I never thought I see a movie worse than "Lisa Picard Is Famous", but this came pretty close. As repeated often throughout the comments, it was predictable; five minutes into the movie you know it will be a stranded at the alter outcome. This movie painfully references/rips off everything from "Something about Mary" to "Revenge of the Pink Panther". Writer Greg Glienna (Meet the Parents) needs some new material.

The only twist is the deranged boyfriend/police officer pursued by internal affairs, but even that opportunity is wasted. Lots of setting shots of the Seattle Space Needle necessary to disguise the obvious Canadian shooting locale. Some of the worst driving in the car scenes with almost no effort to disguise the fact that the car is being pulled through town on a trailer. Geez, at least turn the wheel or put the brakes on once in a while. Selma Blair is inert and the short haircut a crime. $3M to Jason Lee, for what? Guess it beats skateboarding!

So here's who should see this movie: Bee Gees fans who want to hear two actors sing 'Islands in the Stream' badly; People who can't get enough of Julia Stiles. 1/10


I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.

At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.

One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.


Debbie Reynolds toe-taps, tangos and, yes, tap-dances her way through this ordinary thriller which has a distinctly fabricated '30s atmosphere. Two ladies, brought together when their sons commit a murder, try starting their lives over by running a tap-dance school for tots in Hollywood. Trouble is, one of them is plagued by neuroses. Can you imagine this thing 10 years earlier with Robert Aldrich directing Bette Davis and Joan Crawford...? Nahh, Bette never would have allowed Joan so much screen-time to strut her stuff, and I can't imagine Bette Davis in the other role, tap-dancing her heart out. This is a purely bogus piece of macabre, written by a slumming Henry Farrell (whose idea of a good "shock" is to stage the mass-murder of a group of rabbits!). Not an ounce of honest fun in the whole tepid package. *1/2 from ****


The film is almost laughable with Debbie Reynolds and Shelley Winters teaming up as the mothers of convicted murderers. With the horrible notoriety after the trial, the two women team up and leave N.Y. for California in order to open and song and dance studio for Shirley Temple-like girls.

From the beginning, it becomes apparent that Reynolds has made a mistake in taking Winters with her to California. Winters plays a deeply religious woman who increasingly seems to be going off her rocker.

To make matters worse, the women who live together, are receiving menacing phone calls. Reynolds, who puts on a blond wig, is soon romanced by the wealthy father of one of her students, nicely played by Dennis Weaver.

Agnes Moorehead, in one of her last films, briefly is seen as Sister Alma, who Winters is a faithful listener of.

The film really belongs to Shelley Winters. She is heavy here and heaviness seemed to make her acting even better. Winters always did well in roles testing her nerves.

The ending is of the macabre and who can forget Winters at the piano banging away with that totally insane look?


There's a lot the matter with Helen and none of it's good. Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds play mothers of a pair of Leopold & Loeb like killers who move from the mid-west to Hollywood to escape their past. Reynolds, a starstruck Jean Harlow wannabe, opens a dance studio for children and Winters is her piano player. Soon Winters (as Helen) begins to crack up. It's all very slow going and although there are moments of real creepiness (nasty phone calls, a visit from wino Timothy Carey), the movie is devoid of any real horror. Nevertheless, it's still worthy entertainment. The acting divas are fine and the production values are terrific. A music score by David Raskin, cinematography by Lucien Ballard and Oscar-nominated costumes contribute mightily. With this, A PLACE IN THE SUN and LOLITA to her credit, does anyone do crazy as well as Winters? Directed by Curtis Harrington, a master at this type of not quite A-movie exploitation. In addition to Carey, the oddball supporting cast includes Dennis Weaver, Agnes Moorehead (as a very Aimee Semple McPherson like evangelist), Yvette Vickers and Micheál MacLiammóir (the Irish Orson Welles) as Hamilton Starr, aptly nicknamed hammy.


W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage is supposed to be a English language classic. If so, much must have been missing from the film version here. Phillip's (Leslie Howard) attraction to Mildred (Bette Davis) is so utterly inexplicable as to make the scenario seem like the post-breakup retelling of a relationship from the man's point of view. Being a family lawyer I've heard many such accounts; the man depicts himself as noble and always correct, and the woman is a hellion who has had no other objective than to exploit the man.

Indeed, unless one is willing to laugh at the social assumptions of the film maker, this is an uncomfortable movie to watch. Phillip even indulges Mildred when she brings over a baby of indeterminate paternity, but the real high point comes when Phillip allows Mildred - enraged and now of dubious sanity - the free run of his flat, with predictable results. Bette Davis was attractive for about five years of her life, but that period didn't occur here. In fact, by the end of the movie she looks a lot like the Baby Jane character she would play thirty years later.

I note how Howard's character is always impeccably dressed and groomed. It tells me that Phillip craves middle class respectability. Someone like that could not run from a woman with a course Cockney accent fast enough. Phillip is, for most of the movie, a student; such a person would have been more believable if he had been younger, and had the disheveled looks that bespeak the low income and the low self esteem that often accompanies student status - an English Raskolnikov, as it will. And balanced that by allowing Mildred a modicum of charm.


Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.

Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.

In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.


First of all, I would just like to say to everyone who has seen this movie, that the actor who played the "Transvestite" Is one of my friends, his name is Robert Dugdale, he's a terrific actor, although it doesn't say much about his filmography, he's been in several plays and musicals. He is currently residing in Terrace B.C. that is where I am from, he comes over to our house almost every saturday *laughs* Okay, now about the movie, I wouldn't recomend this to anyone who HASN'T seen it, for it is not a movie worth watching, the main reason I found it to be a bad movie is it never stays in place, it keeps bouncing back between time, so kinda hard to follow at some points, and second, its really boring *laughs* Although the acting is great, the movie just doesn't compare.


In the days before gore and sex took over, real horror films were made. Castle of Blood is, in my estimation, one of the finest, although other reviewers have given it mixed ratings. In an odd sort of way it reminds of the more recent The Others, which was in the theaters a couple of years ago.

Director Antonio Margheriti remade his own picture in 1970 titling it this time Web of the Spider (AKA Nella Stretta Morsa del Ragno). Why he did this I do not understand, although the remake starred Anthony Franciosa and Klaus Kinski and was very good in its own right. Perhaps he saw a good story and wished to tailor it more to American audiences. I do not really know. It is interesting that he did the original in black and white and the remake in color.

Castle of Blood is excellent Italian Gothic. La Danza Macabra is said to be an unpublished work of Edgar Allen Poe, who "appears" in this film. Poe and Lord Blackwood, owner of a haunted castle, bet American writer Alan Foster (George Riviere) that he cannot spend All Souls Night in said castle and survive. Foster eagerly accepts the bet but soon regrets it, for he is witness to a series of murders committed by ghosts. It seems that the ghosts come back to life once every few years but are doomed to re-enact the crimes they committed in life. Lord Blackwood conveniently forgot to tell Foster that his blood is needed for them to resurrect themselves on the next All Souls Night!

It does not take Foster and the beautiful Elisabeth Blackwood (portrayed by the incomparable Barbara Steele) long to fall in love, even though their romance is doomed, because Elisabeth is one of the ghosts. I will not give the ending away, but will just say that Castle of Blood is every bit a romantic tragedy as it is a horror story.

Comments. This film is greatly atmospheric, even by the excellent standards of the Italians. My personal opinion is they do true horror better than anybody, and the somewhat dim black and white filming only enhances this. In fairness, Web of the Spider was fine in its own right, even with color and greater brightness. I loved the lingering shots, something most modern day directors do not have the patience for. Indeed, when Alan first enters the doomed castle, we are treated to several minutes of him doing nothing but roaming around from room to room, the dread ands unease building in his face and mannerisms. By the time the first ghost appears, the audience is thoroughly primed and ready. There is wonderful dialogue between Alan and the ghosts, something else not often done in standard ghost stories. There are also memorable scenes, very visual for this type of film. Elisabeth's "murder" and the dance scene (reminds somewhat of the similar dance of the ghouls in 1962's Carnival of Souls) were particularly good.

Sadly, few general interest viewers will ever hear of, much less see, this film. That is a shame, for this one is a cut above the rest. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and am not certain if it can be purchased anywhere else. For persons interested in this genre, it is a must see.


Our teacher showed us this movie in first grade. I haven't seen it since. I just watched the trailer though. Does this look like a first grade movie to you? I don't think so. I was so horrified by this movie, I could barely watch it. It was mainly the scene with Shirley McClain cutting that little girl in half, and then there was the boy with ketchup! I was freaked out by this film. Now today, being 20, I probably would not feel that way. I just wanted to share my experience and opinion that maybe small children shouldn't see this movie, even though it's PG. Be aware of the possible outcomes of showing this to kids. I don't even remember what it was about, once was enough!


Roeg has done some great movies, but this a turkey. It has a feel of a play written by an untalented high-school student for his class assignment. The set decoration is appealing in a somewhat surrealistic way, but the actual story is insufferable hokum.


I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.

Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.

A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(


Today, Bea Arthur died so I was cruising around the IMDb Web site and somehow wound up on a show called "Gloria." "All In The Family" was a brilliant show for its first four or five years and I bet I watched every episode more than once. However, I swear that I did NOT know a show named "Gloria" existed. Maybe, that's a good thing. Maybe, it means I had a life as a young adult rather than watching television.

On the other hand, it is pathetic that the "All In The Family" franchise had deteriorated so much that it begat a show I never heard of -- and one that is rated very poorly by the previous reviewers.

I rated the show a 1 for two reasons -- the system did not allow me to register a no vote and writers and TV execs should be condemned for starting a show that had no business being on the air and besmirches the memory of one of the greatest shows in TV history.

Shalom, ZWrite


Despite being released on DVD by Blue Underground some five years ago, I have never come across this Italian "sword and sorcery" item on late-night Italian TV and, now that I have seen it for myself, I know exactly why. Not because of its director's typical predilection for extreme gore (of which there is some examples to be sure) or the fact that the handful of women in it parade topless all the time (it is set in the Dark Ages after all)it is, quite simply, very poor stuff indeed. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it may very well be the worst of its kind that I have yet seen and, believe me, I have seen plenty (especially in the last few years i.e. following my excursion to the 2004 Venice Film Festival)! Reading about how the film's failure at the time of initial release is believed to have led to its director's subsequent (and regrettable) career nosedive into mindless low-budget gore, I can see their point: I may prefer Fulci's earlier "giallo" period (1968-77) to his more popular stuff horror (1979-82) myself but, even on the latter, his commitment was arguably unquestionable. On the other hand, CONQUEST seems not to have inspired Fulci in the least  seeing how he decided to drape the proceedings with an annoyingly perpetual mist, sprinkle it with incongruent characters (cannibals vs. werewolves, anyone?), irrelevant gore (we are treated to a gratuitous, nasty cannibal dinner just before witnessing the flesh-eating revelers having their brains literally beaten out by their hairy antagonists!) and even some highly unappetizing intimacy between the masked, brain-slurping villainess (don't ask) and her slimy reptilian pet!! For what it is worth, we have two heroes for the price of one here: a young magic bow-carrying boy on some manhood-affirming odyssey (Andrea Occhipinti) and his rambling muscle-bound companion (Jorge Rivero i.e. Frenchy from Howard Hawks' RIO LOBO [1970]!) who, despite being called Mace (short for Maciste, perhaps?), seems to be there simply to drop in on his cavewoman from time to time and get his younger protégé out of trouble (particularly during an exceedingly unpleasant attack of the 'boils'). Unfortunately, even the usual saving grace of such lowbrow material comes up short here as ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti's electronic score seems awfully inappropriate at times. Fulci even contrives to give the film a laughably hurried coda with the surviving beefy hero going aimlessly out into the wilderness (after defeating one and all with the aid of the all-important magic bowso much for his own supposed physical strength!) onto his next  and thankfully unfilmed  adventure!


The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?


I like Fulci films, i really do and not in some boring ironic way either but i recognise that they appear hopelessly inept and garbled to lots of people.

Conquest is where Fulci tries his hand at the epic fantasy genre and doesn't really succeed. Structurally, it's like most Fulci films you've seen. Some stuff happens, some more stuff happens and occasionally one scene might be tangentially related to another. Really it's like Conan with no sets, no script, no real actors (yes, Arnold Scharzenfartz is hardly an actor either), no budget, stupid looking dog soldiers and a bunch of gore.

This one was a hard one to get through and i could've lived without the inch of vaseline smeared on the camera to give it that Hair Metal music video look.


Ah, Lucio Fulci, rest in peace. This infamous Italian is most

famous for "Zombie," and the absolutely unwatchable "The

Psychic" and "Manhattan Baby." Well, add this to the unwatchable

list.

The plot, as it were, concerns a nekkid woman who wears a gold

mask and a G-string. She wants the power of a young dubbed

stud who has a set of magic arrows and a bow. They are magic

because they glow. Arrow boy teams up with a guy in a bad wig,

and they spend most of the movie rescuing each other from flat

action sequences. In the end, the nekkid chick is defeated, but not

before taking the mask off and reminding me why I broke up with

my high school girlfriend.

Fulci bathes every shot in an orange glow and fills the screen with

smoke. Nothing like a smoky orange action sequence to make you

crave Sunny Delight and a cigarette. The special effects are

laughable. In one sequence, our ambiguously gay duo are

attacked by dozens of arrows that are obviously pin scratches on

the film itself. The majority of the effects budget must have been

spent on the Fulci-licious gore, which consists entirely of spurting

wounds. Hey, we can all use a good spurting wound once in a

while, but when you get into spurting wound overkill, it gets boring.

I kept having to play with the brightness setting on my TV anyway

just to see what the heck was happening.

There is lots of talk of fulfilling omens and prophecies, so let me

do a little look into the future...if you find this movie and watch it,

you will regret it. The scene on the video box (by Media) does not

appear in the film in any context whatsoever. "Conquest" is a con

job. What MST3K could have done with this!

This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, strong gore, female

nudity, brief male nudity, and mild sexual content.