If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.


I found Tremors 4:The Legend Begins, to be dull and boring.All the action scenes were stupid.The so called "GRABOIDS" are reduced to the size of a modern day house cat, if not smaller.The acting was horrendous, and this film was just an unnecessary movie in the Tremor saga, because even though it tells the story of how the graboids were formed, the story is so dumb and useless.Also, if you want to tell a story WAY back in time, make sure you use the SAME ACTOR(Michael Gross), to be someone in the past, when he's someone in the present in the other Tremor movies.Geez...If you haven't seen this film, don't waste your time.Stick to Tremors, 1, 2, and 3, for a good time.This film however, make sure you're remote is sitting right next to you with the STOP button working for a quick retreat away from this nonsense.


Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.

Well the writers of the first Tremors are officially out of ideas. I'm a big fan of the first movie and the first two sequels are pretty good for straight to video fare. Tremors 4: The Legends Begins, however, is a very dull movie. Where the heck are the Graboids???

Due to the relative lack of Graboids through the first 90 minutes I'm convinced that this entry into the series is suppose to be a "character study". Unfortunately there isn't one interesting character in the movie except for Billy Drago's character who is given too few lines, too little to do and in the end too little screen time. What saved the 2nd and 3rd movies was the presence of Michael Gross as Burt Gummer. Whenever there wasn't any action on the screen you could rest assured that Burt Gummer was going to be interesting to listen too and/or watch. However in this movie Gross plays Hiram Gummer a very poor and boring substitute.

On the plus side when the Graboids (Dirt Dragons in this movie) are on the screen they do look good but that is about as good as it gets.

I was impressed when I saw that Tremors 4 was listed at 101 minutes long. Pretty good for straight to video. But after watching it I'm sure that this movie is a good 15 minutes too long. There are long stretches of dialogue that is boring and doesn't further the plot any. Was there a rush to get this movie made? I think not, more time could have and should have been spent on the script.

I thought I had hit a gold mine when I saw Tremors 4 packaged for sale with....Tremors!!! What luck I thought, pay for #4 get #1 for free. Well after watching Tremors 4 I like to think I paid for the original and got this mess for free, I can't imagine paying a single dime for Tremors 4. For fans of the series it's best to forget that Tremors 4: The Legend Begins even exists.

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins rates a 3 out of 10.


The fourth "Tremors" feature goes back in time, to the year 1889. "The Legend Begins" in the small city of "Perfection", which was then "Rejection, Nevada". As the story begins, seventeen miners are killed by the ghastly "Graboids". Some of the characters in the present-day "Tremors" films have ancestors, both figurative and literal, in the past. Most obvious is the ever-returning Michael Gross (as Hiram Gummer). Unlike his descendant, Mr. Gross is inept with firearms; so, he hires gunslinger Billy Drago (as "Black Hand" Kelly) to shoot 'em up some "Dirt Dragons".

This one takes some getting used to - as it takes place in the distant past. It's like a western with miniature versions of the original film's monster "Graboids". These tamer "Dirt Dragons" are nowhere near as terrorizing as their "Tremors" (1990) counterparts. Consequently, in this film, the characters spend an awful lot of time on the ground, which would not have happened in the original movie. And, it was weird to have the citizens give up the fight so quickly, when Gross temporarily decides to leave town. Why so helpless? Why didn't Brent Roam (as Juan Pedilla) immediately rally the people to fight without Gross? Disappointing.

**** Tremors 4: The Legend Begins (2004) S.S. Wilson ~ Michael Gross, Brent Roam, Billy Drago


This, the direct-to-video death rattle of the Tremors series, features sixty inspired seconds (sawblade: you'll know it when you see it) and more tedium and filler than you can shake a stick at. Tremors 4 was obviously shot on a cripplingly low budget. That means they only had enough special effects mojo for three or four minutes of precious worm-on-human violence, tops. The lackluster, cliche-spouting cast and hackneyed writing ensure that the remaining hour and a half of the Tremors 4 experience feels at least fifteen thousand years long. Only hardcore Tremors fans will be able to sit through, much less enjoy this film. If you aren't among them- don't bother.


Just a few words.... This movie really sucks. It's like those TV Movies with bad cast and plot. It's amazing how they could make this sequel worse than the III. Don't waste your time watching this crap, even if you like the tremors movies.


Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.


Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!

The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.

What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.

But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there.

So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.


Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.

Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared.

Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.


One of the major flaws in this film is that while the mocking of pretentious yuppies is satisfying, it fails to realize that the movie makers themselves are guilty of being one of those that deserve to be mocked. One of the characteristics of these yuppie types is the conceited misunderstanding that they (the yuppies) are the only ones sophisticated enough to understand art. While the movie ignores this characteristic and instead focuses on their misunderstandings of dinning, I find it ironic that only people who enjoy this movie boast the same conceited taste in films as the characters do in their choice of dinner. If these pompous characters that were in this movie have a video library at home, I would bet that American Psycho would be one of those movies.


There's nothing wrong with a popcorn movie to keep you off the streets. It's just that some are better than others. This is very poor. The acting is awful, the script dire; and the special effects overrated.

Why does Hollywood treat it's audience with such contempt? And why have they made a sequel?


Simply not the quality I expected from Morris (love Brass Eye and Blue Jam). This is very much like a not so bad student film. What concerns me, in all this is WHY DID IT WIN A BAFTA??? Morris makes fun of 'enshrined mediocrity' (Ayn Rand) in much of his work (Nathan Barley) and yet with this piece is urinating down the backs of the talented and telling us its raining!

I just hope as he has chosen a subject I would love to tackle (the humanity of terrorism - Four Lions) that he isn't going to cock that up, wasting the opportunity to make a statement about the farce of mainstream ignorance and opinion on this emotive and heavily spun phenomena.


Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.

The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.

The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.

To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.

The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.


Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.

A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.

So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.

Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.

There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.


With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.


Okay, you have:

Penelope Keith as Miss Herringbone-Tweed, B.B.E. (Backbone of England.) She's killed off in the first scene - that's right, folks; this show has no backbone!

Peter O'Toole as Ol' Colonel Cricket from The First War and now the emblazered Lord of the Manor.

Joanna Lumley as the ensweatered Lady of the Manor, 20 years younger than the colonel and 20 years past her own prime but still glamourous (Brit spelling, not mine) enough to have a toy-boy on the side. It's alright, they have Col. Cricket's full knowledge and consent (they guy even comes 'round for Christmas!) Still, she's considerate of the colonel enough to have said toy-boy her own age (what a gal!)

David McCallum as said toy-boy, equally as pointlessly glamourous as his squeeze. Pilcher couldn't come up with any cover for him within the story, so she gave him a hush-hush job at the Circus.

and finally:

Susan Hampshire as Miss Polonia Teacups, Venerable Headmistress of the Venerable Girls' Boarding-School, serving tea in her office with a dash of deep, poignant advice for life in the outside world just before graduation. Her best bit of advice: "I've only been to Nancherrow (the local Stately Home of England) once. I thought it was very beautiful but, somehow, not part of the real world." Well, we can't say they didn't warn us.

Ah, Susan - time was, your character would have been running the whole show. They don't write 'em like that any more. Our loss, not yours.

So - with a cast and setting like this, you have the re-makings of "Brideshead Revisited," right?

Wrong! They took these 1-dimensional supporting roles because they paid so well. After all, acting is one of the oldest temp-jobs there is (YOU name another!)

First warning sign: lots and lots of backlighting. They get around it by shooting outdoors - "hey, it's just the sunlight!"

Second warning sign: Leading Lady cries a lot. When not crying, her eyes are moist. That's the law of romance novels: Leading Lady is "dewy-eyed."

Henceforth, Leading Lady shall be known as L.L.

Third warning sign: L.L. actually has stars in her eyes when she's in love. Still, I'll give Emily Mortimer an award just for having to act with that spotlight in her eyes (I wonder . did they use contacts?)

And lastly, fourth warning sign: no on-screen female character is "Mrs." She's either "Miss" or "Lady."

When all was said and done, I still couldn't tell you who was pursuing whom and why. I couldn't even tell you what was said and done.

To sum up: they all live through World War II without anything happening to them at all.

OK, at the end, L.L. finds she's lost her parents to the Japanese prison camps and baby sis comes home catatonic. Meanwhile (there's always a "meanwhile,") some young guy L.L. had a crush on (when, I don't know) comes home from some wartime tough spot and is found living on the street by Lady of the Manor (must be some street if SHE's going to find him there.) Both war casualties are whisked away to recover at Nancherrow (SOMEBODY has to be "whisked away" SOMEWHERE in these romance stories!)

Great drama.


I'm not going to bother with a plot synopsis since you know what the movie is about and there's almost no plot, anyway. I've seen several reviewers call ISOYG an 'anti-rape' film or even a feminist statement, and I just have to chime in on the galling hypocrisy of these claims.

First of all, what do we see on the cover of this movie? That's right: a shapely woman's behind. Whether it was Zarchi's attempt to make an anti-rape statement - and I absolutely don't believe it was - is entirely beside the point. The film is marketing sex and the titillation of sexual assault and the material is so graphic (everything but actual penetration is shown) that NO ONE but the hard core exploitation crowd will enjoy it.

The rape(s) in the film is uncomfortable, brutal and hard to watch. There's something to be said for presenting a horrible crime in such a brutal light, but there was no reason for this scene to go on for seemingly 30 minutes, none. There was also little character development of the victim and only one of the rapists is slightly developed (mere moments before he's murdered) so the scene isn't at all engaging on an emotional level. Really, it's just presented for the sake of showing extreme sexual violence and you can tell by the movies ISOYG is associated with on IMDb (Caligula, Cannibal Ferox, etc.) that it attracts only the exploitation crowd.

Finally, a few reviewers have commended Zarchi's so-called documentary style and lack of a soundtrack. But considering how inept everything else in the film is (acting, script, etc.) I suspect these were financial decisions and the film looks like a documentary because he literally stationed a camera and let his porn-caliber actors do their thing.

I'm not going to get all up on my high horse talking about the content of ISOYG. I'm all for exploitation / horror and love video nasties. In fact, I'm giving this movie three stars only because it truly does push the envelope so much further than some other films. However, it's also poorly made and after the rape occurs, just downright boring for the rest of the film as we watch a bunch of ho-hum, mostly gore-less murders and wait for the credits to roll.

This is probably worth watching once if you're a hardcore 70s exploitation fan but I'm telling you, the movie is overall pretty bad and not really worth its notorious reputation.


I've seen the Gator Bait films, and this is almost exactly the same thing as those. A woman is sexually assaulted by a group of degenerate men and systematically exacts her vicious revenge on each of them. The thing that sets this movie apart from those ones (although not very far) is that the sexual content is not glorified. There is full frontal nudity many times throughout the film, but not for a second is it ever sexy. Some of the rape scenes might seem a little extensive, but that's only because the movie is trying to strengthen the audience's need to see this woman seek revenge.

This is a weak film, it has no other way to maintain interest other than manipulating our natural desire to see this woman get revenge on her attackers. I Spit On Your Grave is not the kind of movie that you expect to deliver a serious moral, but I was glad to see that, since it contained a significant amount of violence inflicted upon the female lead, it was not meant to pass off as a T&A film.

B-movies are notorious for being driven by nudity and out of control adolescent sexuality, and while I Spit On You Grave is unmistakably a B-movie and contains more than its share of nudity, the nudity does not drive the plot. On the other hand, the only thing that drives the plot is an empty necessity for revenge against a group of rapists. These men are evolutionary drop-outs just like they were in the Gator Bait films, and the biggest challenge for the writers seems to have been to come up with new and exciting ways to kill them, but the reason the film can never be anything more than a meaningless B-movie is because it does not deliver a message of any kind, but instead it simply satisfies the audience's desire to see a bunch of rapists get exactly what they deserve.

The one problem that this leaves is that we have to sit through the sexual attacks. Oddly, the first half of the film is the part that contains the most nudity (although not by much), but it is by far the most painful to watch. We are even let down a little as we watch the woman obtain revenge since a couple of the deaths were so elaborate that they were obviously impossible (it seems like pure luck that the guy in the lake at the end felt such an overwhelming desire to hug the motor on the boat and press his genitalia against the propeller, staying that way while the woman yells some final words at him and pulls the cord), but again, this movie satisfies only the desire for revenge that the first half filled us with.

(spoilers) You know that this is all the movie means to do, since it literally ends the minute the last guy is killed. The woman does not live happily ever after, she doesn't write her book, she doesn't leave and never return to that nightmare place, she just gets in the boat and motors around the lake while the movie simply stops in its tracks. But hey, what more did you expect?

Oh, and did you read the tagline? If you decide to waste your time watching this, try and find any man getting broken or burned. I was really looking forward to those


I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.

************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.

Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.

Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.

I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.

These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.

Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer.

Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?

I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************

But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, `Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'


Director Kevin Connor and wannabe action-hero / romantic lead Doug McClure, re-team in this ghost story set in Japan. They had been moderately successful together in the 1970's, with the likes of 'The Land that Time Forgot' (1975), 'At the Earth's Core' (1976) etc. Without plastic monsters to carry the narrative along though, the results are shabby and derivative in the most corny way.

The film begins with a prologue set in the 19th Century, with a samurai husband killing his wife and her lover before committing suicide. A move forward to the present introduces married couple Ted & Laura, visiting Japan and moving in to the house where the tragedy took place.

No surprises as to what happens next, with the spirits of the dead starting to take over the new inhabitants with family friend Alex (McClure) assuming the role of the wife's lover.

Everything rumbles clumsily along with the elegance and grace of a charging elephant, to an inevitable ( but surprisingly downbeat ) conclusion. Main points of interest are two feeble decapitations ( 'The Omen' has a lot to answer for in promoting this as a standard horror set-piece ), and the love-making scenes featuring the doe-eyed but extremely kinky Susan George. The first is a long 'Don't Look Now' inspired piece with her hubby, complete with piano music; the second a much shorter (probably at her insistence) entanglement with McClure, both looking pretty uncomfortable. Anyway, every cloud has a silver lining and both scenes show of her fantastic knockers so all is not lost.

Overall I can't decide whether 'The House where Evil Dwells' is rubbish, watchable rubbish, or entertaining in a masochistic kind of way. If you're not into the genre there is nothing here at all, but for horror fans there is probably enough to provoke the odd rye smile and appreciative nod of respect for effort.

BEST SCENE - in any other film the big, black, tree-climbing, Japanese-muttering mechanical crabs would have stolen the show. They are eclipsed though by the legendary family meal scene, where a ghostly head appears in the daughters soup. On seeing this apparition she asks what kind of soup it is (!!!!), to be told beef and vegetable, before uttering the immortal line "Ugh - there's an awful face in my soup". If this wasn't enough the reply is "C'mon, eat your soup for Daddy." Laurel & Hardy rest in piece.


From reading all of the comments posted here on IMDb, this movie seems to get ragged on a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT bad. I've seen much worse, actually.

"The House Where Evil Dwells" is a ghost story about a husband and his wife, Ted and Laura Fletcher, and their daughter, Amy, who move into an old house in Japan. Little do they know, a Japanese ninja brutally murdered his wife and her lover, and then killed himself 100 years earlier with a samurai sword. As strange things happen in the house, the ghosts of the previous residents begin to possess the bodies of the living, and plan on re-enacting the bloody murder that took place 100 years back.

I saw this movie and decided to give it a chance, from the cover it looked like a decent ghost story. It was routine, and it was corny, but I've seen worse in my day. The ghost sequences were a little over-done, we get to see the translucent blue-tinted figures randomly pop up randomly around the family, and take over their bodies. To be honest, the ghosts in this movie kind of reminded me of the ghosts in the Haunted Mansion ride at Disneyland. I may be mistaken, but after watching this, it seemed to me that the Japanese horror film "Ju-On: The Grudge" and the American remake of that film ripped this off a little. The old Japanese home where a brutal murder took place, ghostly activity, curses put on the home, etc. But I may be wrong.

To sum it up, this is a pretty corny ghost story. Don't go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of thing and it happens to come on TV you can give it a shot. 4/10.


Giant crabs cursing in Japanese? What was in that drink? A terrible movie, but laughable. I love the invisible Samurai ghosties running around. Drink much beer before you see this movie.


This could have been interesting  a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family  but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.

The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department  a giant crab attack is merely silly  as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup!

At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there  eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created  leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster  tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing.


At the beginning of the film, you might double-check the DVD cover and re-read the synopsis a couple of times, but no worries. It's NOT "Memoirs of a Geisha" that you purchased; just a movie with an intro that is much more classy and stylish than it has any right to be. Still, the opening is by far the best thing about the entire movie, as it shows how in the year 1840 a Samurai sword master catches his wife committing adultery. He decapitates the two lovers before doing some hara-kiri (ritual suicide through disembowelment). Cut to present day, when the American Ambassador in Japan welcomes a befriended family and drives them up to the same house where the aforementioned slaughter took place nearly one and a half century ago. From then onwards, this becomes a seemingly routine haunted house flick yet the utterly retarded and implausible script still makes it somewhat exceptional. Let's start with the good aspects, namely the original Japanese setting and the presence of the delicious Susan George who is my all-time favorite British horror wench (well, together with Britt Eckland, Linda Hayden and Ingrid Pitt). The bad aspects simply include that the screenplay is incoherent, imbecilic beyond repair and full of supposedly unsettling twists that only evoke laughter. The restless spirits of the house soon begin to entertain themselves by perpetrating into the bodies of the new tenants and causing them to do and say all sorts of crazy stuff. The spirit of the massacred adulterous woman particularly enjoys squeezing into Susan's ravishing booty and transforming her into a lewd seductress! In this "possessed" state, she even lures the American ambassador outside to have sex in the garden of a high society diner party full of prominent guests. So, strictly spoken, it's not really "evil" that dwells in the house; just a trio of sleazy ghosts with dirty minds and far too much free time on their long-dead hands! Obviously these scenes are more comical than frightening, especially since the light-blue and transparent shapes remind you of the cute ghost effects that were later popularized in "Ghostbusters". "The House Where Evil Dwells" is probably the least scary ghost movie ever. Throughout most of the running time, you'll be wondering whether director Kevin Connor (who nevertheless made the excellent horror films "Motel Hell" and "From Beyond the Grave") intentionally wanted to make his movie funny and over-the-top, like "Motel Hell" maybe. But then again, everyone in the cast continues to speak his/her lines with a straight and sincere face, so I guess we are nevertheless supposed to take everything seriously and feel disturbed. "The House Where Evil Dwells" is never suspenseful or even remotely exciting and it doesn't even contain any grisly images apart from the massacre at the beginning. I am fully aware of how shallow it sounds, but the two scenes in which Susan George goes topless are the only true highlights. Well, those and maybe also the invasion of cheesy and ridiculously over-sized spiders (or are they crabs?) in the daughter's bedroom. How totally random and irrelevant was that? If you ever decide to give this movie a chance notwithstanding its bad reputation, make sure you leave your common sense and reasoning at the doorstep.

Trivia note for horror buffs: keep an eye open for the demon-mask that was also a pivot piece of scenery in the brilliant Japanese horror classic Onibaba.


..IT'S THIS ONE! Very cool premise, right off the bat.

Has an excellent first scene, gotta give credit where credit's due.

Has solid characters and a decent enough script for a ghost story but here are the things that bothered me: Whenever the ghosts appeared, which I really liked by the way; how it was done, how it looked...the only thing was the ghost's relationship. Because of the way things went down in the first scene you'd think their dynamic would be different.

Things slowed down a little too much in the middle I felt, and the crab/spider scene was just not good. BUT then the ending is actually very good! Sure, 'The Grudge' basically told the same story with a polished lens but no samurai's and that's what I liked about this movie comparatively.

Please, someone one with a tempered style remake this movie.

Fans of 'Silent Rage' would absolutely love this movie.


This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?


The film opens with a peaceful shot of a traditional Japanese house complete with thatched roof that sits on the side of a small hill and an on screen caption appears that reads 'KUSHIATA KYOTO, JAPAN 1840'. A young Japanese trainee Samurai named Masanori (Toshiya Maruyama) walks up the winding path to the house, inside waits Otami (Mako Hattori) with whom he is having an affair behind her husband, Shugoro's (Tsuiyuki Sasaki as Toshiyuki Sasaki) back who happens to be Masanori's teacher. Shugoro unexpectedly arrives home to find his wife and student having very intimate relations with each other. His honour destroyed the enraged Samurai brutally murders both Otami and Masanori before committing suicide. Over a century later and Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) arrives in Japan on a working holiday with his wife Laura (Susan George) and their young daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their close friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works for the American consulate helps them out by finding them a place to stay, you don't need me to you where! He jokingly says it's going so cheap because it's haunted, to which both Ted and Laura laugh off as they obviously don't believe in ghosts, at least for the time being that is. Almost immediately the film goes into cliché mode. Lights turn on and off by themselves, Laura has an uneasy feeling about the place and a local Zen Monk (Henry Mitowa) gives them an ominous warning for them to leave before it's too late which they ignore, of course. The spirits of Otami, Masanori and Shugoro were doomed for eternity to remain within the walls of the house because of a Majyo witches (Tsuyako Olajima) curse put upon them. But there may be a way they can break the curse, unfortunately for the Fletcher family it could potentially cost them their marriage, daughter and possibly even their very lives.

Directed by Kevin Connor I thought this was a pretty average film, OK to watch once if you've got nothing better to do but after a day or two you'll probably have completely forgotten it. Nothing sticks in the memory as being particularly bad but on the other hand there's nothing particularly good about the film either. The script by Robert Suhosky from the novel by James Hardiman is a little on the dull side and strictly by-the-numbers, a lot of ghostly goings on happen throughout the film but none of it is very interesting or exciting and the flat characters and direction doesn't help things. There are couple of silly sequences like the giant plastic crabs that try to get Amy and her babysitter, Noriko (Mayumi Umeda). And there is a scene where the Zen Monk exorcises the house and the ghosts are banished outside unable to get back in, however that is until Ted simply opens the door and they just walk right back in, some exorcism! One more thing, I think it was a bad idea to have Doug McClure who was 47 when he made this, try his hand at Kung-Fu and oriental sword fighting! George gets her ample breasts out a couple of times including a very unerotic sex scene with McClure, although great pains and a couple of bed sheets that stick to them like super glue were taken to ensure no below the waist nudity was present. Apart from a couple of mostly off screen decapitations there's no blood, gore or violence to speak about. The 'transparent' ghost effects are OK but they ain't going to impress many people these days. It's professionally enough made and looks quite nice but the potential in the Japanese setting and myths is squandered as this film could have been set in America, England or any Western country without having to change a thing. An OK time waster.


Dull haunted house thriller finds an American family moving into a 200 year old house in Japan where a violent murder suicide love triangle occurred.

Novel setting is about the only element of interest in this very slow moving horror flick by the director of Motel Hell. The film generates zero suspense and is composed of somewhat choppy scenes that rarely seem to be leading anywhere overall.

One obvious example is a fairly early scene where the male lead visits a temple after realizing that his house is haunted as the monk had earlier warned. The monk recounts the history of the house (which the viewer is already familiar with from the opening sequence) and then the film simply cuts away to something else. Earlier the monk had offered to help. Well, where is the help? The family continues to stay in the haunted house as things get worse and worse and no mention of the monk is made until nearly the very end when he turns up again to do what he should have done an hour earlier--try to drive the spirits out of the house, although by this time it's difficult for the viewers to care.

There are some (probably) unintentional campy laughs in seeing the American actors at the end become possessed by the Japanese spirits and suddenly start doing bad martial arts, I say probably because the scene is more than a little reminiscent of the chainsaw duel from the same director's Motel Hell which was more obviously meant to be amusing, but on the whole this is a forgettable dud.


I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.

This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.


Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.


While the premise behind The House Where Evil Dwells may be intriguing, the execution is downright pathetic. I'm not even sure where to begin as I've got so many problems with this movie. I suppose I'll just number a few of them:

1. The Acting  When you see that Edward Albert, Doug McClure, and Susan George (and her teeth) are the stars of your movie, you know you're in trouble? Not that it matters much to me, but these are hardly A-List names. Susan George may have been in a couple of movies I enjoy, but I've never considered her the greatest actress I've ever seen. And in this movie, her acting is embarrassing. As for the other two, the less said the better.

2. The Ghosts  The ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them reminded me quite a bit of the ghosts in the haunted mansion ride.at Disney World. And, they are about as frightening. And why did they have to be so obvious? Subtlety is not a characteristic of The House Where Evil Dwells.

3. The Plot  How predictable can one movie be? The outcome of this movie is painfully obvious once you meet the three main characters. If you couldn't see where this movie was headed after about 15 minutes, you need to see more movies.

4. The Convenient Priest  What are the chances that the haunted house you buy just happens to be across the street from a group of Japanese monks? Not to mention that one of them knows the history of your house and comes over, knocks on the door, and asks if you need help removing evil spirits. Absurd is a word that comes to mind.

5. Everything Else  It's very difficult for me to think of any positives to write about. I suppose I'll give it a point for the opening scene and a point for the house's architecture. That's a sure sign of a winner  noting the architecture as a highlight of any film doesn't say much about the actual movie.

I'll stop. You should be able to get the idea from what I've already mentioned. And, I haven't even mentioned the annoying little girl or the Invasion of the Crabs or a multitude of other problems. Be warned, this thing is horrible.


Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."


I saw this film at a pre-release screening at the Writers Guild theater in Beverly Hills. As I recall, the film's producers and director were in attendance, presumably to gage our reaction.

Many scenes evoked gales of laughter from the audience, which would have been fine if it had been a comedy, but it was supposed to be a horror film.

If the audience wasn't scared, it seems the filmmakers were. They delayed release for over a year. Out of curiosity I saw it again to see if they'd re-cut it; as far as I can tell, they hadn't. It was the same lousy movie, just a year older.

It almost qualifies as "so bad, it's good," but it's slow-paced and boring.


This is a rotten movie.The cast seem to know just how bad it was.it starts badly and by the end is truly bad.the acting is woeful.the script could of been written on the spot.and although the movie is a horror film it has no scary scenes.Crap 1 out of 10


A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those

Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)


This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.


I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".

Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.


Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.

If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.


I regret every single second of the time I lost while watching this movie, really. Unhappily, I always find it hard to switch off a movie once I started watching it. Especially, when it's such a classic or what people use to call a classic. I think that this is one of those movies every movie-lover should have watched at least one time, so that was why I watched it. Don't get me wrong, I like Humphrey Bogart and his wife Lauren Bacall both as a couple and as actors, but this movie was a big fraud in my opinion. No really good plot, neither an espionage flick nor a romantic love story. Well, not even a convincing mixture of both of these genres. Only thing which caused tension was that it was uncertain whether 'Bogey' and Bacall would stay together in the end or part from one another. I think "To Have and Have Not" is very overrated and Bogart was in many better films during the 1940s.


As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure.

The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.

The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie.

Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow.

Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.


This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".


"Three Daring Daughters" is a sickly sweet, rose-colored look at divorce, remarriage, and single-parent living. Obviously, social issues and economic difficulty have no place in the picture perfect life of a single parent mother who feels exhausted, takes a cruise, and then dates and marries a band conductor. Even when the "its just a movie" phrase excuses the script from addressing real-life problems, 'Daughters' suffers from too many incoherent high-note songs, children whose personalities are not based on real children and band leader Hose Iturbi playing himself. Isn't it bizarre that any real person would star in a film in which their supposed real self gets married?

Admittedly, this movie was released in the nineteen forties. Only a love for old style Hollywood romance and comedy could make 'Daughters' a tolerable film.


I actually have a fondness for Christopher Lee, but this just wasn't up to his other performances... and he was one of the better actors.

The film does not live up to its premise. It's not that scary, it's overly melodramatic, and it draaaaaags. Every time I thought, "Oh, HERE comes the good part" the good part never quite arrived.

The Evil Ones aren't at all convincing. Most of the other characters were also lacking in depth.

Perhaps if I'd been in the proper frame of mind, I might have enjoyed some MSTie-fication at this film's expense, but.... Naaahhh... Didn't really seem to be worth the effort. It wasn't really very good, it wasn't really very bad, it was just mediocre.


I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.

Very improbable orphanage on Bala.

Cushing and Lee at their height.

Some nice scenery.

Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".

Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.

Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.

Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.


In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.


...but a lousy film. As Maltin says this was Christopher Lee's attempt to make a serious horror film. Well, it is serious...TOO serious! The plot is silly and slow (something about old people inhabiting the bodies of young children to achieve immortality)...the film is all talk talk talk talk talk talk talk about the same things over and over again. I actually dozed off a few times! The film is sooooo dull! The cast sleepwalks through this with the sole exceptions of Peter Cushing and Lee...but this was probably a labor of love for both (they often complained about horror movies being too violent...well, this has NO violence!). Avoid at all costs...unless you have insomnia...this will put you to sleep!


The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.

The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.

The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.

The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.


Probably encouraged by admirers of her much-better "Orlando", Potter here delivers a vehicle for herself in the worst way: she writes, directs, stars, and actually co-writes the music, including a mawkish love song. The film strongly resembles a high school or college project by a teenager convinced that her own intimate loves and melodramatic obsessions are as fascinating to us as to her. But Potter's character is as unsympathetic as the object of her romantic obsession is unlikable, and the whole film is an embarrassing display of narcissism masquerading as a celebration of the tango. Perhaps if she hadn't cast herself it might have worked. She just can't act, whether playing herself or not. Pretentious, over-ambitious, dull, and silly.


Dire. Just dire. The script is contrived, the acting painful, and the story just drags along. It is, without a doubt, a celebration of Sally Potter and little else. This wouldn't be so bad, but she's the director, writer and star of the film, and so is just self-glorification. I found myself not caring about the developing romance between the principal two characters, and the ending came not a moment too soon. It has two redeeming features. First is that a lot of the shots are really quite lovely, particularly in Paris, and look rather good in black and white. Secondly, whether you're a fan of tango or not, the music is by and large, excellent (except where Sally starts singing). Watch this film at your own risk, or if you need an unintentional laugh. I am sure it appeals to someone. Statistically, it has to.


Strange how less than 2 hours can seem like a lifetime when sitting through such flat, uninspiring drivel. If a story is as personal as this supposedly was to Sally Potter, wouldn't you expect a little passion to show through in her performance? Her acting was completely detached and I felt no chemistry between Sally and Pablo and the tango scenes, which should have been fiery given the nature of the dance, were instead awkward and painful to watch. Obviously, revealing such a personal story on film can be daunting, and as such Sally Potter would have been wise to let a better actor take on the task rather than let her passion fall victim to her own sheepishness.


This is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few movies. It is passed off as an art film, but it is really a piece of trash. It's one redeeming quality is the beautiful tango dancing, but that cannot make up for Sally Potter's disgustingly obvious tribute to herself. The plot of this movie is nonexistent, and I guarantee you will start laughing by the end. Especially where she starts singing. It's absolutely unreal.


The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!

To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.


Wow what a great premise for a film : Set it around a film maker with writer`s block who decides to take up tango lessons . Hey and what an even better idea cast the central role to a film maker who`s interested in tango. Gosh I wish I had that knack for genius . Yes I`m being sarcastic.<br /><br />It amazes me that these type of zero potential for making money movies are made . Come on unless you`re a rabid tango fan ( I do concede they do exist judging by the comments ) or a die hard member of the Sally Potter fan club ( ? ) there`s nothing in this film that will make you rush off to the cinema to see it . Even if you`re into tango much of the film is taken up with meaningless scenes like a house getting renovated or a man in wheelchair going along a road

Coming soon THE REVIEW LESSON where a failed screenwriter from Scotland sits in front of a computer writing very sarcastic but highly entertaining reviews of films he`s seen . Gasp in shock as Theo Robertson puts the boot into the latest Hollywood blockbusters , weep in sympathy as he gets yet another rejection letter from a film company , fall in lust as he takes a bath and rubs soap over his well toned body . THE REVIEW LESSON coming soon to a cinema near you if anyone is stupid enough to fund the movie

PS Sally Potter is unrelated to Harry Potter


Terrible acting by Potter and a flat plot with no tension what so ever. And as for the feminist polemic, it's laughable. I saw this garbage when it was first released and though I found it tedious beyond belief I'm glad I did go to see it. That's because I now have an immediate answer to the question 'what's the worst film you've ever seen?' Plus, I have the comfort of knowing that every film I see for the rest of my life will be better than The Tango Lesson. But I have to admit I was impressed with the way Potter wrote a script that would garner the maximum number of arts council grants from around the world (as is revealed in the closing credits).

I only very recently saw Orlando and I can see how Potter learnt the wrong lessons from making that film. All it took was a bunch of frilly costumes, a few hard stares to camera by the leading lady, and a loose plot to seduce the cinema going public. So why shouldn't she think she could get away with the self-indulgent nothingness that is The Tango Lesson?


The mind boggles at exactly what about Universal Soldier merited a sequel. Since the real star, Dolph Lundgren, would not be able to reprise his role from the original, there is already scant reason to indulge oneself in this obvious tax write-off. Bold attempts are made to fill the gap with professional wrestler Bill Goldberg and martial arts expert Michael Jai White. To their credit, they give their action sequences a good sense of excitement. Bill Goldberg looks like he is having the time of his life on this film, and he makes a fair stab at filling the requisite comedic villain role. For once, his role is the kind that involves repeating the same line a few times, and it does not get irritating. The problem from the audience's point of view is that neither of these gentlemen really have the sense of comic timing or minor humility that makes Lundgren such a pleasure to watch in almost all of his films. And therein lies the problem. You do not go to see a Van Damme film because you want serious action. You go because you want comedy, however unintentional.

Unbeknownst to many people, Universal Soldier was followed by two direct-to-video sequels. I have only seen the first, which had production values so bad one can only wonder if it was meant to be some kind of elaborate joke. Matt Battaglia was so terrible in the role of Luc Deveraux that for once in his career, the sight of Jean-Claude Van Damme comes as a welcome relief. The film more or less completely disregards the stories of the aforementioned direct-to-video sequels, and instead begins a whole new story set an indeterminate time after the events of the original. After years of investigation and explanation, the Unisol project is still going ahead, with some minor modifications. For one, the new Unisols are stronger and more damage-resistant than their earlier cousins. For another, all of the Unisols are now under the direction of a supercomputer called SETH. In the early parts of the film, SETH exists primarily as a series of abstract graphics within a glass dome.

Being that the film barely lasts more than eighty minutes, we are quickly told that funding to the military is being cut. The Unisol project is on the chopping block, which essentially means that SETH will be turned off. SETH, somehow overhearing this conversation through means that are never really explained, decides to mobilise the Unisols as an army against those seeking to shut him down. His only problem is that every so often, a code is required to be put into his system in order to prevent automatic shutdown. Two individuals possess the code in question. SETH kills the first in short order, and those who are familiar with the plot kit that Van Damme's films are constructed out of will guess within five seconds who the second happens to be. The rest of the film revolves around the Unisols' attempts to get the code out of Van Damme without injuring him too badly. A subplot with a daughter and a reporter is woven into the film, but it adds about as much to the story as Van Damme does to the profession of acting.

The film is loaded to the brim with ridiculous lines and clichés. When SETH transplants his command module into the body of Michael Jai White, we get a speech about how the time of the humans is over. He goes on to tell his foot soldiers how fear and mortality will be humanity's weakness(es). Gee, SETH, you mean they will not be our strong points? All kidding aside, the short length of the film is both the film's weakness and its strength. It leaves the action without adequate setup. In the original, we are given a very thorough explanation of the Unisols, how they work, and how they are brought to the state that is seen in the majority of the film. Here, the writer seems to take it for granted that the viewer knows what a Unisol is and how they operate. At least in the original, a moment of curiosity and wonder was created by leaving the explanation for later in the film when the hero lies in a tub of ice. Here, one of the villains is shot with a gun that leaves massive holes in his uniform (and presumably his body), getting up every time without stopping for breath.

I tend to reserve the score of one for films that are so bad that they become entertaining in a completely unintentional manner. If you can see it on the cheap, knock yourself out. This is the kind of film that makes me mourn the loss of Mystery Science Theatre.


OK I saw this movie to get a benchmark for bad but with this movie it's Unisol's best movie now plot Luc Devereux is now a technical expert who is working with the government with his partner Maggie, who's been through countless hours of training and combat with him, to refine and perfect the UniSol program in an effort to make a new, stronger breed of soldier that is more sophisticated, intelligent, and agile. All of the new Unisols, which are faster and stronger than their predecessors, are connected through an artificially intelligent computer system called SETH, a Self-Evolving Thought Helix. When SETH discovers that the Universal Soldier program is scheduled to be shut down because of budget cuts, he takes matters into his own "hands" to protect himself. Killing those who try to shut off his power, and unleashing his platoon of super-soldiers, led by the musclebound Romeo, SETH spares Deveraux, only because Deveraux has the secret code that is needed to deactivate a built-in program that will shut SETH down in a matter of hours. With the help of a hacker named Squid, SETH takes human form. Not only must Luc contend with ambitious reporter Erin, who won't leave his side, but Luc also must contend with General Radford, who wants to take extreme measures to stop SETH. SETH has also kidnapped Luc's injured 13-year-old daughter Hillary, and is now holding her hostage. Luc is the only person who can rescue Hillary, because Luc knows firsthand how a UniSol thinks, feels, and fights. now there are problems like in any movie like did anyone find it weird how a reporter just-so-happened to be there and The soldiers can take being flattened with a truck however when Vanne Damme shoots them with a gun with one bullet and they die and the final fight scene was unbelievable when Luc is now human and Seth is 5x stronger and faster than any other Unisol and Luc can take a hit from him. with the final fight when Luc smashes him to pieces I was really surprised that the pieces didn't melt and reform him (Terminator 2). another thing that bugs me is how the hell does Vanne Damme get good actors to play relatives I mean in the case of Vanne Damme it's completely off the grid of how Science Fiction this movie is. The Music Score now that must have a mention have you ever listened to a song where you'd rather cut a blackboard with a knife well Universal Soldier 2 is like that. The good points are there's no Dolph (HOORAY) and unlike the 1st one there is only one naked scene whereas in the 1st one there are many (I'm still haunted by the scenes in #1) also the actors in this have some talent whereas in the first one the casting guys were sadists (if you don't believe me look it up)


I don't think any movie of Van Damme's will ever beat Universal Soldier but u never know. This movie was good but not as good as 1st. VD returns a Luc & must do battle again. He tries 2 b funny here but its maybe worth a smirk of a chuckle. VD has a kid this time from Ally W., good it showed a pic of them 2. Goldberg was cool, he does his famous move-forgot what its called cause i don't watch wrestling-sucks. VD & Goldberg had some good fights. It was the ending like the 1st but just not that good. VD does his best move in his career, like always-the HELICOPTER KICK. Even though, the final ending should've been longer. Anyway, it is worth seeing but it will never top the original.


Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies.

In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following).

Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".

Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film.

After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).

You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.

So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!


After seeing the low-budget shittier versions of the "Universal Soldier" franchise, I hoped and prayed that Van Damme reprised his role as Luc Devoreaux in a second Unisol movie. Well, it seemed this prayer was answered, but not the way I hoped. Universial Soldier 2 is just intense as poetry reading at your local library. No, even that would be more intriguing . The fight sequences are top-notch, Bruce Lee quality, which is the only redeeming factor in this entire pathetic excuse for a motion picture. That and having former WCW tough-guy legend "Goldberg" playing the villain. However, placing Goldberg as Seth's sidekick lieutenant would've been better.

We offended me the most was the setting of the movie itself. It's like some film school students slapped it together. The plot holes are that bigger than Kanye West's ego is what really did this movie in. For example: Luc's daughter, Hillary looks like she's at least 11-13 years old and the first movie was filmed only seven years ago. How is that possible? Tell me that! The part in which Luc's partner was killed off and turned into a Unisol is just re-goddamn diculous! You mean to tell me that there was an experimental Unisol exposed naked in the basement of the research complex at the beginning of the movie. C'mon. The director could've spent more time with this movie like the first one and sewn all the plot holes shut. But oooh nooo!

Speaking of the plot, IT SUCKS! Compared to the first movie, Universal Soldier 2's plot watered down and worthless. Where's the gritty thrills in which a Unisol goes berserk an re-enacts his last memories in a supermarket rampage thinking its Desert Storm or something ? This was the dawn of the Millennium, you would attracted more of an audience if this had taken place in a dystopia/Orwellian type of future cesspit. Corny is the correct adjective to describe this sad, sad, sad sequel.

From what I seen: Double Impact, Under Siege 2, Robocop 3, and hell, even the cheap-ass/no class Terminator knock-off "Class of 1999" is more entertaining than this!


This was an atrocious waste of my time. No plot. The acting was so far below par, it should be used as an exemplar in acting classes of what NOT to do. It is merely a commercial rip-off of the earlier Universal Soldier, which also scrapes the bottom of the acting barrel. Its sad that VD needs to assert his ego every few years, and sadder still that people will pay good money to sit thru it. This kind of schlock gives Martial Arts movies a bad name. By comparison, it makes Segall, Norris, and Arnold look almost talented.

Perhaps VD should take the Leslie Nielson track and do send-ups of his genre. At least then we could be laughing with him instead of at him.


This time the hero from the first film has become human and this time uses fist and foot combos against super universal soldiers and a computer which has gone awry and is prepared to take over the world. I'm pretty sure it was Double Team, which convinced everyone that Jean-Claude Van Damme was no longer credible in providing watchable action flicks. However it was this that tarnished his credibility forever. While Universal Soldier:The Return isn't as dull as Double Team or The Quest,it's still pretty awful indeed, with none of the style and flair of the original and no star pairing. This sequel is made simply for kids who enjoy professional wrestling. As I look back, not even the action sequences were all that exciting and therefore this movie is a worthless dud. In other words another clunker in Van Damme's assembly line.

* out of 4(Bad)


I tried to watch this movie twice and both times I still couldn't make it to the end credits. First time I managed to sit through the first fight sequence then lost interest. Second time I managed to force myself to digest over an hours worth of shoddy acting, lame SFX and extremely poor direction. Pales in comparison to the original.

Anyone ever hear about the old ET Atari 2600 fiasco? For those who haven't let me fill you in. It's 1982...ET is one of the biggest box office smashes of all time...Atari decides to release a movie tie-in game on their 2600 home console system. To cut a long and financially painful story short the game flopped big time and resulted in thousands upon thousands of Atari 2600 ET games to be dumped in landfills because they couldn't even give them away let alone sell them.

What does Universal Soldier: The Return have to do with this story? Look at the 3.2 rating and figure it out for yourself.

Awful film...IMDb forced me to give it a 1 out of 10 because their rating systems doesn't go as low as 0 let alone into the negatives.


This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.

The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.

Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.


This is the official sequel to the '92 sci-fi action thriller. In the original, Van Damme was among several dead Vietnam War vets revived to be the perfect soldiers (Unisols). In this one, it's, I guess, about a dozen years later, since Van Damme has a daughter about that age. Now he's working with the government in a classified installation to train the latest Unisols - codenamed Unisol 2500, for some reason. As usual, something goes wrong: the on-site super-computer (named Seth - like the snake in "King Cobra" the same year) goes power-crazy, takes command of the Unisols, and even downloads its computer brain into a new super-Unisol body (Jai White). We're lookin' at the next step in evolution, folks! Most of Van Damme's fights are with one particularly mean Unisol (pro wrestler Goldberg) who just keeps on comin': drop him off a building - no good; run him down with a truck - no go! Shoot him, burn him - forgetaboutit! Much of the humor is traced to how Van Damme is now outmoded and out-classed(he's even going grey around the edges). But, though he takes a lickin', he keeps on kickin'! Most sequels of this sort are pretty lame - pale imitations of the originals, and while this one is certainly no stroke of genius, it manages to be consistently entertaining, especially if you're a pro-wrestling fan.


I'll be honest. The only reason I watched this one on TV is that it's in the IMDb bottom 100. And right now, I'm wondering if the hour and a half of my life really was worth another 'check' on that same list.

Van Damme is Luc Deveraux, who finds himself on a huge fight with the Universal Soldiers after the main computer pulled a 'HAL' to defend itself. And yes, after all the obligate explosions, shoot-outs and chases he is the last one standing. Combined with terrible acting and a bit of a boring set-up it makes sure it's place in the infamous list is just.

Only for the idiots like me who want to watch that full list. 2/10.


** HERE BE SPOILERS **

The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme).

This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.

So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...

2/10


this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.


This movie was absolutly awful. I can't think of one thing good about it. The plot holes were so huge you could drive a Hummer through them. The acting was soo stuningly bad that even Jean Claude should be ashamed, and that is saying alot!!! And dialogue, What dialogue???To think that I was a fan of the first one (I use that comment loosely, its more like a guilty pleasure, than anything else). This movie had Goldberg in it for crying out loud!!!! Nothing good can come of this movie. What makes this film even worse is that it is soo bad you can't even watch it with a bunch of friends to make fun of!!! This has got to be in my top five worst movies of all time. 2/10 because it is soo hard for me to give a 1.


Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.

I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.

Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.

1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.

 Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?

John Ulmer


I'm sorry for Jean, after having such a good original movie to be followed up by perhaps his worst movie in is career. This movie was shot down terribly by horrible acting jobs by Goldbeg(Romeo) and whatever that computers name was. Also, some scenes may have been just a little unnesicary. Truly, bad movie.


I was very skeptical about sacrificing my precious time to watch this film. I didn't enjoy the first one at all, and the last Jean Claude Van Damme film I liked was Blood Sports! After managing to sit through it all? Avoid, avoid, avoid!!


The infamous Ed Wood "classic" Plan 9 From Outer Space features an indignant alien calling the human race, "...stupid! Stupid, stupid stupid!" I'd have to say exhibit A in that trial would probably this movie, a ridiculously silly sci-fi film.

Falling action star Jean Claude Van Damme returns to a hit role for him from the original movie, Luke, a former Universal Soldier who now works making really good universal soldiers. While Van Damme was too big to reprise the role in the first two sequels, he was too small to do much of anything else by the time the fourth film in the Universal Soldier series came around. So, probably cursing under his breath the whole way, he kicks and grunts and scowls through ninety minutes of explosions and karate kicks. You'll find plenty of mindless violence, but I'd advise you get a coat check for your brain at the door when you start watching this thing. Otherwise, you are liable to forget where you left it by the time it's over.

Luke is called into action against more Universal Soldiers after a really really REALLY evil computer named Seth (makes HAL look like Ghandi) turns all the other universal soldiers into evil, remorseless killers. Of course this is what these things are programmed to do, but in this case they are killing their creators, not "the enemy" so that's a problem.

I love the dumb logic of this movie. Logic that believes that a supercomputer would create a body for itself that looks as ashamed as Michael Jai White does to be in this movie. Logic that dictates that the creator of Seth be a blue-haired cyber-stereotype geek who spouts cliches more regularly than Old Faithful does steam. Logic that has a climactic karate fight feature two characters kicking each other though ten separate panes of shattering glass in the span of three minutes of screen time.

The film also features a daughter in peril character, wrestler Bill Goldberg as a wrestler disguised as a Universal Soldier, and a romance so tacked on, I have to think the writers thought tacked on romances were actually a GOOD thing. And when this movie ends, it ends. Not a minute after a gigantic towering finale-style explosion are the credits running. No epilogue, no where are they now, no final kiss, just explosion, hug, over. Even the creators want to get out of this thing as soon as possible.

While it's no Plan 9, US:TR is a silly little trifle of an action movie that would be fun at parties full of rowdy Van Damme fans who enjoy seeing their hero really reaching new depths. Not to be seen on a serious stomach.


I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.


We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.

It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell.

For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.

Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.


This is a worthless sequel to a great action movie. Cheap looking, and worst of all, BORING ACTION SCENES! The only decent thing about the movie is the last fight sequence. Only 82 minutes, but it feels like it goes on forever! Even die-hard Van Damme fans(like myself) should avoid this one!


Universal Soldier: The Return is not the worst movie ever made. No, that honor would have to go to a film that attempted to make some sort of statement or accomplish some artistic feat but failed in a pathetic or offensive manner. However, perhaps no movie I have ever seen has tried for so little and succeeded so completely as did Universal Soldier: The Return.

This film is a sci-fi/action travesty that has virtually nothing to recommend it. The acting is as bad as any movie I've ever seen. The plot is terrible and predictable. The special effects are pathetic. In short, anyone even remotely connected to this film should be ashamed of themselves. US: The Return makes previous Van Damme fare seem like groundbreaking cinematic masterpieces. Some movies are so bad, they're good. Believe me when I tell you that this is not one of them. I'm really not sure what else to say here. I doubt many people were considering seeing this movie if they hadn't already, but just in case: don't.


This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.