First of all, let me just say that after viewing this film, I seriously thought about writing my own screenplay, because I know I could write something ten times better. The fact that this movie was even made, and even more that some big name actors were in it shocked me. I have to say, before seeing this movie, I was excited that there was a "teen" movie that wasn't about high school coming out. But unfortunately, this movie has no plot. I've read some of the other user comments that said you would only be able to understand this movie if you were in college, and that the people who didn't like it must have been too young or too old. I could not disagree more. I am in college, and have had a relationship in college and this movie still didn't make sense. This is not about being able to relate, it's just the fact that this movie has no plot and is terribly confusing. For example, the wine scene. Maybe if the audience was let in on what was in each glass, we would be able to understand the importance, but unfortunately we aren't. And the car accident scene? What even happened there? The whole porno sub-plot? I could go on and on... Forget the excuses, this movie was just terrible. Don't waste your time.


Freddie ("She's All That") Prinze Jr., and Julia ("10 Things I Hate About You") Stiles are attending a New York City college when they discover each other one night in a trendy bar and experience love at first sight. Not long after Imogen (Stiles) and Al (Prinze) shack up, the anxieties of living together take a toll on the 'tingles' of the true love that they felt when they first met. Their relationship runs aground when Imogen fears that she is pregnant. Later, they split up when Imogen has a one-night stand with another student that resembles late legendary musician Jim Morrison. A few years pass, and Imogen and Al rekindle the old flame or 'tingles' as they referred to them about their first love. The surprises are few and far between in this romance as the sparks.

The major flaw in writer & director Kris Iascsson's directorial debut is that his characters lack vitality, and their story skirts conflict. Nothing unique happens in this breezy but thoroughly predictable boy-wins-girl, boy-loses-girl, and boy-wins-girl back plot. Essentially, "Down To You" qualifies as a lite, twentysomething's version of the Bruce Willis & Michelle Pfeiffer soaper "The Story of Us" without the sizzle. If comedy broadens character, drama sharpens it. "The Story of Us" dealt with the ups and downs of a relationship. Nothing that either Imogen or Al do in "Down To You" is calculated to make us feel either love or hate for them. Indeed, Prinze and Stiles are as cute but just as plastic as Barbie and Ken dolls. They go through the motions without ever showing any genuine emotions.

You know a movie is in trouble when the supporting characters are more interesting than the protagonists. Henry Winkler of "Fonz" fame from "Happy Days" has a field day as Freddie's loony father, Chef Ray, and he steals every scene he has with his rambunctious wit. The best scene in "Down To You" concerns a father and son TV show that Chef Ray pitches to Al. Chef Ray wants to produce 'Cooks,' a gourmet parody of the gritty reality based Fox TV show "Cops" where Al and he invade homes with a platoon of cooks at random and conjure up meals from scratch for the surprised occupants.

The second best scene occurs when Al dreams about being a guest on a macho male talk show segment where tough guys ridicule his sensitive man routine. This is the closest thing to genuine comedy that Iascsson comes up with here, especially when one of the guys warns Al "to cross your legs because your panties are showing." Actually, Al lets Imogen wear the pants in their relationship. She steps out on Al, and he throws a tantrum when she tells himself about her infidelity. Things would have been hotter had Al caught Imogen in the sack with her lover, but then "Down To You" would have gotten pretty raunchy.

Al and Imogen's friends provide some welcome relief with their comic antics. Al's pal Monk (Zak Orth of "In & Out") a porno star & director and supplies the frat lectures to everybody about the necessity for hot, sweaty sex. Monk probably displays more character development than anybody else in "Down To You." The next time that we see him, Monk has turned into an Orson Welles type auteur and is making Shakespeare movies. In a slight, throwaway role, Lucy Arnaz, the real-life daughter of Lucille Ball, plays Al's mother.

Freshman writer & director Kris Iascsson does everything that he can to keep things light and effervescent without descending into harsh reality. He makes even more mistakes by telling "Down To You" in a series of flashbacks with both characters addressing the audience directlyin other words, breaking the fourth wallas in either "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Annie Hall." Freddie Prinze Jr. and Julia Stiles appear to be stooping in "Down To You" after scoring respectively in winning comedies such as "She's All That" and "10 Things I Hate About You." Unless you've never seen a teenage romantic comedy, skip this weepie. Oh, yes, at least, the soundtrack is worth buying, even if the movie vanishes from your memory the next day.


A not very-original story of two young people who fall in love and go through pretty much the exact same things all young couples deal with in real life or the movies.

The dialog is trite and, dare I say it again, unoriginal.

Cutesy devices -- like the narration, like the characters addressing the camera (Fourth Wall! We Need You!) are overdone, badly done, and grating.

Amateurish in every respect.

Why a 3? The secondaries -- the Orson Welles-like guy, the Selma Blair porn star girl, Freddie's roommate, and the pot girl. How about a movie about these people, instead of the cookie-cutter romcom leads (yawn).

Watch out for Ashton Kutcher as Jim Morrison. Seriously.


It seems the writer and/or director was going for something prophetic in the name of modern relationships, but got horribly lost along the way by throwing in cliche after cliche plus a disjointed meaningless script that went absolutely nowhere. I strongly suggest that those who love Freddie Prinze, Jr. should stare at his picture for 90 minutes rather than paying $8 to endure this torturous abomination. There is no softness in Julia Stiles' performance to make you like her or believe that FP would fall so head over heels in love with her. I kept asking myself throughout (in between many glimpses of my watch) "What is going on here?" The supporting characters seemed to be included for "American Pie" type humor that wasn't even funny. It really makes you wonder who got paid off to get this wretched film made.


I expected this movie to be kind of hackneyed to begin with, but the overall package of "Down to You" was beyond my worst expectations. Budding young starts are thrown in haphazardly as sex, drugs, and alcohol take center stage. The whole film is an insult to my age bracket -- save your money on this one.


Definition of a donkey punch: a blow administered to the back of a female's neck while their sexual partner, positioned behind them, approaches climax. This produces an involuntary clenching of muscles and increases the pleasure felt by the selfish male lover.

Definition of Donkey Punch: a mediocre film trying desperately to make itself memorable by basing things around one scene that will stick in your mind for a while (and I am sure that you can guess what that one scene involves). There's a young cast all trying to prove their worth, and not really making any impression at all. There are a few loud dance tunes before things take a turn for the worse. There are even some moments that come close to being tense/entertaining before failing and reverting back to the standard, boring on screen action you have to endure with this group of unlikeable characters you really don't give a toss about.

Slick and, for the most part, "safe" and packaged in a teen-friendly way, this is a bland waste of time that I would recommend others avoiding. Writer/director Oliver Blackburn probably thought he was doing something a bit different and entertaining - he wasn't.

See this if you like: Dead Calm, The Hole, Open Water 2: Adrift.


To create a truly awful movie, it is essential to start with an absolutely dreadful script. By that measure, "The Clones" deserves a Nobel Prize. Other reviewers have cited some fine examples of utterly embarrassing lines, but my own personal favorite from this movie comes after an attempt is made on the hero's life, and he flees to the home of The Wise Professor to explain his plight. The Professor looks gravely at him and, in a moment worthy of Yogi Berra, says, "So...you say someone is trying to kill you? Hmm...this could be serious!" Possibly a good party movie, but definitely should not be seen while fully sober.


I've been looking for a video of this film for many years. Mainly so I can give it as a gag gift to a buddy of mine that saw it with me back in 1973.

The bad part was, it had been my idea to see this particular film. To me it has the potential of a good plot and even though there wasn't a big name cast, I really thought it would be okay.

I can honestly say that there is not one single redeeming part of this film that would have me recommend it

One line in the film is uttered by a man running through a swamp and falls. As he lays there he is looking at a frog sitting across from him and in his mind is saying, "Humans are not like frogs....." My verbal comment was, "Yeah, a frog wouldn't pay three dollars to come and see this stupid movie!" at which time we left. (my line got a better audience reaction than the whole film) Sorry, not something I can recommend.


If you are really bored.... Watch this movie. The insipid "hit men" at the beginning of movie set the tone. The only worth while line is from the Protagonist when he finally catches up to his clone..... "Get in there Xerox."


Might be the worst film I have ever seen.No character development,cliché scene heaped upon cliché.The main actor(Jennifer Beale)seemed afraid to both act or be involved in what was a very limited production.The entire cast consisted of the members of an AA group.Avoid this film at all costs,I sat jaw agape about a 1/3 through the film.The viewer is unable to connect,or make an emotional investment in the characters due to not being given any background.I was actually surprised at how easy it was to spot the flaws in this film, but they are stark. I would give this film a zero if it was possible.


Why was this movie made? This is quite possible the worst movie I've ever seen. It's worse than Troll 2. It's worse than Gigli. It's worse than Epic Movie. It's worse than raw torture.

The only thing more painful than how unfunny this movie is, is how many people didn't hate it. I'm from the south, I'm totally aware of "Southern Humor", however "YOU MIGHT BE A REDNECK IF ______" jokes are not funny. None of these 4 guys is funny. None of them.

This movie isn't just bad, it's an assault on your intelligence. I felt like I drop 10 IQ points just sitting through it.

Summary:-1000/1000 This is probably the only movie so that's so bad I'd think negatively of someone for enjoying it, so it gets a negative score.


Although this is typical of the low-budget quickies that Warners churned out like hotcakes in the Thirties it offers Bette Davis in her most youthfully appealing "down-to-earth platinum blonde girl" phase. You can find the same character in THREE ON A MATCH, THE GIRL FROM 10TH AVENUE, THE PETRIFIED FOREST and others. She exudes an innocent but intelligent, unaffected femininity that seems to have evaporated by the time she hit her stride with JEZEBEL, so it's good that this phase of her career is preserved - if only to track her evolution as an actress. Note the energy and vitality she injects (perhaps effortlessly) into a supporting role as the girlfriend-wife, stealing every scene she's in - without relying on conventional beauty. It's kind of fun also to see how the scenarists managed to leap from one implausible, contrived plot development to the next - but that's a secondary matter because most of these films were beyond belief. The point was to make a moral point, not to be narratively convincing. The point here being: evil gangsters, beware of the authorities because they'll get you!


It was films like this that caused Bette Davis to flee to England in an attempt to break her Hollywood contract. During the early '30s, she was forced into quickies with weak stories, bland co-stars and mediocre directors and was never given much chance to utilize her talents as a superb actress. She is co-starred here with Charles Farrell, who was a superstar of the silents but didn't seem to click in talkies. (He went on the gain fame on television in "My Little Margie" and personal fame as the mayor of Palm Springs). Ricardo Cortez plays his usual role as a gangster, this time utilizing Farrell's training as a pharmacists to black market bogus drugs. They start with toothpaste!!!!.....but soon move on to more dangerous territory. Frankly, I found the premise just a bit ridiculous and the acting even more so. Miss Davis looks like she would rather be somewhere else and has little to do. Cortez really overdoes it and Farrell is just downright bad. If you like Bette Davis, then you might want to see this film if for no other reason than to get a glimpse of what low grade junk assignments she had to put up with early in her career. Otherwise, it's not worth it.


Yes, it's time to travel back to the dying days of Lew Grade's ITC Films, an age of darkness, of low-budgets and even lower-tech special effects, of bad acting and even worse writing: a world where clichés run rampant and Hawk the Slayer and his mindsword set the cause of sword-and-sorcery back several years. Shot almost entirely on a single Abbey set in Pinewood and the woods surrounding the studios in the heart of Autumn, this demented no-budget British spaghetti sword-opera  a sort of would-be A Fistful of Swords  pits John Terry's virtuous hero against his evil one-eyed brother with a taste for Darth Vaderesque headgear Jack Palance after the latter kills their badly dubbed dad Ferdy Mayne in a squabble over "The power that is rightly mmmmiiiiiiinnnnnnneee!" That power being a magical mindsword with a glowing green handle that can fall into your hand if you think about it (and run the film backwards).

Mind you, as flashbacks later reveal, the evil Darth Voltan (okay, he's not really called Darth) has already killed the love of Hawk's life, something which almost shocks one-time Felix Leiter (in The Living Daylights) John Terry into changing his expression, before moving on to underline what a bad egg he is by kidnapping guest star Annette Crosbie's Mother Superior, prompting Hawk into action. Well, not exactly action, more riding around the same stretch of woodlands while ineffectually ripping off The Magnificent Seven and A Fistful of Dollars (you half expect John Terry to say "My pony don't like Begin' laughed at.") as he assembles his A-Team  a giant played by Carry On veteran Bernard Bresslaw, an elfin bowman who talks like a constipated Dalek, a not particularly short dwarf and Patricia Quinn's witch with a particularly naff line in sorcery involving, er, smokey eggs. But then it's pretty obvious that the budget didn't really stretch to much in the way of even the cheapest special effects, with those there are largely of the stopping-the-camera-and-starting-it-again after-the-actors-have-left-the-frame variety, alongside a magic neon hula-hoop left over from some disco movie, a pair of Spock ears from a novelty shop and, in one memorable killing, silly string (or as the DVD chapter stop calls it 'The silly string of death'). And my, didn't they get a good deal on the fog machine that week!

Long shots also seem a bit of an alien concept for director Terry Marcel, who cut his teeth as a third assistant director on Carry On Cleo and never seems to have scaled those lofty peaks again. Most of the film is played in medium shot to cut down on the number of actors required and to hide the fact the set isn't that big  or perhaps just out of the fear that if they move the camera too far back, the actors will take the opportunity to run away before they have to deliver lines like "My son Drogo speaks true!" "Even as we speak, the wizards gather in the south" or serial overactor Shane Briant's immortal "I am no messenger. But I will give you a message. The message of DEATH!"

Jack Palance doesn't get much good dialogue either, but chews on what he gets for more than it's worth anyway  he's the only actor who could make the word "Wiiiiizzzzzaaaaaahhhrrrrrrdddddd!!!!!" last almost as long as Hamlet's soliloquy, so it's a shock to see how relaxed and, well, normal he looks in the raw onset interviews on the UK DVD (where he expresses far more admiration for Dinsdale Landen than Elia Kazan). Although even he might have balked at Bernard Bresslaw's defiant "I'd sooner eat cowdung." (Met with the inevitable response "That can be arranged, and you can wash it down with your own blood if need be.") Indeed, when Hawk addresses Patricia Quinn as "Woman"  as in "Woman, we need the use of your magic"  you half expect her to reply "I'm a man. I'm not old, I'm 37. What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior. Oh, Slayer eh? Very nice. And how'd you get that, eh? By exploiting the workers. By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society. Just because some dying character actor lobs a mindsword at you is no basis for a system of government."

Sadly much of the film is more dull than unintentionally funny: writer-producers Marcel and Harry Robertson clearly intended this, you know, for kids, so it's a bloodless school panto affair for much of the running time, visually bland and lethargic even at a modest hour-and-a-half. How they expected to stretch it out to a series of five movies is anyone's guess (the film ended up as the supporting feature to Saturn Three). Still, on the plus side former pop star and Hammer and Children's' Film Foundation regular composer Harry Robertson (who wrote the superb Hammer Transylvanian Western score for Twins of Evil as Harry Robinson - it really is outstandingly good) turns in a score that's like a demented disco combination of an Ennio Morricone paella Western and Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds, and the film is nowhere near as soul-destroyingly awful as Marcel and Robertson's subsequent collaboration seven years later, the almost unwatchable-even-at-gunpoint Jane and the Lost City.

Naturally for a naff movie this boasts a good UK DVD, with a superb transfer (but then it's not as if the negative got much use) and an array of more on-set interviews than any sane individual could ever want to watch, including one great moment where Marcel is asked if it's true he turned down a $10m budget because he didn't want to cast big names: "That's a load of rubbish" he replies while trying not to burst out laughing


There are crusty old cynics out there who dare to suggest that Legolas, in Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings, shoots his bow a tad too quickly to be truly realistic. Oh my god, they've seen nothing; nothing to compare to the hilarious nonsense that is Hawk the Slayer.

John Terry plays our hero Hawk  no, not the central defender for Chelsea Football Club although, were this true, it would be the least of the casting disasters. Terry was later to appear in Of Mice and Men and Full Metal Jacket  I can only assume his acting had improved on this, his third, film in which he could have single-handedly re-populated the Amazon Rainforest.

But ohmygod, there's more. Bernard Bresslaw  yes the big guy from the Carry On films  as a giant. The corpse of Jack Pallance re-animated for one week only to play  of all things  Hawk's evil brother! Ray Charleson as (pause) Crooow, the amphetamined up elfin type. And let's not forget William Morgan Sheppard  the only man in the middle ages to have a crossbow complete with an AK47-style magazine cartridge  "When you absolutely have to kill every MF in the goddamn room, except no substitutes!" What were they thinking? What could they have been thinking?! You also have to wonder what the cast and crew thought when they sat down to watch the post-production cut of this movie. The comedy fantasy names, the dry ice, the tree-lined, side-of-the-motorway set, the disco soundtrack, Jack Pallance looking like nothing so much as John Wayne holding his mighty weapon. They had unleashed a monster. Would any of them survive it? Terry Marcel clearly didn't; a year later he was making the British TV series Bergerac  the directorial equivalent of being sent to the Russian Front.

He's my suggestion for this film. Buy it  nothing could ever provide you with more entertainment. Keep it under your bed like it was a porn flick and get it out (so to speak) when your mates come around for a kitsch early 80s revival night. Drink lots of beer (you'll need it when you see the size of Pallance's weapon), slide into a pair of fake leather trousers and press play.

Ah, if only they had meant it  it would have been pure genius. 1/10.


Hawk The Slayer is one of those movies that looks better through the rose tinted glow of nostalgia than it really is. In fact its a cheap, badly acted, stupid movie with rubbish effects that must have been written, directed and edited by a 5 year old.Jack Palance has some kind of eye patch and tries to make up for the wooden acting of everyone else by overacting to a degree that even the most over the top panto performer would be embarrassed by. Bernard Breslaw plays the giant without any kind of fx to make him look taller, clobbering the baddies with his plastic hammer like a kind of sword and sorcery Timmy Mallett. Wacaday!

Most of the cast and the director never did any thing else memorable.

Awful movie with a ridiculous soundtrack.


Suffice to say the other review here is spot on. This is possibly one of the funniest films ever made. (for all the wrong reasons) I am in fact, at time of writing, watching Hawk the Slayer on BBC1! Nice to know we pay the ever rising license fee for a good reason.

Sorry however to the the other reviewer but I have to correct you about the repeating crossbow. It did actually exist (another side affect of the BBC....bloody learning zone)

Other than that, very accurate. A collection of wooden sets and gold sprayed tin foil. Also this film wins the award for the most polystyrene looking hammer....ever! I seriously recommend this movie purely because you will laugh/cringe so much, even though you most likely won't last all the way through.

P.s. does anyone else think the sound track is like a porno/western?


... But not in a good way .

I saw HAWK THE SLAYER many years ago and couldn`t remember much about it except for the bizarre funky soundtrack . After seeing it again tonight I have to confess it`s a very poor sword and sorcery film but aren`t they all unless Peter Jackson is the director ? In which case I shouldn`t be too cruel

But there`s no getting away from the fact that this movie is a yawn inducing experience . There`s no character development because there`s no characters just a bunch of one dimensional cyphers like a giant who is ver big , a dwarf who is very greedy and a elf who ... well what does the elf do ? You see the cyphers are terribly underwritten so I`ll be kind when I say the actors do their best with non existent material though by a cruel irony we see Jack Palance ( An actor at his very best when saying nothing ) getting far too much in the way of ludicurous lines

There is one aspect to the film that does deserve serious criticism and that`s the editing . Look at the fight scene where the elf is leaping around firing arrows at the bad guys . It looks like he`s jumping in the air four or five times while doing so . Only thing is that it is supposed to a single leap . Got the idea ? I could give several other examples of this inept editing

As for the music , disco was popular when this movie was made in 1980 so I guess that`s why it was composed to go with this movie . Am I the only person who was glad that a rap band didn`t do the music for FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING ? Am I the only person glad that a nu metal band didn`t do the music for THE TWO TOWERS ? Am I the only person glad that Simon Cowell didn`t find a a pretty boy singer to do the music for RETURN OF THE KING ?

" I`m sorry Hawk but looking all homo erotic while riding a horse through a forest against a disco soundtrack just doesn`t do it for me . What does Paula think ? "


The obvious similarities start with the title abbreviations E.T. vs. CJ7

Then the healing power of the CJ7 vs. the "healing finger" of ET. The low battery and illness of CJ7 and ET after the battery wears off. In general very predictable and preachy of the "good values".

The cockroach scene was really gross and useless - THEY ARE POOR WE GOT THAT. And for god sake the kid doesn't need to be always dirty - poor DOESN'T EQUAL DIRTY. Poor people wash and take bath too. Please STOP that BS!

It sounds like china government sponsored propaganda art to create obedient citizens.

On the plus side beautiful photography and excellent performances - especially from the young actors.


I love this director, Steven Chow ("Kung Fu Hustle" and "Shaolin Soccer"), and I was expecting a better film. Watching "CJ7" was extremely painful. This film surprisingly evoked nationalistic pride in being an American and having different values. This is not the "E.T." feel good movie nor is it an interesting and beautiful, gut-wrenching movie like the Swedish movie "My Life as a Dog", although it had tried many attempts to redeem itself. The characters are mean and self-serving, promoting the value of "being useful" over common sense logic such as "self reliance".

***WARNING!!!***SPOILER ALERT***DETAILS OF MOVIE BELOW*** CJ7 starts out with a very sad tale of a mother-less child who lives in a dump with his father who is a construction worker. The father spends his hard earned money on a private school that he can't afford and forgoes basic necessities such as food, shelter, and clothing so his son can go to this school and have the opportunity to learn. The father never studied in school and constantly reminds his son that they are poor because he is uneducated and can't get a better job.

The son, Dickey, is ridiculed at school because he comes to school dirty, his shoes and school uniform is from the dumpster, and it is obvious that he is poor. Nonetheless, like all humans, we all yearn to be accepted.

One day, the child who bullies Dickey, comes to school with a very cool toy, a robotic dog named "CJ" and evokes jealous from Dickey. Later while Dickey and his father are watching cartoons in a storefront window, Dickey runs off inside to the toy store and screams for the "CJ" toy. The father feels awful for spanking the boy to let go of the toy and shame that he cannot buy the toy.

Cut to a scene where the father is in the dump looking for better shoes for the boy. In his discoveries, the father runs into a UFO that leaves a nice green ball that the father brings back to Dickie. He claims it's a better toy than CJ.

The best scene of this movie is the scene where the green ball is about to hatch and Dickey witnesses the ball hatching and has hallucinations throughout the process. After the hatching, Dickey then dreams that the friendly, magical alien (who he thinks is a toy with batteries) will create additional magical electronic devices to make him smarter, stronger, better, etc...at school.

The reality is that the green alien dog like character cannot do that..instead the dog takes a dump in his hands (is this suppose to be funny?) and then also has exploding diarrhea's out of fear (is this suppose to be funny as well?). Dickey abuses the dog, throws it away in a trash can at school, and then has regrets.

The dog only wants to please its master.

This is where the senses of culture clashes. As an Asian-American that understands Confucian philosophy, I do no value the class hierarchy that animal must obey men and that the younger generation of men must always blindly obey the older generation without question and without doubt.

It is painful to watch the dog (alien or not) to be abused by everyone until the end, when the dog sacrifices it's own life to the elder of the family (the father). In death, the dog revered and respected.

Throughout the movie, it is even more painful to watch the son suffer for his father's pride. The father's boss states that his own son goes to public school, why shouldn't Dickey? Dickey is failing and "cheating" in school and his father stubbornly wastes his money on the expensive school where Dickey is not learning. Dickey's father is too busy trying to keep up with appearances.

In the end, even if the father is brought back to life by the dog, the father is still a loser, poor, and can't get a date. Dickey is still dumb and picked on at school. However, CJ7 is self-sacrificing (another Confucian value) and dead. The earth is also invaded by CJ7s...what should be a happy ending is just awfully contrived.

Steven Chow's next movie should be a horror film called "Revenge of the CJ7s" and it would be about cute fuzzy dog aliens avenging the death of the first CJ7.


If this movie provides any insight into the Chinese psyche, I'm worried. First off this is a kids movie with a cute little alien creature that a boy befriends. EXCEPT the boy doesn't befriend him. He tries use him at first to get stuff, like good grades, and when the alien fails the alien is tortured, beaten, and thrown in the trash. For some reason, the alien returns to the boys home where he is further beaten and hit and thrown around. The alien decides to stay again. I am going to reveal the ending...The movie ends with the father being killed at an accident at work and the cute fuzzy alien thing sacrificing himself to resurrect the father. The only sense of the story I can make is that the creature was so despondent at being left in such a cruel miserable country he decided to kill himself by resurrecting the father. He resurrected the father because he wanted to punish him for being such a jerk by making him live longer at his sucky life as a poverty stricken coolie.

And don't worry, the boy gets beaten too. Great kids movie. Want to know why China is one of the worst offenders when it comes to animal cruelty? Here's one reason why.

Now I am no huge fan of Disney/Pixar/Dreamworks, but at least the messages in their movies have a beautiful sentiment behind them. You know, friendship is important, love is important, etc etc. The message in this movie seems to be you can treat non-human living beings as horrible as you want, use them, dispose of them, and you will still be their master. If this is what passes for children's entertainment in China, then that is one messed up country.

I should also mention, this movie is painfully unfunny. Most American kids movies have a lot of clever things to keep adults entertained along with the young ones. Like, for example, the use of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song in Shriek III. There is none of that in this movie. It is extremely dumbed down. But it won't work for kids either, as it can be upsetting to sensitive children.

So, unless you are interested in a sociological examination of what constitutes a kid's movie from China, stay far away from this one. Shaolin Soccer isn't too bad though. I don't know where all the positive reviews came from either. I think it must be astroturfing by people who work for the studio.


this 1997 film of an earlier play is the proof. there's just too much real absurdity going on. Genevieve Bujold as the disconnected mother is the best thing in it, but these days, that isn't saying much, because so many people are disconnected. What there is of a plot about sibling incest and insanity is today totally predictable. A few (too few)funny lines. no one seems to know quite what to do with Parker Posey, except Christopher Guest, in his wonderful mockumentaries, in which she's very funny. Here, she just seems strained. Tori Spelling is quite appealing as the only normal character, a donut shop waitress who lands in a pretentious upscale family.


From Wendy MacLeod's play about a 1963 Thanksgiving reunion between a young man and his peculiar family, including a twin sister who is obsessed with Jacqueline Kennedy. Oppressively set in a shadowy house during a raging storm, this head-scratching talk-fest quickly tires both the eye and the ear. The scenario is full of dreary eccentrics, although Parker Posey's 'Jackie-O' is a dark, original creation unto herself. The actress, known for going out on a limb with basically unplayable roles, manages to walk a fine line between comically scabrous and downright scary (which, in an otherwise boring movie, is a triumph). Other performances by Josh Hamilton, Tori Spelling, Freddie Prinze, Jr., and a sadly under-valued Genevieve Bujold are not quite as on-target, mainly due to the sophomoric writing. *1/2 from ****


Oh my, how I really tried to like this movie. Very funny and sardonic lines here and there, good actors (well almost, but Tori Spelling actually does a good job here) and an interesting plot. But sadly, everything was in vain for me, because I just couldn't stand the pretentious tone of everything. I snickered a couple of times but more often I looked at the clock, expecting something to happen. Well it did, but not until the last quarter of the movie. I saw it, but was not amused!


This movie was sick, not to mention completely unrealistic. Jackie-O would definitely be locked up at this point in time. There is no way the doctors who diagnosed her illness would let her roam free after she shot her brother! Despite the fact that Jackie O's lines were very well written and well delivered, I did not find any of this movie to be funny. I found the character of Jackie O to be very annoying. She is spoiled, and criticizes people she thinks are hicks, yet she's sleeping with her own brother. The whole time I was rooting for Lesly (Tori Spelling) to run away from there as fast as she could! It bothered me that she would sleep with Marty's brother, because I thought possibly they were writing one character who wasn't screwed up. Not to mention the fact that if a normal person found out their fiance was sleeping with his sister, they would dump the guy right there and leave. The mother was also not amusing because she allows this psycho (Jackie O) to continue with her behavior and doesn't even care. Although I know the writers were going for being shocking and portraying a very abnormal family, this movie was sick and not at all humorous. It's too bad I wasted 90 minutes of my day subjecting myself to these awful characters and ridiculous storyline. If the story had any chance of being amusing, the writers would have had Jackie O be the only abnormal character and have her imagining this whole "love affair" with her brother. Writing everyone crazy and weird was just too much.


I've been a big fan of Parker Posey ever since DAZED AND CONFUSED, and while I haven't been able to see all her films, I consistently enjoy her work. She reminds me of the actresses of the 30's and 40's like Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, and Ginger Rogers, who had glamour but also a strong personality and presence. And the role of Jackie O in this movie certainly gives her a chance to go for it. And, to be fair, Posey is good at showing the pain under the bravura front. But she can't save this movie. The fact that it's a filmed play isn't a problem, nor is it being an incest comedy (after all, David O. Russell made a pretty good one with SPANKING THE MONKEY). No, the problem is it's all too obvious and overly symbolic, and the dialogue is annoying because it's not half as clever as it thinks. Also, while Genevieve Bujold is good as always as the mother, the rest of the cast stunk. I've heard Freddie Prinze Jr. is a nice guy, but he's got a long way to go as an actor. For a good Posey film, skip this and rent PARTY GIRL.


Adapted from Wendy MacLeod's play with almost no apparent changes for better or worse, director Mark Waters penned this screenplay about the incest between a Jackie Onassis-obsessed girl and her obliging brother.

From start to finish, the air is filled with intellectual dialogue like "What?" and "I don't know", including the padded repeating of several lines like "What do you do all day?" - five times in a row, that one. The acting is small-time all around except for the appealing performances of Genevieve Bujold and Tori Spelling as a spooky mother and waifish fiancé, respectively. Sometimes interesting dark comedy has occasional eerie moments if one can get past the JFK assassination 'parody'.

Pretty good title, anyway.


If your expectations are so low that nudity in a non-adult film is sufficient to get you to watch a movie, particularly given how easy it is to find nudity and near nudity on line without going to an adult site, then this is probably the movie for you. If you expect good technical production values, an excellent and plausible story, good direction and acting, then you want to avoid this film. It does feature a unique element in the plot - at least for a gay theme indie film, and the director did do a little more with the low budget than some other films out in the past five years have accomplished. However, this is another case where a first time director, working from his own plot, is felled (and his projects fails miserably) because there is no director to call the writer on the weakness of his plot, or no writer to argue with the director about where the move is being moved or pushed away from the script -- or simply to toss ideas around with.

The performances aren't horrible, but the two leads are not as charismatic, particularly Montgomery, to get the plot from point A to point B as per the story, and the movie finally fails on the weakness in the plot, particularly towards the end of the film.


Sean Abley's film "Socket" fails in every respect; the story is flat, pointless, and uninteresting, the acting is remarkably unprofessional, the cinematography reflects a frightening absence of creativity (or even competence), and the director reveals that he has no eye for screen presentation. One wonders how it's possible to expend the time, money, and effort required to create a film, and to then turn an apparently blind eye to the final product. The movie is presented as a gay horror film, so we're treated to pointless sex-oriented nudity, which delivers no heat whatsoever. Indeed, one wonders whether director Abley was more concerned about the film's gay/nudity aspect than its horror aspect. Either way, none of it delivers. These characters give gay people a bad name: boring. The DVD offers a "special feature" section wherein the cast and crew discuss the making of the film. It is pathetic to listen to these people discuss their effort as though they had created something worthwhile. Sorry, this film is terrible.


I give it two stars for frontal nudity and the rest is garbage the movie stinks so bad I had to fast forward to bear it...as a gay man I always hope for a fine well done movie and unfortunately this just wasn't any of those things. Convoluted, stupid, boring, utterly a waste of time. Montgomery I have seen him in other films he just can't act, the other actor was decent but the movie just isn't any good terrible direction, awful script just skip it, there are better gay films out there to bad most of them are foreign made or else come from a non gay filmmaker. I guess it was a big stretch to try and make a meaningful movie and have it be sci-fi horror.


When the antisocial and lonely medical student Adam Schmidt (Christian Oliver) receives a mysterious e-mail inviting him to participate of a unique medical research, he accepts the job opportunity and travels to an isolated snowing area to a cabin in the middle of nowhere. He meets Dr. Franklin Vick (Dean Stapleton) that kills him cutting his throat with a hunting knife. When Adam resurrects, Franklin calls him Subject Two and explains that he is engaged in an unethical medical research, bringing dead to life. Along the days, Adam is killed and resurrected over and over again, with Franklin improving his research, until the day Adam decides to leave the isolated spot.

The weird "Subject Two" has a promising and intriguing beginning, with a youngster being killed and resurrected as part of an experiment. However, the pointless story becomes repetitive and boring, with the repetition of the same situation (Adam killed and brought back to life by a guy playing God), having a terrible ending. The best this movie can offer is the wonderful landscapes in Aspen and the blue eyes of Courtney Mace. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Cobaia" ("Subject")


The reason I went ahead to see this flick was because of the near 6 vote it had and much of the commentary which was rather positive. It is usually a good way of checking out a movie beforehand but in this case I felt cheated.

Because even with the best intentions, its impossible to find this movie anything other than it being a complete disaster in every aspect.

Story: The story is no more, no less just as the tagline on the cover. Nothing else happens but a guy being killed, brought back to life, killed, brought back to life etc. There is no sub direction, no subplot or any other elaborate magnification on the whys or the hows. Some have tried in their comments to led u to believe that it has, but there are none. The conversations go like this:

Guy1: "How about that weather ey?" Guy2: "What about it?" Guy1: "Bit moist don't u think?" Guy2: "now that u mention it.." Guy1: "I hate walking in the rain, don't u?" Guy2: "yeah I did that once, I got all wet!" Etc.

Plot: There is no plot, the stuff is just happening without any redeeming explanation as to why or what. They just mention some words as Nanotechnology (which isn't used) and cryogenics (not used either) and this is supposed to interest the viewer to go ahead and see it through. They could just as well have mentioned Kamasutra techniques which would have had no baring on the plot either.

<---here is that spoiler but since u should really skip this film u might as well just read it--->

Plot twist/ending: They tried to have one, but hopelessly failed and again I can not believe someone actually wrote that it had an unexpected twist at the end. Anyone who has ever seen a horror flick before in his life must have secretly been praying at the beginning of the movie that the corpse in the snow was not going to be alive again at the end. But OMG!!! that's exactly what happens. My wife and I couldn't stop laughing when it did. And the living corpse turned out to be the real doctor. "So what?" I ask u. It's not like the real doctor would have done anything different opposed to the guy impersonating him (the assistant, subject nr. 1). that's not a twist, it's lamer than lame and just about the worst thing they could have come up with.

Performance: The performance of the actors was overall good. Some did claim that dr. Vic bore a too striking resemblance to Jack Nicholson, to me a young Michael Ironside came to mind.

Special effects: Someone wrote about special effects, like if they were even in this movie. Or maybe this person was talking about those pathetic looking contact lenses the main character had on his eyes which made it hard to keep a straight face watching the guy from that point on.

Location: The location of the set is praised by many in the comments, but lets be honest people; a horror/thriller set in an overly sunny and bright snowy environment could not ever work. It made it look like a holiday brochure for crying out loud.

Overall only the acting could have been a lot worse but please, regarding the rest, who in their right minds would seriously find this an enjoyable pastime?

I rate this stinker 2/10. The extra point given for those beautiful blue eyes of Kate (Courtney Mace).


I have to admit I was intrigued by this new look at the Frankenstein ideal, but despite the number of times Adam (Christian Oliver) died and was resurrected and Vick (Dean Stapleton) battled with the complexities of his formula and its side effects, the story never seemed to go anywhere. How about a insight into death and what may lie on the other side? How about some moral or ethical message? I will say this, the acting was quite good and I liked all the performances even though Stapleton bore an uncanny resemblance to Jack Nicholson (probably intended) but this was one of those movies I was waiting to end so I could put something else in.


No kind words come to mind looking back on whatever it was I just fast-forwarded. And I just can't believe anyone would write kindly about it which was the reason I gave this flick a shot. Silly me ey?

And just to counter the obvious statements in the "worth a watch" section; it being low budget doesn't give it merit by default. Sewage is sewage and a 100$ turd reeks just as much as one in the lower pricerange.

But...something that is worth a watch is also worth a telling, right? so allow me to just sum up this movie for u then: (spoiler, but please be spoiled)

-Guy goes to a mountain shed in the snow to undergo an experiment with a doctor, guy gets killed, guy gets revived but now his eyes look exactly like those of master Poo in Kung Fu, guy gets killed another 9 times, gets revived 9 more times and then he walks back down the mountain. Oh..and the dead guy in the snow turned out to be the real doctor.-

Honestly folks:..thazzall...

Now if this brilliance of a story would have had some cunning dialog or sublime wit in it, it might have been passable. But to top the cake; it had none of it. U will find the dialog between two amoeba more entertaining.

Anyone rating this more than a 3 or even having the nerve to find this worth watching, has either been paid to say so or has been paid to say so.

This's not even a stinker! 0/10


Anybody who hasn't guessed the surprise ending of this one by five minutes in deserves what he gets.

Which is not much.

Some goofy and abortive mooning over the meaning of life, a couple of boring chases on a snowmobile, some special effects that woudn't cut it on Halloween.

And Vick's repetitive killing of Adam actually gets funny after a while. Like a Roadrunner cartoon without the Acme products.

And can anybody explain why almost the only time Vick wears a hat is when he's indoors?


This is the worst crap I've ever seen. I would like to hear the opinion of a real doctor about this film. What kind of doctor doesn't wear any surgical clothes for making a 'surgery'? Why you never see a tube or lab in that house? What is that green stuff he forces Adam to drink supposed to be? Why are they such bad actors? What those cheap blue contact lenses Adam wears after coming back to life mean? In the scene when Adam's wrists are cut, why do you hear the blood dropping only when the camera moves down? Who gave the money for making this awful abomination of a film? Is just funny the way this film is so terribly bad.


"Subject Two" gets two stars, one for the acting which was passable, and one for the scenery, which was pretty. Now, imagine two actors with no script, in a mountaintop cabin. One kills the other, revives him for a nice scenic walk in the snow. Fifteen minutes further along one actor again kills the other, and another stroll in the snow ensues. That pretty much sums up this tedious, and boring movie. In fact, you could do better watching a 20 minute short on skiers in the Rockies, and save the other hour plus that is wasted watching "Subject Two". I would not attempt to compare this to another film, although the subject has been done far better innumerable times. - MERK


Here is what could have been an interesting movie for the Frankenstein/Re-animator fan.....Mad scientist living in the seclusion of a snowy mountain cabin seduces young, gifted, and rebellious medical student into his remote log cabin lair to work with him as apprentice to his experimentation on an unknowing test subject number "two". That is about the gist of it and number two is what this stinker of a movie is laced with from that point onward.... From the start to the end (if it can be called an end), it is too long, too slow, and filled with too much ridiculousness to maintain interest. Unlike Frankenstein's countless remakes each of (which could win an academy award compared with this movie), Subject 2 has no purpose.... oh, other than what the Professor states - "We have much more work to do"....???? What work? Vic's random note taking as he speaks into an miniature recorder? Unlike Re-animator, Subject 2 has no entertainment.....well, there is some minor laughter listening to the Professor scold his apprentice. The sad thing is that it wasn't meant to be a comedic scene. The shot of the subject wandering aimlessly through the mountains in hopelessness defines this movie...and is ultimately passed off to the viewer after watching - hopeless to get time or money back. Where, what, who, huh? At least it is over....

Don't say I didn't warn you.


How utterly boring. Just because this film is different from the usual horror flicks I don't know how anyone could possibly like the film. True it did not contain any of the usual elements of gore & horror that we've seen before but how can that be an endorsement for boredom. Waiting for some character development to resume between the student & the girl but it never did. About the only thing I liked was the portrayal of Dr Vic by the Jack Nicholson lookalike actor. Didn't anyone else see the resemblance?? Oh and the last scene where the real doctor comes back to life was pathetic to say the least. Sorry but I could not rate this any higher.


I'm glad this show wasn't a waste and that other's enjoyed it, but honestly, I didn't care for it. I tried to enjoy it as a comedy, satire, mystery, even as a second-rate show to make fun of, but it didn't capture my interest. It just got more irritating.

I got through about 40 minutes of the pilot and had to turn it off. Usually I give shows/movies more time before judging it. After watching for 20 minutes, I wanted to turn the show off but didn't to see if it got any better; so watching it for 40 minutes was a stretch.

The lead character had little charisma and made stupid decisions (but not in a clever way). The plot was predictable. I found the culture clash to be offensive and not funny. The lead character's animosity towards his dog was annoying.

Sorry, I wanted to like it but it didn't do it for me. I don't think the show "went over my head." I got the jokes, It just didn't make me laugh. Eddie's cockiness and stupidity just wore on my nerves after awhile.


First, the music on this show absolutely unbearable. It is exactly the kind of crud that plagues popular music and ruins any opportunity for *good* music...

Anyway, this has terrible acting and no storyline (which are both fine for a kids show). What really makes this so horrible is that it is absolutely nothing more than the unbearably materialistic fantasy of a 10-year old diva. Not good. Do you really want to nurture such aspirations in your kids? I beg that adults show their children true quality programs, not anything like this.

1/10.


On new year's eve 1899 a young woman is betrothed to marry a man she doesn't want to. The best man arrives on the scene an she falls instantly in love.

The art direction and costumes are beautiful in this period drama, but many of the tongue-in-cheek references are a bit jarring. For no reason characters say things like, "I wonder if we'll go to the moon in the next century" and "the 1900s will know no war.

As far as portrayal of women. It starts out as a woman trying to take control of her life and ends up depicting her as an obsessive, submissive nut who is convinced she married the best man at her wedding rather than the groom.


You've seen this movie before I promise you.

You have a high school drummer and predictably his Dad doesn't believe in him or his ambition. This kid's unorthodox style doesn't sit well with the college, is torn between his friends or his music and all sorts of stuff like that. Nothing worthy of note happens until the climax and oh boy is it a climax!

The final sequence is really really great 5 star entertainment. They should have just made the whole movie about this!

First you have each of the colleges perform a montage of music which is all very well but the real show stopper is the final drum line showdown which is just incredible. If you need to demo your home cinema that's a scene worth a look.

So yeah. Just skip to that part. Or if your not into that at all you can skip the movie altogether, you can always watch the final scene on Youtube.


I'm a drummer myself I'm gonna be in Marching Band again next year and this movie had no point to it at all, I mean I know he can't read music but you can't be in band if you can't read music. No one I bet learned any of the instruments or anything! This movie makes drummers look really bad and thats not cool. Don't watch this movie you'll be wasting your time!


Orlando Jones is the music director of a college band department that has recruited band's "next big thing," a drummer out of Harlem (Cannon) who faces the usual growing pains while feebly attempting to prove that the band members belong on the same level as the jocks...

Before you start chastising me for knocking the band and all the times we had in high school, I am only saying that band members are not on the same level as jocks, but they ARE athletes at the college level. During the half time of any college game, it is the band's responsibility to keep the fans entertained and want to stick around for the second half (no matter how bad the football team may--or may not-- be doing). (And besides, I was also in band in high school.)

Jones meets with some resistance as he attempts to deal with "the next big thing," both from his boss, his peers, and the section leader of the snare drum section. But there was a side to this film that I did not expect...college band's Super Bowl, if you will. The sites are spectacular, and cameos add to the zest behind the scenes as Jones' band squares off with his old mentor's band for "all the marbles..."


Went into the movie with a bit of curiosity on how they'd handle the drumline aspect (I didn't expect the movie plot to be any good anyway). It was entirely disppointing. I've been out of a competitive drumline for 25 years, and I can still play better than they did. The showdown was a crock. I doubt if that is what really goes on - it was all flash and little chops.


The summary says it all. The script is dull, it is totally predictable. The acting is beginner level. The music isn't. Even the marching bands are sloppy. I got to see this film while flying to San Francisco, so in some small way I paid for it. I got ripped off.


I thought it would at least have a good beat, but it didn't even have that. And the overly slick camera tricks were not enough to save this director who was clearly trying to overcompensate for a lack of ability to JUST TELL THE STORY.

Bad movie, bad directing, abysmal dialogue.


I hate this movie. I just think this movie is bad. The drumming is spectacular, but the dialogue is horrible, and the main character is a brat who can't even read drum music but somehow got a college scholarship for his drumming. It is also surprising that he got a scholarship because throughout the movie he rebels against the coach. You are supposed to feel sad for the star as he is kicked out of the drumline numerous times for various reasons, but i just felt glad that the movie might end there. But it didn't. This is an enormous waste of two hours in my opinion. One part of the movie that especially comes to mind when say "a waste of two hours" is a scene where the drumline section leader walks up to the drummers one at a time and plays on their drum with them walking forward. The drummers are supposed to follow. No one is is able to do it except, of course the star of the movie. But once he's is done playing the part with the section leader also playing on the star's drum, the band teacher walks up and says somethin to the effect of "you do what i tell you to do, and you're an asshole." I hate this movie. I nearly cried when i saw Ebert gave it 3 stars out of four. My rating: 2 out of 10 stars. And this movie earned that rating.


One expects a predictable plot in a typical exploit-what-a-demographic-likes- and-take-it-to-the-bank Hollywood puke, however, this film will be a shameless assault on your sanity. You know what characters will say and do at the opening of every sequence. At two hours long, it is a true endurance test, particularly considering that I would have gotten up and left after 10 minutes (or, rather, not gone at all) if I hadn't been dragged to it by someone else.

The one thing that did amuse me about the movie (which I'm sure the rest of the audience missed) was the Full Metal Jacket homage at the beginning. Finding

the lead character so irritating only a few minutes in, I was quite disappointed he did not receive a punch to the gut during his confrontation with the

"sergeant".

If you like drumming or whatever, then go see it. You'll probably like it. But if look for anything else in your cinematic experience, you will be bored.


this movie has to be the WORST film i have ever seen in my life. what a SLEEPER. i was actually somewhat excited to see this movie because i am a big fan of orlando jones, but i was extremely disappointed with this movie. i saw it on the plan ride back from New York. let's just say that was the LONGGEEST plane ride ever because of this HORRIBLE movie. it literally was painful to watch. rating: -23948 out of +10


I truly enjoy the better "teen sex comedies" and I guess I have seen over 30 films in this funny category, but this crap includes tons of annoying fillers - meaning pointless "jokes" and lousy filmed views... So it's not even good as a crazy tourist or event video, even if it may show how stupid boys may act when they are drunk... As the long belly diving scene... There are also a babe with big breast in an almost see through t-shirt at 07:38 for 3 seconds, plus another babe with huge nipples at 25:03 for 5 seconds (!) and that was all real candy in the whole movie... Except a wet t-skirt competition, with girls that danced and jumped around with some bare breast, but in a very silly and NOT sexy way... And the amazingly stupid side plot, was actually much worse... Finally was it also a strange "romance" that is hard to call romantic or funny, but at least didn't fail completely!

It is almost impossible to compare this insult, with the best "teen sex comedies" that I seen, as Hot Moves and Private Resort - that both is 1000 times more sexy and really funny, over and over again... Even the hilarious college comedy Up The Creek (1984)is totally outstanding and dramatically more sexy, without even having that ambition!!

Yes, this film was mostly annoying for 90% of the time and never funny, which is rather vital for a comedy... So I would definitely give this film a negative grade, if it was possible.

I can even give this film to anyone I know, because that would be a serious insult and not a nice present... And to sell it would be fraud! And this was my try to write a totally fair review, but it's hard to review puke.


I recently watched this movie, and let me start by saying it is a step up from Talledega Nights, but a step down from Jolly Roger, simply because it just wasn't funny. The movie had no real plot, well maybe it did, but it was one of the most base, and typical teen comedies to date. Although it did have a rather contrived sub-plot which was even worse than the already almost non existent one. Plot aside, the acting was abysmal, but better than some movies I've seen in the past (some actors were worse than others). But overall this movie was abysmal, and was just one step below "Private Resort", simply because Private Resort had Johnny Depp (who went on to do great things), I'm afraid this cant be said for this movie. Spring Break 1/10...and it doesn't deserve a DVD release. It deserves to be cast into the fiery anals of hell. I got it for free and I feel cheated.


I was surprised by how terrible SPRING BREAK was. I wasn't expecting much. Just the usual T&A flick from the 1980s but SB was even below that expectation. The entire cast is not known to me. I doubt any of them had careers after this. All in all, a total waste of time. SB is a real step down for director Cunningham after making the now classic FRIDAY THE 13TH.


Back in the 80's HBO and it's ugly step-sister Cinemax seemed to air the same 12 movies over and over and over. And over. "Spring Break" was one of them. We watched because we had no other choice. Oh sure, we could have watched such gems as "Highway To Heaven" or "Riptide" on broadcast TV instead, but then what the hell were our parents paying $6.50 a month on cable for?

Just like parachute pants and zipper-front tees, if you saw dumb teen-sex movies enough you got used to them. You might even start to like them. That's just about the only case I can make for not utterly despising this beer-cozy full of bile.

A point of favor must be surrendered here for equal exploitation of the sexes. While we're treated to an endless parade of bodacious ta-tas, we are also clobbered with a line-up of dorky dudes in wet Fruit Of The Looms. It's crazy. The director made an entire movie out of wet underclothes and people pouring beer on each other. What a horrid waste of product from 2 guys who work 3 jobs just to party!

Rent this to see the most painful performances by an all-girl rock band this side of Carry Nation. With lyrics like, "I want to do it, to it...I wanna do it to you", you'll want to drown *yourself* in a few thousand beers. Or the ocean.

I hate this movie. It's wretched and all known copies of it should be doused in concentrated acid and then farted on. It's bad, bad, bad and I can't wait to see it again!


I'm hardly going to be the one to excoriate the makers of 1980s sex-fueled quasi-comedies for their work. Sure,these films were about as easily forgotten as the heaps of bad slasher flick sequels and wanna-bes that ALSO populated the cinemas over(mostly)the summers of that era. I mean,to be sure,I probably watched quite a few of these films,albeit on cable or on video,and I know I got exactly what I wanted out of them:cheap laughs and some eyefuls of fine looking,supple young female bodies.

But I suppose my biggest gripe with this particular film is that it seemed like the makers of this film really weren't concerned AT ALL with anything BUT the sex scenes,wet T-shirt contests and the beach shots of anonymous hot bodies. The actual comedy that it purportedly tries to convey is so much an afterthought that the gags and punchlines seem forced and embarrassing to the actors involved in them.

The story here(As if it needs much explaining)is where a young stepson(David Knell) of a local politician(Dobald Symington),who,along with another clean-cut rich buddy friend(Perry Land)go out,beyond the wishes of the politician step-dad,and head for Fort Lauderdale,Florida. Once there they share a hotel space with two near-Neanderthal college dudes(PAul Land and Steve Bassett,a little TOO convincing at it)who decide to show their outsider roomies a good time. NAturally,the two clean lads will find love instead of instant sex(though they'll find THAT too;remember,this IS the '80s)in the arms of hot-yet-sympathetic lasses played by Corinne Wahl and JAyne Modean. Veterna actor Richard Schull is there as a private detective dispatched by the politico to track his stepson,but is truly there as a punchable,doofy comic foil.

Director Sean S. Cunningham,probably more famous for directing the first and ninth in the Friday the 13th series(among other films),helms this pic and looks pretty unfamiliar with comedy in this effort. I came away more obsessed with the hot bods,like Wahl,Modean,one day up-and-coming starlet Nikki(then Bobbi)Fritz and Rhonda Flynn,than I was with most of the people in this flick. Worth a look for the light,sun-kissed sex content and not much more,which,when you consider the movie poster,the title and the plot summary is probably all that it intends to be.


That was the only line I remember from this silly get-laid movie. This is great if you are fourteen years old and see sex as the be-all, end-all of life. Otherwise, this tape is only useful if you're planning on taping over it.


My friends and I viewed this a week ago with breathless anticipation. Receiving accolades from various award giving bodies in Manila and handpicked to represent the Philippines in this year's Oscar, we expected this film to follow the ranks of some of the best Filipino movie classics that were previously shown abroad. Unfortunately, we were left feeling cheated and disappointed.

The Good Points: The production design, cinematography, sound and the technical framework of the film were exceptional. Truly ahead of all the other films currently being produced in the Philippines nowadays. Some aspects of the film's dialogue were funny, especially the interaction of the couple who reside right above Cuneta's apartment. That was just simply hilarious. Koronel's acting was also the best in the film - in fact, I think it was the saving grace of the whole flick. Every time she graced the screen, she was superb, and her Darna stint was funny as well.

The Bad Points: Cuneta's acting was lackluster (I still think she can do best in drama films over comedy ones). The insertion of Cuneta ads (i.e. Alaska and McDonalds) was just plain tacky. Also, Cuneta's portrayal of a poor, struggling city lady was unbelievable and unrealistic. She, with her porcelain white skin, looked like she just recently re-bonded and highlighted her hair. She just didn't quite suit this role (to her credit, she's one of the best dramatic actresses in Philippine Cinema). Moreover, I think the film researchers didn't really do their job well. Some of the street scenes were not based on facts. When Cuneta tried to extort money in a passenger bus, almost all gave money, mostly in bills, to support her plight. This doesn't happen at all, much less, in ordinary buses. Secondly, when Cuneta paid her fees in the jeepney, nobody attempted to help her pass on the money to the driver. This does not happen at all either. Jeepney passengers, as protocol, almost reflexively, will extend their arms to help pass on fees to the driver. For someone who loves watching realism in Philippine Cinema, these scenes will not fail to disappoint.

To end, I think this film was vastly overrated. Don't expect too much from this film. However, I'd recommend it for Koronel's acting and some hilarious dialogues that, sadly, only come in spurts.

3/10


Tonight, FMC showed Cover Me Babe  released in 1970, it's got Robert Forster as a student filmmaker, who's obsessed with the idea that "reality" might be more interesting than scripted productions. Especially seedy, sordid reality. He's inspired by the Lee Harvey Oswald shooting that was broadcast live on TV - his big idea is, essentially, reality TV! He tells his film teacher about how someday people's real lives will be filmed, and viewers will come to prefer it over anything scripted - very prophetic! A better movie than I expected, and apparently rarely seen, especially on TV - this version seemed uncut, with nudity intact.

It's not worth any great expense or effort to seek, but fine as an easy diversion - interesting and prophetic, but by no mean a great movie. I can see why it was despised in 1970 - it's only value as a cinematic artifact is achieved by it being almost 40 years later now, and how eerily the film predicted the rise of "reality" entertainment. The very same things that Forster's lead character is hated for screening, those things now win awards and accolades and movie/TV career contracts. Forster's performance is metallic and makes him more unlikable than any film character I can think of outside the a-hole principal in Animal House - and at least HE was funny!

So it's a curios at best, but with out-there and ultimately accurate ideas about media and pop culture, the kind of thing film buffs can appreciate. And (very) young Sondra Locke really isn't bad as one of Forster's long-suffering girlfriends, even tho there's never the slightest indication why she'd put up with his vidiot/savant personality and ways ------


Pretentious slop about a student filmmaker who is so hip that no one "gets" him. Robert Forster plays the student and his performance is limited to smug expressions and wooden stares. I don't blame him, though, since the script is so godawful. The gist of the plot is that Forster's character wants to push the boundaries of realism in films, and while making a new film manipulates his cast and crew to perform unknowingly to his master plan. Actually, it's not a bad idea and anticipates the JERRY SPRINGER SHOW to some degree, but as put together the film plays like a very, very bad student film. This was shown on FXM recently, apparently in an R-rated form. The film was released to theaters as a PG film.


This may on one hand actually well be the worst movie I've seen, on regular movie basis that is, because on the other hand it's also the funniest movie I've stumbled across since I saw "Monty Python and the quest for the holy grail".

I've always thought Arnold Schwarzenegger has been wooden in his acting, but none of his other movies even come close to the extreme amount of talent vacuum he possesses in this movie. I had a really hard time understanding whether he was supposed to resemble a retard or a tree, either way he did a fine job, since it all seemed perfectly natural. For him, that is. The character Hercules is anyway the most testosterone-filled man caught on camera. This guy has a constant urge of ripping off his shirt everytime he either has to do something or everytime he's bored. He even has the great ability of killing actors dressed as bears by lifting them up in the air and throwing them around, destroying cabs because he's angry and impressing ladies by ripping off his shirt in front of them. Now that's at least three dimensions! In one character! Kudos to the excellent scriptwriters who managed to write this amazing piece of art during their part-time job at Dairy Queen! Long live the underdog!

Then we have main supporting character Arnold Stang, an actor which has exactly two different looks: one of utter confusion, probably because he's wondering about what the hell he's doing in the movie in the first place and one look of not so utter confusion, which he often uses when Hercules flexes his muscles for him.

Besides these two main actors we have Zeus, played by someone named Ernest Graves, a man who does a great job of looking mad in every scene. Zeus meets a woman and becomes mad. Zeus talks to Hercules and gets... mad! Zeus get to know something about sabotage and he get's, wait, I got it on my tongue. Oh yeah now I know it, mad!

Then we have lots of characters played by actors I have no reason whatsoever of giving away the names of. But as far as characters go, the goddess of beauty is a really pug-ugly woman/dog/gorilla with a stuffed bra and all, Pluto has the incredible ability of turning out all the lights in a plastic version of New York, Atlas and Samson helps Hercules by throwing punches a few meters in front of bad guys, probably to stun them with their utter uselessness or possibly showing off their godly talents that doesn't even require them to hit people to hurt them. The old fool Samson is a part for himself, since he doesn't even seem understand he's from the Bible and has nothing to do with Greek mythology. But then again I have a feeling many people involved in this movie weren't quite sure of what they were doing.

Other intriguing parts here are that some of the scenes are so incredibly badly done and edited you actually can't understand what's happening. The fight in the stairs really had me puzzled about what was going on. After I saw it ten times in repeat I understood that there actually was a hidden door somewhere and that it actually made sense in a surreal "Hercules in New York" kind of way.

Then we have Olympus, not only home of the Gods but also home of the big evil city traffic, you can hear cars driving by and honking every second. This is maybe one of the director's more intriguing ideas, were he want's to show us that time doesn't stand still even in Olympus and that they actually have cars there. Wait a minute that doesn't make any sense. OK maybe it's supposed to be there just because no-one ever even thought about editing the sound and that reality works that way: what you don't alter is most likely to stay the way it is. Yeah, thats more like it.

I have only listed a few of the errors in this movie here, since I won't spend the entire day of writing this review but I think the fact that Arnold Scwarzenegger actually managed to not only have a movie career but also got elected as a senator has to rate as the biggest of the lot. Only in America folks. Only in America.

Be sure to watch this even if it may be on of the worst movies made. If there ever was a movie so bad it's funny, it has to be this one.

1/10


This is one of the worst movies of all time. The four-hundred-and-something witless souls who awarded this a 10 should be permanently banned from voting.

Forget that it was made on a shoe-string budget, and that at one point Arnold fights the worst bear costume in movie history; forget that he takes his shirt off in every other scene, often with zero motivation; forget that the Mount Olympus scenes are obviously shot in New York; forget even that the acting is of such monumental ineptitude that James Karen (one of the worst actors in "Return of the Living Dead") is far and away the finest thespian in sight. The fact that anybody invested as much as a nickel in a script that one monkey working for one hour could easily have done better is what really blows my mind. The premise is painfully stupid, and the execution of it is as heavy-handed and amateurish as anything you're likely to see. Most porn movies are produced with more consideration for plot.

I recommend "Hercules in New York" to anyone who likes to go to the dentist or enjoys a hard punch in the nose. This is an hour and a half of pure agony.


If I feel down, all I need to do is think of Arnie fighting the grizzly bear in Hercules in New York and it cracks me up. The grizzly bear is actually just some big guy wearing a Halloween costume, he even moves like a human. But thats not the silliest scene. Arnold also fights a group of sailors with a plank and throws them in the sea, the sound effects and horrible choreography in that scene is hilarious. I've got the version of this movie with Arnies real voice, and just hearing that makes this movie worth getting. But Arnold is not the worst actor in this movie, his partner, Arnold Stang is much worse. The Mafia is even this movie, well, three guys...played by actors who probably auditioned for The Godfather but didn't make it. Yeeeaaahhhh....

The "brilliant" theme song in this movie is played about 500 times.

I would give this movie a one, but it made me laugh...so I guess it deserves a 2. Hoo-Ya.


Clumsy comedy with cheesy "special effects" (if you want to call them that) and a dumb storyline. Still, this could be considered something of a cult item today, because it feautures Arnold Schwarzenegger in his movie debut; he is already impressive-looking, and his voice is dubbed throughout by a man who sounds nothing like him! What saves this movie from the lowest possible rating is its lack of pretension; the people involved in it must have known that they were making a bad movie and didn't try to hide it at all. For example, when Hercules fights a bear, there is no attempt to make the bear look even slightly real; it's all-too-obviously a man in a bear suit. (*1/2)


There are so many really great comments on this movie, that I really can't add anything much better. Except to tell you that you really owe it to yourselves to actually find a copy and see it. It WILL be worth it. It is perhaps one of the all time worst movies ever made, but so bad and because it includes the Governor of California in the all time worst performance of his career well, its just priceless! After you watch this you will never again be able to watch Arnold doing anything without a feeling of complete awe and respect. That the dumb body builder who played "Hercules" could possibly end up where he is today...........

(If you had been watching this movie in 1970 and somebody had said to you, "that guy is going to be a great star AND the future Governor of California" you would have laughed until you peed yourself!)


OMFG that freaking bear scene! O.K on with it. I have to say that this is indeed one of, if not the worst movie i have ever seen. Even though it was funny beyond words it is still a very very bad movie, everything in it, there is now faint sign of hope for any of those people who participated in it. The funny thing about that is, that history proved that wrong, Arnold actually turned out to be an extraordinary actor with a successful career. See thats surprising when you watch this movie! And back to that god forbidden bear scene. I must say that from the moment I saw the bear I cried with laughter. I really can't see how anyone, anyone of any time can be so thickheaded that they actually make such a costume, and even worse uses it for the movie. And well there is a lot of other unbelievable details in this movie, in fact the entire movie is a huge surprise, I mean Zeus' thunderbolts are actually made of steel bars normally used for supporting concrete structures, and it is obvious if you look at them. Well I could go on with these, excuse me, hopeless and stupid details ( as well as the entire main plot )but I guess there is nothing more to say, a very very bad movie beyond words. I encourage ANYONE with my heart and soul to watch it. Better laughs are rarely found, and besides it is a suitable tribute to Arnold to watch this one from start to finish, a never forgotten movie in history, and it really sucks! Though it is indeed supreme if you need one and a half hours of cheep laughs i rate it 1 because it is technically the worst movie i have seen. 1/10


In the modern world of CGI this and stunt double that, it is easy to forget the brilliance a simply made film can achieve. With 18 surprise (so surprising no one even heard about them)nominations for various Oscars back in 1970, Hercules in New York proved that good acting, continuity and most of all an actual plot are entirely disposable in the creation of a movie. The film begins on top of Mt. Olympus where Hercules is pleading with his father to be allowed down to earth. Zeus, however is adamant that Hercules remain on Mt. Olympus, an argument ensues and in his fury Zeus throws a thunderbolt at Hercules, sending him to Earth. Which is exactly what Hercules wanted. Funny that. When upon Earth our noble hero sets about picking fights with people smaller than him, attacking animals and taking up funding from gangsters. He also befriends what many believe to be the most interesting character ever created in cinema-"Pretzie". A lonely soul "Pretzie" (so called because he sells pretzels)wanders the streets of New York alone. Selling pretzels. Many believe the pretzels to be a metaphor for small African children, and Pretzie to be a man dragged into an illegal trade by a society that doesn't care. Had the film been made thirty years later Pretzies main customers would undoubtedly have been Madonna and Angelina Jolie, however this was not the case, and some poignancy is distracted from Pretzie's plight as a result. Hercules in New York also boasts the finest action scene in cinematic history- Hercules versus the Bear, in which our protagonist, upon seeing an escaped bear, decides the best course of action is to beat the living crap out of it in front of his date. The fight can be seen here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQhBGDOO4-w (about 50 seconds in the action starts) To conclude I think we should all try to take on board the meaning of the last line of Pretzies big, final speech: "Yeah. I think- I think I'll have an apple"


I have given this movie a vote of 1. This is because I have voted using the same criteria for all of my other votes. This truly is a terrible film if somebody sits down and takes it seriously. However, the majority of people who watch this film watch it for its comic value. This is not a film that you laugh at because it contains good jokes or satire, this is a film that you laugh at! It is so cheaply made and the cheesiest thing ever! The highlight of the film is definitely when Hercules (Arnie) dukes it out with a "600 pound Grizzly bear". Hmmmmmm, well this grizzly bear must be a kick boxing one because i swear he puts up his guard ready to take on the mighty Hercules! Other highlights include the traffic noises and aeroplane noises in the heavenly land of Olympus! Oh and when a god that can fly chooses to ride in a helicopter, classic! I recommend that this film be watched if you fancy a right good laugh or you are seriously drunk!


Being on an epic movie kick lately, I decided to check out again this "lost" debut of Arnold Schwarzenegger's where not only is his then unpronounceable surname changed to the unimaginative Strong (in the manner of the stars of Italian peplums) but his voice was also dubbed by an American actor for U.S. theatrical release (which is unsurprising as his original vocal track - which is how I watched the movie myself - is virtually unintelligible at times)! Anyway, the "Greek god in modern NYC" plot had comic potential to be sure but, despite the scarce felicities (Hercules is insulted on seeing an impostor posing as himself in a fictional sword-and-sandal flick playing in a movie theater), it is generally hopelessly squandered by the sheer amateurishness of it all. At least, despite its blandness and derivativeness, the Greek-style musical score alleviates one's pain from time to time...


It's not a secret,Arnold Swarzennegger is a very veeeeery bad actor! But after this film,at the beginning of his career,how could it be possible somebody trusts him to use him in other films? Zeus was looking after him!!! He's acting so bad! He's so inexpressive... So transparent... He was good in Conan and Terminator,because he has a great body and very few words to say... But when he talks,when he's trying to be humorous...Aaaarrrrrgggggghhhhhh! Zeus,help me to endure that !!! So this film is made on a big biiiiiig casting error! But,unfortunately,it's far from being the only problem!!! The story is sooooo stupid,dialogs are so awful and the director so ineffective,that this film is simply and terribly boring! Too bad to be funny!!! Lots of bad films can be seen at 2nd degree! They became funny,sometimes great!!! Not this one! Perhaps it could be a little bit,with another (unvolontary-funny) actor like Lou Ferrigno,but Swarzy was always so sure to be good,so self-satisfied,but it's so sure his performances are so bad (exclude Conan and Terminator)!!! Don't look this!!! You want to laugh at bad films with bad actors? Just take a look at "Hercules"with Lou Ferrigno,"Masters of universe" with Dolph Lundgren,"Streefighter" with JC Vandamme,"Invasion USA" with Chuck Norris,"Beastmaster 2" with Marc Singer,"The Barbarians" with David and Peter Paul,"Bronx warriors 1 and 2" and "Thunder 1,2 and 3" with Mark Gregory,or "Oscar" with Sylvester Stallone...And the very best of all: "Hamlet" with Arnold Swarzennegger! No it doesn't exist,but it should be...


Hurcules in New York, 1970 2/10, Worst movie of 1970, Second worst of the 1970's, 1214th overall

I didn't actually see this movie recently. However I did see it back in Jr. High. Recently while looking at IMDb.com's "100 worst movies of all time" I saw it and realized I hadn't ranked it yet. Let me assure you it is on that list for a reason. It is not a good movie, or even an adequate movie. Here are the only reasons I can recall that would make it worth watching. Aarnold Swarzenager stars in it, but they dub his voice to make him sound American, which is especially awesome since he's Hurcules who would have been Greek. Also this movie had a gorilla in it who was VERY VERY clearly just a man in a gorilla suit... that was fairly awesome. Anyway, those are pretty much the high points of the movie. I gave this movie a two because it never made me want to kill my self... but its still very, very bad.


I am a big Arnie fan, have been since I was old enough to operate a V.C.R and I will defend him as charismatic Actor who has been in some brilliant films. However this is not one. Arnold himself would agree. But as a young 22 year old Austrian Bodybuilder's first film it's not his fault at the time he couldn't even speak full English.

As a comedy this film is hilarious I just played a little bit of the film for my friend and he fell to the ground laughing at the part where Arnie flys past the plane window. The editing is terrible sound keeps changing per frame (As a film student I would get failed for such sloppiness), the lines are cheesy but funny in an unintentional way and that bear fight.

I guess the reason I find it so funny is it reminds me of the half assed films me and my friends have done bored when nobody can act and lines seem stupid.

I urge you to watch this film at least once big Arn has come along way.


Now, there can be no real doubt when you watch this movie that it is absolutely awful. Bad as bad can be. Because it is. "So why oh why have you given it a score of three as opposed to a score of one or two?" you might ask. Well, the reason is that it is the most unintentionally hilarious movie that I have ever seen. It is listed as being an "Action/Comedy/Fantasy" which would lead one to believe that it is meant to be funny. I saw the version in which the mighty Arnold speaks for himself in his customary Austrian brogue. I have not seen the dubbed version so I don't know how much of the comedic value the movie loses based on Schwarzenegger and his dialogue being the funniest part of the movie.

It's the parts that are supposed to be serious that are the really funny bits of this movie. Such as Arnold regularly proclaiming (with an even thicker Austrian accent due to him not yet mastering the English language) "I am Hercules". Having a weightlifting contest with Arnold Stang and pushing over N.Y taxis.

I'm a huge Schwarzenegger fan. I always have been. But the irony is that in the late-1980's he felt the need to display "range" as an actor by trying to branch out from his heavy-hitting actioners into comedy with movies such as "Twins" and "Kindergarten Cop" but the fact of the matter is that Arnold for all his trying was at his funniest right back at the start of his movie career.

If you are a fan of Arnold and love his inimitable manner of delivering lines. You need to see this. Ignore the non-existent plot and acting and just roll along on the river of cheese in a film that is so bad it is hilarious.

Three is a low score, yes. But when you consider that this movie should have a score of one you know that those additional points are on comedic merit alone.


Arnold's acting debut came in a period in his life when I guess bodybuilding was his main interest. I certainly hope so, for he acts so bad in this movie that it's torture to sit through it. Bad acting from one person only doesn't necessary make a movie a total disaster, but when just EVERYTHING ELSE also are as horrible as they can be, then we have a movie that never should've been made. Here, I'll mention a few things that I especially noticed as bad:

- In the fight at the wharf, you clearly see that the people who get pushed into the water stops at the edge, and then jumps into the water themselves. I guess they just found some workers at a ship nearby and offered them a dime each to take part in this scene.

- The bear in the park was so badly made that you have to see it to believe it

- In the scenes with the Greek gods at the Olymp, you often hear car horns in the background. Tip to all future movie makers: When shooting a movie with Greek gods in their home, DO NOT PLACE THE SET NEXT TO A HIGHWAY.

This flick is only suitable for die hard-fans of muscle-flexing and bad German accents. Everybody else, Arnold-fans included, should avoid this movie at all costs.


I saw this for three quid on a web site once and couldn't resist. I'm not a fan of "bad movies", but I'd seen clips of this on television and it looked like an interesting debut for Arnie.

The clips I'd seen were dubbed by some American actor, which looks ridiculous now that Arnie has become so established. However the DVD only had the original Schwarzenegger soundtrack, which proved to be just as ridiculous. People complain about Arnold's accent now? It was so thick in this film, backed up with terrible acting (made his performance in "Commando" look Oscar-worthy), it's no wonder he was dubbed. You can barely understand a thing he says. As terrible as this is though, it's one of the main reasons to see this.

The concept of the film is ridiculous, it perhaps could've worked if it didn't take itself so seriously (ironically, it wouldn't have been as funny though). The thing that really disturbs me is that human beings conjured up this film, adult human beings. They wrote it, it was approved, people agreed to have a part in it, it was directed, it was shot, it was acted, it was edited, it was released, and people actually watched it.

I only watched it once in its entirety, and that took a few sittings (despite its short length). It is mostly a very tedious experience. Thankfully there are some stand-out scenes that are absolutely (and unintentionally) hilarious. The bear wrestling scene for instance, it was like something from a Monty Python sketch. I found scenes like this were actually worth re-visiting, and the only reason anyone would want to keep this in their collection. I later sold it though, it just had no place on my shelf.

Of course this film would be so much easier to dismiss (probably less ridiculous, and even more tedious), if it weren't for Arnie. It is the fact that he has since been cemented as one of the biggest movie stars of all time, and this is where he started. Although he'd already established himself as a body builder at this point, he continued to win more contests, became a huge international movie star, is now the governor of California, and might even be President one day, all with a thick Austrian accent. Looking at "Hercules in New York" is a reminder, there's hope for us yet. 2/10


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Hercules (Arnie), son of Zeus, becomes bored with life on Mount Olympus and decides he wants to explore the world. Zeus is none too pleased with this and hurls a thunderbolt at him which crashlands him on a frieghter bound for New York. There's something of a 'culture clash' as his ways on Olympus don't quite gel with the ways of those in the Big Apple. But with the help of a nerdy, wimpish man (Arnold Stang) who befriends him, he tries to fit in better.

I hate it when these no name, small time DVD companies take these long forgotten 'before they were famous' films made God knows how long ago and give them snazzy, glossy new covers to make them look like they're new and trendy films, as was the case here. I knew what I was letting myself in for(some other poor sod might not!) but my sketchy plot summary alone should be some indication of how long I was able to stick this execrably dire 'comedy.'

The film fails to generate anything even remotely resembling a laugh within the first half an hour, leaving little hope for the rest of this sorry debacle. And it doesn't help that Ah-nuld is at his wooden acting worst, struggling to deliver his lines with any sense of charisma or style at all.

This is a film that makes Arnie's performances in films such as Commando or Eraser seem Oscar worthy, it's not funny in any way at all and I'm glad it's at a very proper place in the bottom 100 list. Utterly awful. *


"Lifeform" would have been a solid 30- or 60-minute episode of "Twilight Zone" or "Outer Limits." It takes the "Alien" theme and throws a few twists in it, such as, do we really know what the alien wants? or is the alien trying to kill us or is it scared and trying to protect itself FROM us? The problem is, it's a full-length feature movie. Thus, we have to sit around and twiddle out thumbs while the director comes up with scene after scene of boring filler. When they're not taking 15 minutes to explain something that should only take 30 seconds, they're giving a young Ryan Phillippe plenty of meaningless face time. The military grunts come across as Keystone Kops quality. If that's our finest, this country is in really sad shape. There are also too few scenes with the alien. A potentially good movie became way too pedestrian. I'm giving this a 3 out of 10.


I got interested in this movie after watching Oscar nominations, getting recommendations from friends, and listening to an NPR interview with Viggo Mortensen. Well, the interview was much more interesting that this parody of a movie. I struggled through the first 30-40 minutes, and then could not bring myself to watching it to the end, so whatever I say here is based only on the first part.

The only good thing I can say: I liked Naomi Watt's performance; it seemed genuine. Everything else was so fake: fake villains (Russian, Turkish), fake accents, fake story... I mean this was a cartoonish performance. I guess it's what Western people assume Russian gangsters should look like, and the majority of Western viewers will probably buy this crap. Being Russian, I don't. No way. I understand that actors are not Russian, so it's a challenge, but some similar movies (OK, very few movies) manage to address the authenticity part much better (e.g. "Little Odessa" seemed more genuine to me). Viggo Mortensen does not look like Russian. He may be a good actor, but he cannot play a Russian (OK, his Russian is not the worst, but it's far from genuine). BTW, were Mashkov already booked? What about Mironov? Could Cronenberg give Menshikov a call?

Anyway, if you are familiar with Russian culture and value authenticity in movies, you will probably be disappointed; otherwise, give it a try: a lot of people seem to like it.


I could not believe the good reviews that I saw on IMDb for this movie. Everything about it is tired. Kirstie Alley and Diana Highland play transparent characters. This may be the result of weak acting, a weak script, or both, but finding anything in this movie worth connecting to is very difficult. The characters stumble through a mediocre story that attempts to pull on the audience's heart strings but the whole fiasco just fizzles under the flaccid plot. Don't be fooled by the "Indy" reputation that this film attempts to hide under. It is not indy, it is just cheap. The divorced female version of campy sci-fi. The inclusion of music made by a British swing band mirrors the contrived nature of this lukewarm soap opera. A must see for anyone with insomnia.


Of all the excessively nonsensical, rancid and imbecilic Sexploitation movies ever made during the decade of the 1970's (and genre buffs know there are a LOT of them), Doris Wishman's "The Amazing Transplant" definitely takes the cake when talking in terms of pure senselessness and sheer incoherence. This doesn't even qualify as a movie; this is just some crazy lady (Wishman was the only female smut-director at that time) showcasing her most lurid and morally incorrect sexual fantasies. The premise appealed to me, since it sounded like a deviant and exploitative variation on the "Mad Love" and "Hands of Orlac" concept. In those classic films the hands of an executed killer become transplanted onto a pianist who lost his in an accident, but the hands gradually turn their new owner into an unstoppable killing machine. "The Amazing Transplant" basically features the exact same plot, but of course we're dealing with a raping penis here instead of a murdering pair of hands. It's a curious and interesting concept for a sleazy and gritty 70's exploitation flick, but the sad truth is that Wishman wasn't the least bit interested in telling a story, as the (not so) amazing penis transplant only gets mentioned ten minutes prior to the ending. The rest of film merely exists of sleazy and soft-core padding with atrocious acting performances, painful dialogs and unattractive women. In the opening sequences, Arthur Barlen strangles his fiancée  and what a fight she puts up  and flees. His uncle, who's also a police detective, goes after him using Arthur's address book as the only lead. Whilst the sleazy fat copper checks out the young girls' legs and breasts, they explain through flashbacks how Arthur changed from a quiet and introvert boy into a perverted and mad-raving sex machine. At those points, we're not supposed to know anything about the penis transplant, but obviously the title and every possible synopsis description on the internet already revealed everything. The film only lasts a mere 70 minutes, yet it's insufferably boring and contains over 75% of redundant footage. There's an inexplicably large amount of images showing people's legs and feet as they simply stroll over sidewalks. Larry Hunter's character of Bill Barlen the detective is unintentionally hilarious. He displays the weirdest facial expressions when astonished, makes offensive remarks towards lesbians and simply walks away when women clearly need emotional support. This was my fourth movie directed by Doris "Sultana-of-Sleaze" Wishman (after "Deadly Weapons", "Double Agent 73" and "Let Me Die a Woman") and she never ceases to "amaze" me. Not necessarily in a positive way, but you have to admit she dared to exploit pretty much every controversial topic.