*minor spoilers*

This movie is heinous beyond words and expression. Sure, no one is expecting Citizen Kane, or maybe even another Conan, but this is supposed to be entertaining with swords and magic. We have plenty of cartoon characters running at each other with swords, but absolutely zero entertainment to speak of. The dialogue is atrocious and hilarious together. When it tries to be serious, forcing cartoons like Sorbo and Tia to act, it becomes comical and humorous. This is actually good fodder for MST3K. Too bad they don't exist anymore.

The story was basically written by a group of kindergarten kids. Big evil person wants to takeover the world. Enter reluctant hero who happens to dig heavy metal and rock. That pretty much sums up Kull the Conqueror, heh.

If you really want to laugh with your friends, by all means watch this.

1/10


I had SO much hope and hype over this film. Watching it finally nearly drove me to suicide. What in the name of the planets is this? I thought they were playing some kind of 80 minutes episode of a parody of Hercules. The plot of the film is absurd. Some unknown barbarian who hails from Atlantis (yes, Atlantis of all places) tries to join a noblemen's army, gets rejected and humiliated, and ends up being their King because the dying King thinks its comical that a barbarian should take a crack at it? We get to see the real Kull now after he gets the crown. The typical and oh so unoriginal hero who has no flaws, treats women with respect, thinks there should be no slavery and he makes it a point, and gives an occassional grunt to remind he is after all under all that heroic visage, a barbarian. Gimmie a break. The dialogue is hilarious when the movie builds. Some good moments when Herc.. I mean Kull insists there is no Island of whatever the frozen wastelands is and Ascalante with a quick retort, "yes there is!" Or, the excitement and the adrenaline building up in your body watching Kull clumsily trying to escape from the guards and mouthing the infamous word, "S**t." Needless to say, when any of the characters begins to talk, it kills them right there.


This movie plays like a 90 minute TV show. You know the kind of TV I'm talking about. Crap stuff that plays on cable trying to cash in on old themes, crap like the Conan and Robin Hood series, and yes Hercules and Xena. The acting is crap and the characters all act and talk like modern day Americans, thanks not only to the writing but the TV quality actors. The problem with stuff like this is it makes no real effort to transport you to another time and place, because costume and set design alone doesn't work. Instead it's just a bunch of everyday modern Americans playing dress up. You could have the biggest budget in the world and the greatest attention to background detail, but having a main character who's basically a walking anachronism will make it all null.

If this was actually the script for the third Conan film, it's easy to see why Arnie said no. The story is dreadful. Everything about the film is dreadful. I really hate the theme of "setting things right" in ancient times. Their beliefs and their laws suited the people of the time. It's so bigoted (and American) to say "this is how you ought to be". This film is so formulaic and stupid that I couldn't help but laugh at every predictable "plot" development and piece of dialogue.

The biggest "star" in it, aside from Sorbo who's career has basically died since, is Tia Carerre playing a really stupid but typical female villain. Come to think of it, she doesn't have much of a career anymore either.

Gah. There's nothing to redeem this film at all. It even has ROCK MUSIC during one of the battle sequences. It's even worse than Christopher Lambert's Beowulf.

2/10


Perhaps people who are fans of the Hercules/Xena/Queen of Swords line of TV shows will be able to sit through this. I only did to see if there was any way the movie would redeem itself. It didn't.

My first complaint is simply that the screenwriters/director/producer seem to think they are better storytellers than R.E. Howard - they aren't. Howard was a legend from the pulp era, and any of his characters and settings can stand alone without modern tinkering for plot.

My second complaint is in the dialogue and the execution of the dialogue. No one involved in making this movie seems to have heard of having their actors deliver their lines with any sort of cadence. They all sound like bored airline ticket agents. The characters also all speak in a modern dialect, with contractions and words that would have no place in 20,000 BC. Even the opening voice-over is lousy. In this they follow in the footsteps of the TV shows, which also take bad teen melodrama dialogue into the sword and sorcery genre.


Where on earth did Kevin Sorbo come from? He's better in Andromeda, but not much. Why, why would anyone cast him in any heroic role? He's nasally, dull and has a Midwestern accent absolutely identical in everything he does. And that can NOT be his real body - which would at least explain why he can't act. He's at Gold's gym night and day. Tia Carrere, however, is so beautiful, and so understated as the seductress - really, it's almost worth the agony just to see her in her pale blue gown. Anyhow, for god's sake don't rent this. I'm just stuck with it on the Sci-fi channel. Battlestar Galactica, here I come! I'm not even sure I can get 10 lines out talking about this. Have I made it yet?


whoever cast Harvey Fierstein as a baddie/action figure was either bribed or blackmailed. What were they thinking of? This is a pitiful excuses for a film, it makes Red Sonja look good. A terrible script, embarrassing stunts and a cast to cringe for... and a no-money for special effects either.

I can see where the Conan rewrite comes in. And i can see why Arnie declined it. Maybe it was written by someone's 14 year old after one too many games of D&D. Beware girl magic users in ridiculously skimpy clothes, a celibate monk and our all shouting, all hamming, fighter-barbarian

FRom a political point of the view, the 'woman as a passive vessel for the breath of god' is dodgy as hell

Conquerer DeathMatch result: Conan 5 Kull 0


This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, for poor acting and unbelievable plot. A lot of the acting is like watching a bad TV show, and gets extremely hokey at times. The film starts out OK and gets progressively worse, with the climax being the last scene in the movie. It might be a good movie to watch if you were extremely intoxicated for sheer comedy value (although the movie isn't supposed to be comedy).


I glanced at other reviews, and I have to wonder...did I miss something? This seems like an interesting enough premise but the execution left something to be desired, in my mind. A female police officer (Sarah-Jane Redmond) is drawn into a situation by a drug dealer who has come to the station with stories of being kidnapped (with a few other men) and submitted to some "game playing" for their lives, but he managed to escape, although others were not that lucky. There's also something at the beginning of the film about a monk who documented the story of a nun possessed by what seems to be a fallen angel, back in the 1600's...more about that it a minute. After Porhowski (Redmond) is asked to get her interviewee some water, she returns to find him gone, and by then he's been ID'd as an ex-con who did time for drug trafficking, so they of course, want to find him. And Porhowski does find him, in her car, and he's taking her back to the parking garage where his ordeal took place because she must die in his place (the price for his being set free). Now, that all sounds fairly decent, but here's a few things that didn't work for me. The games that these men are being forced to play to win their survival: I was thinking, like, oh, Russian Roulette, stuff like that, NOT musical chairs & bingo. Oh, and 5-card stud. And a fallen angel taking up residence in a parking garage to dole out justice...uh, right. And this is supposedly the very same fallen angel that appeared at a convent back in the 1600's, and whose history you see a monk busily scribbling in black & white flashbacks (since apparently they didn't have color film in the 1600's?) The overall atmosphere of the film isn't bad, but there seems to be a lot of gaping holes & the overall story is rather confusing and vague. Had some decent potential but did not live up to it. 3 out of 10.


this movie was technically made well... in terms of quality of picture and audio... the lighting in some scenes could have taken more thought and effort however on to the story...

it pretty much portrays the theme of saw where people are being punished for sins they committed in the past... most of it takes place in a parking lot where the people come across supernatural/horror creatures to finish them off...

the dialogue got a bit annoying in some places and they never seem to execute the suspense very well... all in all.. a fair effort... writing and directing doesn't always work for everyone...


Oh man.....I just read someone's positive review of this abomination, and I'm not the least bit surprised it came from Canada. (where the film was made) No doubt still laughing their way to the bank because suckers like me rent this drivel. This film blackens radiation level buttons. I have no doubt that if you turned on the Beatles White Album, drank a bottle of wine, put this movie on, and then did a crossword puzzle or something, this film could be entertaining. What is anyone's name in this movie? Detective Porhowski? Why should we care or identify with this woman if we don't know her name? No character development means I am actually rooting for her to get vacuumed up by the crazy demon...or the invisible tooth lady that snuggles people to death. Man, was this bad.... What is the damn deal with the parking garage...of death? I will give slight props to the janitor/parking lot guy, his acting is a clinic on acting from the eyebrows you cannot miss!! But what the hell were these people thinking? The most interesting part of the story is the historical link with the nun's exorcism that we see in the beginning, then is ignored, save one line in the middle, until the post-climax 25 minutes of sloppy wrap-up with a character and her dad that we don't give a crap about anyway....Bottom line, SAVE YOURSELF....RUN FROM THIS MOVIE!!!


Priests, demon-possessed nuns, rape, pedophilia - these are the makings of a good horror film when you add demons and the devil. Will this live up to the promise? Sometimes the concept is good, and certainly Sarah-Jane Redmond and Michael Eklund were good, but the story just didn't go anywhere.

There was very little action; mostly just running around and talking. Some characters, like the cops in the precinct seemed to be doing work that was just to explain what was happening, as if they had no other way of doing so.

The ending was left up to the viewer and that sucked.

No gore, no blood, some puking from a strung out doper, and no boobage whatsoever. I really must have blinked once because I didn't see the nun either.


Detective Porhowski (Sarah-Jane Redmond) is trying to find out what's happening in her town. Ryan James (Michael Eklund) says he was in a nightmarish place where some supernatural evil was killing people based on sins they've committed. As she delves deeper into this crazy story, the more she realizes that it might not be as crazy as she once thought it was.

Supposedly this was based on a true story due to some priests' notes or something like that. Basically it's their way of saying, 'this could possibly happen, so we'll say it did happen and make people believe it happened, even though it never really did happen.' Yea, they tried to manipulate the general audience, to little avail.


The beginning scenes of "The Entrance" had me optimistic that the film was heading in an unique and frightening direction. Talk about a teasing let down! The flick opens with a terrified man (Michael Eklund, an Ethan Hawk look alike) fleeing from a demon in a deserted parking garage. He escapes and the next thing we know he's yacking with the cops unraveling some ado about being kidnapped and taken to a dark room where he and others sharing his plight are forced to play games. The losers of these games are subjected to 8mm black and white memories of egregious sins they have committed. Then, one by one, each is violently vanquished from the company of the others. The cop conducting the interrogation (Sarah-Jane Redmond) doesn't buy into it. Once she leaves the room to grab him a drink of water he vanishes. She calls it a night and takes off in her car only to get accosted by the guy at knife point who then demands she drive him back to the parking garage claiming, "They took something from me and you are going to help me get it back!" Excited to check this one out? Don't be, 'cuz the film goes absolutely nowhere ending abruptly at 80 minutes in length and useless. Throughout the tale, some attempt at drawing a correlation between the above and the exorcism of a 17th century nun fails to explain itself and what we are left with is a "WTF-There's an hour and twenty minutes of my life I will never get back!" Seriously, the film had tremendous potential and some unnerving visuals. I suspect finances fell short and creativity was sacrificed for a deadline. Disappointing.


I'm a big Jimeoin fan. Huge. But I think i've realised I only like his stand-up work. His first movie "The Craic" was terrible, and this may be worse. I don't understand how he wrote this, the same guy who writes his stand-up routine, yet the movie is so poor. I didn't laugh once. I went "ha" in one scene. Bob Franklin, Colin Lane and Shaun Micallef were totally wasted.

The movie is about a movie extra who wants to get a starring role so he can become a big star, become famous and become important. Problem is is that he's a terrible actor and has lots of bad luck. Does he realise his dream? I'd say "you have to see the movie" but I don't want you to get mad at me for wasting a couple of bucks hiring the DVD.

I admire him for giving the comedy movie a go, history shows Aussie's have been terrible at making comedies ("The Castle" is excused), but maybe stick to the gags Jimeoin.

(I gave the movie a 1 for the fact it was shot in Melbourne and had some good shots)


Jimeoin is a nameless actor who finds himself as the eternal extra never to play a principle role in a movie. He finds himself caught up with a group of would-be stars all trying to gain a break but none of them are able to do so.

I was ready for a good comedy, but was bitterly disappointed. Jimeoin is a great comedian but this smacked of 'try hard' and it just failed. There were a few moments where I laughed out aloud and I recognised several moments of clever humour, but it wasn't enough. I enjoyed spotting the good familiar Aussie actors and scenes around Melbourne. I think you should spend your money seeing something else...


The Extra is about a man seeking fame through acting. He wants to be an actor but can only secure roles as extras. He wants to dine with the ladies and get attention. Jimeoin is 'The Extra' as his name isn't mentioned throughout the whole movie. I understand the quote on all the billboards and things now... 'No one knew his name, they still don't'. The storyline isn't that great. It wasn't as interesting as I expected, especially with all the top notch Australian actors. (Rhys Muldoon, Shaun Micallef, Bob Franklin) I was hoping for a little more humour as it's called a 'Romantic/Comedy'. I think I only laughed about 2 times; when he kicks a door and it hits back into him, and Russell Gilbert, the cameraman and his crossed eyes. Last year I went to the filming of 'The Extra', as an extra, and I was excited to see the film. But honestly I thought it was a waste of time and money because it just got boring! Jimeoin's a funny man, I was expecting a lot more humour and it's not what I got. He was the writer of the story and I'll say that his ability to write movies isn't that crash-hot. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this as a good film to watch.


Bad Acting. Bad Writing. Bad Directing. This film was so bad even the popcorn sucked! The only thing believable about the story was that a guy with the acting abilities of the star, Jimeoin, couldn't even get work as an Extra. Seems a little too real to me. By the way, Jimeoin played his part really well- that part being a bloke that can't act for shite. The pace of the film was similar to the 19 hour Holocoaust documentary, Shoah, just not as funny. They're four credited writers on this film- which means somehow that they're four people on this planet who actually wanted to take credit for this insult to celluloid.. I suppose there will be new agents and managers for all involved here. I kind of get the idea that perhaps the whole film was just some tax scheme for some crafty investors who needed to take a loss- kind of like "Springtime for Hitler" in "The Producers". Things certainly don't look promising for Australian Cinema.


Never before have I seen assembled into one movie so many humongously breasted women. Remarkable! I gather the movie's more about the breasts than anything else, which is fine. It was a little confusing figuring out who was who in the beginning because the robots all looked pretty similar (cheesy robot masks with moving jaws almost carelessly placed atop suits and ties that are hanging on coat hangers). Also, the editing was pretty choppy and the blood and gore were filmed at a separate time from the murder scene and were on a completely limited budget, so it kinda' looked like a buxom woman looking towards the camera and screaming (about 50 times), then a quick cut to some scene in a butcher shop. This disconnect made the movie seem not very gory, even though I guess if you bought what they were selling, it was pretty gory.

Props for the writer/director for actually adhering to a plot throughout. Some of the dialog and accents were a little contrived, hokey and derivative, but were also vaguely amusing at times.

If you're a man who likes big breasts and are gonna have a couple like-minded buddies over for some beers, this could be a good one to watch.


If you have read the book by David Baldacci then I highly suggest that you DO NOT watch this movie!!!! The book was absolutely marvelous and intriguing and I have read it twice. Unfortunately, I watched the movie afterwords and was incredibly disappointed. It seems that Clint Eastwood has to always be the number one in all of his movies. To do that they have totally written out the main character of the book! (In fact, Eastwood's character died halfway through the novel.) This is one of the worst book to movies that I have ever seen! My sister, who watched the movie then read the book also expressed displeasure at the plot changes in the movie. I admit that if you haven't read the book you may enjoy the movie only because you don't know how good it could have been.


Over the years, I've come to expect more and more of Clint Eastwood's directoral efforts, and I've never been disappointed, until now. A stellar cast is wasted in this mess of a thriller.

It's been said before, but it bears repeating: If you want to send a message, call Western Union.


From incredibly inept scriptwriting to ridiculously bad acting, sloppy editing and incompetent directing, this film belongs in movie-dumb's rubbish bin. It starts out slowly, with no dialog, then increases its yawn factor as words are added to this meandering, nonsensical script. There are so many disconnected and incomplete avenues in this film that the viewer suspects it is a parody of a real movie. It continues trudging along into an undeveloped storyline that makes the viewer wonder if anyone actually viewed this film before it was released onto an unsuspecting public. Hard to believe Clint Eastwood directed, produced and acted in this piece of human excrement. This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen.


Very slow paced and extremely unlikely development. Nothing to make you give a hoot about the main character in the first place. It gets worse and worse. It was so bad that my husband and I could hardly believe it at times. We joked about it for months afterwards. I can't think of a worse movie ever made!


Excuse me for asking, but ask I will: Are we supposed to believe that a senior citizen is able to neatly sneak into a heavily protected house, break into the owner's sanctum-sanctorum, and then witness the President of the United States having a fist fight with a woman, who is then assassinated by government employees? Are we REALLY supposed to believe that? Isn't that stretching things a bit too far - even for a movie? And then after, we're supposed to believe that the thief is really a good guy who really cares? And that he's merely a retiree who happens to steal things - but has a sense of integrity? Or that the President of the United States is screwing his benefactors wife - in the benefactor's home? C'mon now ... this can't be a serious drama. Maybe it was meant to be a science fiction story about a retiree with some kind of special power to perform acts of magic that defy any sense of logic, because this movie defies logic.


So Young So Bad is a juvenile version of Caged with the female prisoners being of the teenage variety. In fact the it's obvious to me that this film was absolutely an attempt to cash in on the popularity and notoriety of MGM's female classic.

It's not an all female cast though. Paul Henreid plays a new prison psychologist who with Catherine McLeod is shocked at the sadistic treatment meted out by the head of the institution, Cecil Clovelly and the head guard Grace Coppin who is a slimmed down and toned down version of Hope Emerson.

The most fascinating aspect of this film is the fact that of the four girls who are the focus of the plot, three of them went on to have some pretty substantial careers. The four are Anne Francis, Rita Moreno, Anne Jackson, and Enid Pulver.

Anne Francis made her film debut in this and she's the sexpot of the group. She's an unwed mother who has her cap now set for Paul Henreid and I'm not quite sure how he was able to resist the temptation. You could tell this woman had a future in Hollywood.

But the best performance in this film is that of Rita Moreno. She plays a mentally disturbed teen who is the special object of cruelty by Coppin with tragic results.

Though So Young So Bad is a trashy film, it's interesting to see how many stars came out of it. Or in spite of it.


An idealistic doctor, Paul Henreid, is a counselor or something at a new prison for naughty young girls. No walls, but humane treatment -- that sort of thing. The fly in the ointment is the headmistress or foreman or whatever she is, the top sergeant, who runs the place on a day-to-day basis. And what an old-fashioned meanie she is, groomed like Mrs. Danvers or maybe the wife in "American Gothic".

This movie was one of a spate that came out in the post-war years dealing with one or another social problem, often, as here, penology. Among the others were "The Snake Pit," "Sniper," "Gentleman's Agreement," "Crossfire," others whose titles don't come to mind at the moment. This is a lesser example of the genre, but not entirely without interest.

What makes it interesting is that, though Paul Henreid, Ingrid Bergman's husband in "Casablanca" seven years earlier, was by now over the hill and reduced to B pictures, the movie is full of those naughty young girls, including the 18-year-old Rita Moreno and the 19-year-old Ann Francis. They run around in their skivvies, get into fights, talk nasty, are cynical about everything, trying to run away -- in other words, these luscious young beauties are just begging to be spanked. That's all they really need. They don't need an understanding headmaster, just a couple of whacks. Oh, not savage whacks. Not at all. Rather, deeply caring whacks, whacks of love, so to speak, not enough to hurt but just enough to warm. Why didn't Paul Henreid try that instead of this antiquated humanism? Huh? I'll bet he WANTED to turn Ann Francis over his knee, that lanky and insinuating blond vixen, and teach her a lesson. You can see it in his face. The gentle smile can't mask the lascivious grin of the maniac underneath. Come to think of it, if that didn't work, why he could just have THEM spank HIM. They'd be learning a trade too -- professional dominatrix.

Anyway, if he didn't, he must be as crazy as the rest of this unimaginative movie. Some of the shots are striking; in others the lighting alone could have been handled by an alert ten-year-old kid. But why go on?

This movie is "reformist" in the same way that Cecil B. DeMille's early movies showed a lot of nudity, just to make sure we knew how sinful nudity was; or in the same way as one of those anti-war pictures that show us the brutality of combat before we inevitably win the battle. What hypocrisy.


This film is hilarious. Not only does it have the completely bizarre factor of a dog barking at black bears, cougars and birds and then legging it, but one of the funniest scenes I have ever seen. I was literally crying.

Some of the more passionate Benji fans on this page will recall immediately the heart-stopping scene where our hero, Benji, is being chased by the terrifying wolf. Thankfully, the wolf meets his demise by tossing himself off a cliff, and then falling stiff as a board down into the canyon below as if the production crew had thrown a stuffed wolf out of a plane. On the way down the wolf goes... awoooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....


If this movie was meant to be anything but a farce, it failed miserably.

If it WAS meant to be a farce, it was a very poor quality, and a not funny farce.

Internal logic is lacking. Events happen without any indication of how the characters arrived at conclusions/decisions/actions.

Genres & sequence:

- Starting with a Road Warrior type of sequence in 2025.

- Character time travels to 1986, then promptly dies after telling a local young couple that a spear head he brought is special (it had pierced the body of the once called "Christ").

- Couple is inexplicably chased by Nazis who somehow know that the spearhead is in their possession.

- Couple travel to Hong Kong in search of a "professor".

- Couple and Kung-Fu taxi driver encounter and fight a Kung-Fu Master who doesn't like their visiting the "Silver Fox Pagoda".

- Couple find "professor" who is captured by Nazis, and professor dies while couple miraculously escapes the Nazis twice.

- Everyone ends up on a "small" island off the coast of Hong Kong.

- Small island off the coast of Hong Kong is inhabited by lost tribes of: Mogols, Little People, and Amazon Women. Couple & Nazis interact with them positively and negatively.

- Couple wins the right from the Amazon Women to retrieve the spear shaft that the spearhead belongs to.

- Spear shaft and spearhead are joined.

- End of movie without anything following the joining the spear.


I will only say a few words about this almost forgotten sleaze classic from 1970. At the time, it represented some kind of point of no return for bad taste movies, and could still hold its own today. The most memorable viewing I ever had with this marathon of perversity, loosely based on the exploits of Thirties bank robbers the Barker-Karpis gang, was at a college film society in the early Seventies. The movie was so depressing and grim on the one hand, and so ludicrously , deliriously over the top on the other, that by the end, the audience was either numb from all the slaughter and cruelty, or laughing uproariously at things we knew weren't really funny. A couple of sequences near the end made the biggest impression. An old black man at a Florida tourist camp greets the newly arrived gangsters, and tells them about a legendary alligator named Old Joe, that haunts the creeks and lakes nearby. Later, Bruce Dern as his usual manic character ,and another gang member steal a pig, and trail it along behind a boat, hoping to lure Old Joe out of hiding. Meanwhile, sad, dreamy, drug addict son Robert DeNiro dies of a fatal heroin overdose on the riverbank, grieving over his lost love, who Ma had ordered killed. Suddenly, an alligator head appears menacingly in the water behind the boat, and the trigger happy mobsters gleefully blast Old Joe with machine guns. Meanwhile, Ma finds the body of her son on the river bank ,and goes completely wacko, shrieking and keening over her loss, which leads to one of the most unintentionally funny lines I have ever heard. As Ma wails and mourns with some of her other sons, the two guys in the boat proudly announce that they've bagged Old Joe, and Shelley Winters shrieks back at them, " How can you care about that? Your brother's dead, and you're out there playin' with gators!" This brought down the house at the screening I attended, followed moments later by the tearful Scatman Crothers phoning the sheriff to tell about the crazy folks and what they done. Weeping into the phone, the old black man asks rhetorically, " What they done? I'll tell ya what they done: they stole ma pig, and then they went and killed Old Joe!" Once again, this tragic moment caused total hilarity in the audience. This movie almost defies analysis. I cannot recommend it, unless you're a die-hard fan of Roger Corman or Shelley Winters. It is truly unforgettable, which is not a good thing, in this case.


I watched BLOODY MAMA because I love Shelley Winters and wanted to see where Robert De Niro started as an actor. Well, it wasn't worth watching. What started interestingly enough quickly became tiresome and unwatchable. The script is a complete mess. Really. I never seen such a badly written story for a film ever. It just doesn't know what to do with its characters. By the time the film focused on the kidnapped man who was bound to a chair, I lost interest. What the hell were they thinking?

Poor Shelley, stuck in this bad movie. Whenever she's one screen, her mere presence elevates this movie up a couple of extra stars. Remove her completely and no one, and I mean no one would remember this film. Aside from the scene when Shelley robs a bank and forces old ladies to hang on to their car and the subsequent car chase, seeing the old ladies hang for dear life, which I admit was really fun, this film is totally forgettable.


This is an incredibly tasteless tale that is reputed to be the story of the notorious Ma Barker and her demented criminal sons. Unfortunately, most of what you see in this Roger Corman production is pure hooey--with no basis in the real lives of this criminal family. The biggest problem with the story is that Ma is shown as the brains and motivating force behind the Barker gang, though most histories of the gangster era of the late 20s and early 30s completely contradict this. In addition to playing fast and loose with this, many other details of the film are pure fabrication, so if you are looking for a biography, don't bother.

However, if you are looking for a very guilty pleasure--sort of like "The Jerry Springer Show" combined with the Barker story, then this is for you! The story you'll see if almost completely depraved and rather shocking even today, as prison sodomy, senseless murders, drug abuse, rape and the most psychologically twisted semi-incestuous family on film is what you'll see. Now this might be really hard to take, but having the actors (particularly Shelly Winters) overact so severely actually made most of it seem rather funny instead of realistic. Still, given these topics, nudity and a lot of blood, it's certainly not for children or the squeamish. Entertaining but pure trash.


There are disturbing elements to the film. Mainly, that the gang kill and rape indiscriminately, just because they can and depending on their mood at the time. Which makes this film slightly uncomfortable as it is based on a true story. Although how much of the film is true I'm not sure. But the film does come across as a cross between Bonnie & Clyde and the first half of A Clockwork Orange.

I watched this film, for probably the same reason that most people watch it today. Because it contains an early performance by De Niro. And although he is the best thing in it, that isn't saying much. He doesn't really give any indication of the big star or acting guru he was only a few years away from becoming.

But that isn't really his fault. What lets this film down the most is not the acting, but the script. None of the characters are developed at any point to become interesting, or for you to care what does or does not happen to them.

Nor do we have any empathy for most of the victims. One is so particularly stupid I found myself wanting them to get their sticky end. The army of G-Men chasing them are not developed, so there is no antagonist for the gang. The gang themselves get on pretty well with each other so there's no drama there.

This film really was a wasted opportunity and by the end of it you really couldn't care less.


Silly psychological drama about Ma Barker and her sons who robbed and killed in the 1920s. Roger Corman directed this...it seems like he was actually trying to do a serious movie...sadly, it doesn't work at all. This movie has a following but damned if I know why.

It is very well-acted but the script and direction ramble all over the place. Also I found most of the actors dialogue unintelligible -- they're all putting on stupid Southern accents which don't help. Also, the movie is VERY sleazy. Rape, murder, incest, torture, beatings, drug abuse, homosexuality (portrayed negatively unfortunately)...you name it. I'm no prude, but this movie rubs your face in it. For instance, the opening scene has a young girl (about 13) being held down by her brothers while her father rapes her!

This is ALMOST worth seeing to see Shelley Winters chewing the scenery as Ma and Robert DeNiro before he hit it big.

All in all, a must miss.


This is supposed to be sort of a true story. Shelley Winters stars as Ma Barker who, with her perverted, animalistic and sadistic sons, goes around the country robbing, raping and killing. There is decent acting in the flick, but only by a very young Robert DeNiro. Shelley Winters never was much as an actress. Bruce Dern is pretty decent in his role as well, but he seems to excel in bizarre character roles. There is plenty of totally senseless violence, and these people are depicted as just totally evil. At no point in the film can you feel anything resembling pity for this bunch. All in all, this is a poorly made low budget film and pretty much not worth your time. I gave it 2 out of 10 since they throw out votes of 1.


This is the sort of movie where a character's behavior is best explained by saying "the plot requires it." A Warner Brothers entry at the height of the film-noir era, "Nora Prentiss" was a box-office success and a boost for Ann Sheridan's career. Today, however, it looks like a parody of its own genre. The main problem is the script, which director Vincent Sherman and others adapted from a short story by Paul Webster. The unlikely tale proceeds through a series of melodramatic twists and turns involving a married San Francisco physician named Dr. Richard Talbot (Kent Smith) and the title character, a stunning nightclub singer (Sheridan). Melodrama, of course, always under girds film noir, but when audiences watch this kind of movie they want to believeif only for 90 minutesthat the events could really be happening. With this picture, it's a tough job. Making the situation worse is dialog that strains to sound memorable and ends up sounding phony. There are warning signs from the start, with the first five minutes being so heavy with exposition that you want to shout, "Enough! I get the point!" Still, there are some good things to be said about "Nora Prentiss." The central plot gimmick is an interesting one, despite its implausibility. James Wong Howe's cinematography effectively captures the story's shadowy moods. And the alluring Sheridan, as usual, gives a solid performance. But the casting of Kent Smith presents problems. During Smith's time with Warners the studio liked to assign him the role of an earnest wimp involved with a captivating woman (see him opposite Joan Crawford in "The Damned Don't Cry," which Sherman directed three years later). So it's easy to see how producers chose this actor to play the conservative doctor. But Smith lacked charisma, and in this film the audience has to keep reminding itself that the vibrant Nora finds the dull Dr. Richard Talbot fascinating. Why does she, anyway? (The plot requires it.) Why does this worldly but essentially decent woman take up with a repressed family man in the first place? (The plot requires it.) And why does Richard veer off into a tangle of unbelievable actions that grow increasingly grotesque as the film rolls toward its disastrous finale? (The plotwell, you get the idea.) For the rest, there are competent performances by Rosemary DeCamp as Richard's wife, by Bruce Bennett as Richard's partner in a medical practice, and by Robert Alda as Nora's nightclub boss and lover-in-waiting. The musical score is by Franz Waxman.


(potential spoilers)

The theater was filled with people expecting what this picture could have potentially been if given more time to develop the story. Instead the audience got another story filled with quick cutaways and bass designed to give you a scare in that moment, but after leaving you with an emptiness where the story should have filled.

I will say this though, this movie didn't suck because of Adrien Brody. He was fun to watch and his subtleties didn't go unnoticed. A part that comes to mind is when he asks Kiera Knightly what year it is, she says 2007 and he gives his unbelieving, "wha." Unfortunately the rest of the scene took place in bizarre 2007. What attractive 20 something female is going to bring to her apartment (where she lives alone) a mysterious Adrien Brody standing outside freezing. Her reason for letting him stay is that she called all the homeless shelters and none are open, so she'd feel guilty if she sent this guy she met 1 min ago away. "You can sleep on my couch." Trusting aren't we. I didn't buy it. Also watching her vast array of facial expressions in this scene also brought a tear to my eye... from laughter.

I don't know about you but I'm so sick of films that use static and weird sound effects with shooting images to get the audience on edge. Ever since the Ring I haven't been able to appreciate them anymore and it looks more and more like a cheap thrill device. I was sitting in the theater waiting for those parts to be over.

All in all, the Jacket was a decent, unfinished story that had so much more potential. If it wasn't for Brody and a character named Mckenzie, this film would be a lot harder to watch. They tried to do something different, but didn't follow up.

4 (for effort) out of 10.


An interesting concept with some very cool ideas that never really reaches its potential. Instead of exploring the implications of time traveling, the film sidetracks into a very rushed and hasty romance, one that never really makes sense. The scenes in the mental hospital add nothing new to the stock stereotype, and the ending is telegraphed a mile away. There are a few interesting ideas on time travel that are bandied about, but they ultimately go nowhere, and the military scenes at the beginning seem to serve no purpose for the rest of the movie. The story is flawed, but it's still interesting, the performances are great, and the visuals are kinda cool but nothing outstanding. An interesting concept turned into a decent film.

The thing that bothered me most was the entire point of Knightley's character Jackie. At first I just thought she'd be a sign to Jack that he's time traveling, but then she ends up helping him and being the love interest? How'd that happen? There's a rather large leap from her throwing him out of her place to her going out of her way to help him. It felt like there was a scene missing. In fact, all the scenes in the future seemed to ignore continuity and logic altogether. It was a bit disjointed, even for a sci-fi movie.

The ideas brought up by this movie on time travel have been discussed much better in other films and works of literature, so the film doesn't add much more to it. The movie's a decent watch, never causing you to lose interest, and the pace is perfect for this kind of film. It just doesn't seem to add up to anything special. It actually could have used a bunch more depth to it, to fill out the characters and inject some emotion and realism into the film. Still, it's an interesting movie, at the very least.


I thought this was a bad movie, and its box office totals certainly reflect that. This film wants us to believe that a doctor in a psych ward drugs his patients and then straps a weird jacket on them and puts them in a morgue drawer for a while. And all this allows the patient to time travel in his mind and apparently in reality. The doctor had no idea this would happen? Also, the film never told what type of results the doctor was expecting by putting a patient in a morgue drawer.

While in the drawer, it shows many close ups of Jack's eyes, then starts showing flashes of images. And then some how Jack winds up about 15 years in the future. During his first trip, he meets a girl, Jackie, who he remembers from his past. She doesn't know him. But, she picks up this stranger and lets him stay at her place? Not believable. And then later she sleeps with him?

Jack gets Jackie to help him investigate his death from 15 years earlier. He thinks it was foul play. Then there is a side plot of him helping one of the other doctors discover what is wrong with a sick child. Why was that part even in there? It just added to the confusion of the film.

FINAL VERDICT: I like films that have a story that makes sense and not so confusing. So, I don't care for this one and don't recommend it.


Just some general observations: 1)The men are mostly spineless, flawed, and one-dimensional. It reminds me of Dennis Miller's story about the Lifetime channel production of "Guys and Dolls", renamed "Oppressors and Women of Vision and Strength".

2) This show was obviously written with its PC liberal feminist heart on its sleeve. The Indian woman who can't decide whether she wants to be a doctor stayed around way too long, and spouts her disgust with American culture at every turn. Corday is a slut, and Kovach (sp?) is a womanizer. Weaver is just not believable as a lesbian; her naming the trans-gender studies unit after Romano smacked of childish revenge.

3)I miss George Clooney and Anthony Edwards and Julianne Margulies (what a babe). I always felt that their performances (esp. Edwards') were classy and understated.

4) It gets worse and worse. Where is "The Day After" when you really need it? This show needs to be put out of its (and our)misery, and soon. I put it in the same category of mindless drivel like Seventh Heaven and Touched by a Whiny Irish Angel.


tonight is the last e.r. or should i say the last hurray for Dr. carter, YES THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PROMOTING ON N.B.C. and yes it all surrounds Dr carter or does it, after watching the last E.R. i am sort of disappointed it had it high points and it had the unanswered questions , and the hope that Dr Ross will return it did not happen and today half the women in the USA that love clooney are in despair , to say i hate e.r. is not true i actually enjoyed several episodes thru the years , among them the rescue scene where Dr Ross saves the boy, Dr Greene last episode,and this years the recurring dream,and yes i am a big fan of Dr. morris, ,but the thing i hate this show is it wears thin , one of my least favorite character is Dr carter , he is a rich ,preppy type doctor who had so little in common with the people this show is usually about , .i also hate the fact the writers etc preach to us in every show they said on the recap they never did well they are wrong watch the old shows and see if they are not pushing an agenda ,it always came with a point if you really looked closely, while some like that i don't like Hollywood telling me what to think.what to feel!!

probably the most obviously thing is as the years have past by the talent level has decreased the story lines have became stale,dry and not interesting .the days of George clooney and Anthony Edwards and Juliana margulies are well over , now we have the girl in bend it like beck-ham who tried but really is not that great a character or the girl out of broke back mountain and yes john stamos -do you call that star power? stamos should be playing drums for the beach boys not acting!!!well most of the folks i know who loved e.r. will tell you the truth it lost a lot in the past few years . conclusion THANKS TO N.B.C. for removing E.R. from life-support and letting it go peacefully , please no 2 hour movies later let it R.I.P. goodbye E.R.as for the very last episode all i talked with were let down felt empty as if they had watch 2 hours of almost good TV but then had it jerked away at the last seconds goodbye e.r.


Is it just me, or the last few seasons of E.R. haven't even been worth watching.

Tragedy after tragedy, plot twist after plot twist. These are the most ill-lucked people in society.

OK, so...

Dr. Green has cancer, dies. O.K., I can run with that. Perfectly logical. Dr. Romano has his arm cut off at the elbow by a tail rotor. O.K., not likely, but if he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time...then maybe. But come on, then to get killed by the same chopped falling in a bloody fire on top of his head? Get real.

Carter loses his baby, and his woman. Yawn. Hasn't the Carter family seen enough in the way of loss and rich people dilemmas?

I am so sick of the "strong females" Abby doesn't want to marry Luka. Sam didn't want to marry Luka. Sam and her son. Again, and again, and again. Now for the love of god her crazy ex-husband kidnapped him and her both at gunpoint and they are driving somewhere along the Chicago interstate. Abby might lose her baby. Dr. Corday almost lost her baby. Dr. Weaver was in limbo with her son, after miscarrying. Dr. Benton had custody trouble. Dr. Lewis lost her niece. Can't these people hold on to their children?

At least they did away with Dr. Lewis' sister. Man that chick fell off Ugly Mountian and hit every damn boulder on the way down.

If anyone agrees...write to me to tell me so, then write to NBC to take this long-dead show off the air.


I have never really watched the show except I by chance caught one episode called If Not Now. Central to the theme of the show was the topic of abortions. I am extremely disappointed in how they misrepresented people and circumstances. A girl is raped and since her parents are Catholics they are represented as unreasonable. Furthermore, the parents explanation to the doctors as to why they do not want their daughter to have an abortion are presented as fanatical and not looking for the best interest of their daughter. This can't be farther from the truth. Most parents who are strongly opposed to abortion maintain more values than this show exhibited. Parents as these are not only looking out for their new grandchild, but they are also considering the long term effects their daughter may suffer. Further, a scenario such as this accounts for a mere 1% of the abortions that occur. This particular case supports the all too common misperception that the main reason abortions are an option is due to cases of rape and incest.


Now here we have a really bad pretentious dutch 'artistic'(come on !!!) 'movie' this boring P.O.S is soo revealing as to where it is going... This guy made another dutch classic called 'Philene is sorry' with the same actress , Kim van Kooten ' and that film was maybe worse , but this one comes in close.I Cannot believe that his films are being taken seriously.it is supposed to be a film about a guy filming his sister in video format while he is constantly talking frustrated text into the mic.commenting on his sisters behaviour before the lens. very corny is the transition between scenes in which he shows us some ' noise ' perfectly put into the montage...it is to give you the impression of spontaneousness .This as well is how this product (the film 'zusje') comes to an end.with Noise. Dutch critics , especially' at pretentious film festivals in the lowlands hail these kind of films as very interesting , creative and totally ' now '. It makes you shiver.


During the early 80s, squatters in Berlin have been mostly students on an adventure holiday, some years later they were mostly full time bums on a permanent "Do you have a Mark to spare"-quest. They had their fair amount of street fighting activities, their weapon of choice was the cobble, and sometimes they threw it through the glass of a bank building. But they were no terrorists. Maybe wannabe revolutionaries, in their dreams. Nobody took them really serious.

Now some of them seem to have made this movie. Just let me tell you what happens during the first 15 minutes.

A group of Berlin squatters decides to blow up an empty old villa. Must be a very evil villa, because basically squatting was about saving empty buildings from neglect.

They do an amateur movie about this heroic deed, maybe they think there is a market for Building-Snuff-Videos.

Their bomb doesn't explode. They don't care, they just forget about the whole thing. Even though the entrance they took was very obvious and easy to detect, the next 13 years nobody enters the villa.

Not even the real estate agent who in 2000 wants to show it to a client. Why should she make sure that there are no unpleasant surprises waiting inside, like squatters, homeless, garbage, animals, broken mains, collapsing floors ... ? The main door will not open, so the client uses some force to open it, and the old bomb, that had been waiting patiently behind it, finally explodes. He and the real estate newbie get slightly hurt.

The client has been a government big shot. Hell breaks loose, police raids start.

Of course, amongst their prime suspects are two veteran squatters, who still stay at a formerly occupied tenement-house. The police confiscates .... all of their super-8-films. Believe me, they really do, I'm not making this up, it's even the main part of the plot: The Berlin police in the year 2000, looking for some bomb-building terrorists confiscates the 80s super-8-films of some broken down bums. Please don't ask why. But imagine how the authors and producers had to get people interested in such a story. And they succeeded, which is even more unlikely.

The two die-hard squatters will try to get the band together again and rescue what contained once proud memories of their glory days and now fatal evidence of their stupidity from the well guarded chambers of the police.

By now you will know that you are not watching a movie, but are instead trapped inside the dream of some pathetic drunken 80s squatters, "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes". Frightening? No, just a strange and boring childish mind-scape.

I realize that there really IS a market for stuff like this, the infamous lovers of dilettantish and inane films. Here they'll find a lot for their liking. This is a very, VERY bad movie, and by all means, they should check it out.


This was so so bad, they tried so hard at every moment to be Hollywoood... this was crap. I felt betrayed by the time it was over. Just cliche after cliche. Run fast from this Hollywood wannbe movie. The characterers were never developed, the plot was a farce and noting worked. Even parts that seemed to be redeeming turned out crap... it's a bad joke.... do not see this thing.


I saw this movie when I was a child and I love it. It was one of my favorites movies. Now, after years, I am very disappointed. I saw all the flaws, all the mistakes. The acting is really bad, especially in the first episodes. The movies tries to rely on the book, but its much more compress and much more less enjoyable. The ending, witch is different from the book is not bad, is absolutely awful. One of the worst endings I've seen, no substance, no logic, the ending in the book is much good. If you seen this movie in your childhood, I recommend not to see it again. If you didn't see it, I recommend you to avoid seeing. The book is really good, I recommend you read it instead of watching this.


... when the network was carpet-bombing trailers that were possibly the least funny and interesting promos in the history of cinema -- does anyone else think, for instance, that the plummeting of the credibility and popularity of Who Wants To Be A Millionaire dates from Regis Philbin hawking "Bob's book" as having made a huge difference in his life, on the Millionaire set yet, among other network celebrities pretending that Bob Patterson was a genuine motivational speaker?

This show lived up to that degree of promise. I would say that Bob Patterson was a flaming heap of dreck, but that presupposes it was exciting enough to be considered "flaming." Dormant, washed-out heap of dreck is more like it.

What I don't understand is this. Who were the network moguls who watched the rushes and signed off on it? Now for a big star, yeah, you take a dive on it because of the money invested and the name recognition. But this is *Jason Alexander* we're talking about. Who the hell cares whether you nark an Alexander off by telling him "The show bites, we're not even going to air it?"

Rating: 2/10, and only that good because Moment By Moment still exists.


"Shiryo No Wana 2: Hideki" is a vile and repulsive movie which tries in vain to emulate the success of the first "Evil Dead Trap" but ultimately ends up as a vastly inferior sequel(in name only). While "Hideki" is visually quite intriguing, the story is a contrived mess filled with unlikable characters, an inane plot and cheap gross out effects that are more laughable than terrifying. Unlike genuinely creepy Japanese Horror films like the recent "Ringu", "Uzumaki", "Ju-On" and "Spiral", "Hideki" has less to do with atmospheric horror and more to do with over-the-top splatter similar to late 80's and early 90's films like "Hellraiser", "Re-Animator" and "Naked Lunch". Director Izo Hashimoto (who directed episodes of the campy Japanese TV show "Sukeban Deka" [Juvenile Cop]) tries too hard to go for the cheap thrills and scares. This is a real disappointment as I liked his "Sukeban Deka" TV work. To be avoided.


Ok, this is bad, very VERY bad. I do not know how anyone could find this movie interesting, in any way...The plot sucks bigtime, the music, well 'sounds' are nerve wrecking, and the slasher-scenes are numb...What a dull piece of Japanese non-cinema ! It's supposed to be 'shock-cinema', so I expected something in the line of Cannibal Holocaust, or C. Ferox, etc. But this is a joke !! Perhaps I do not grasp the fine art of oriental cinema, but MY GOD is this a major flunker !!! There are so many opportunities that are left alone, so many gaps in the story, so petty acting !! No horrorfan can just sit back and enjoy EDT2, it is a disgrace to the genre...after 1 hour and 28 minutes you see one or two better scenes (breaking the arm is one of them, but still not impressive), and that's about it I'm affraid. So if you see this one on the shelf, start running the other direction, it SUCKS bigtime !!! Trauma !


The beginning of this movie had me in tears of laughter the guy who opens who tries so hard to look scared just had me doubled over in fits of amusement I honestly thought "What The ?" this guy is confused maybe he got stuck in the wrong movie.

There are a few scares in this movie but all of which are of the cheap variety for example "ghostly shadow walks past in background" "deathly face in mirror" "hand coming out of the ground" the list really does go on and that is where all the scares come from seriously. The acting is very flawed and quite comical although I am sure that was not their intention.

You cant really take this movie seriously and it is quite unbelievable that movies such as this are made but even more weird they are unleashed on the unsuspecting public.

So unless you like the thought of a cheap chill and a laugh or too then you should most definitely stay away from this movie.


The Indian descendant Sean comes to a forest with his friends Josh and Flipp trying to find the track to a mysterious cursed tree and a secret burial ground. His grandfather wrote a journal about the love of the Indian Satinka and the son of the medicine man of their tribe one hundred and twenty years ago, and how Satinka was trapped in a tree by an evil spirit. Meanwhile, the girlfriends Jennifer and Kiyomi are searching for flowers in the same woods. When Flipp and Kiyomi vanish, their friends meet each other and stay together while a deranged hunter chases new victims for the vengeful spirit of the tree.

"Haunted Tree" has a reasonable premise, but a very poor and flawed execution. There are many low budget horror movies that work, usually based on solid screenplays and great performances. Unfortunately this flick has a terrible and messed screenplay, and the story begins without any previous development of the characters, probably because of the restraint in the budget. Therefore, the viewer sees Sean, Josh, Flipp, Jennifer and Kiyomi, and even the forest, without any reference or explanations about their motives for being in the dark and distant place. When Josh shots his gun, surprisingly neither Jennifer nor Kiyomi listen to the noise. The girls lose their car (is it possible?) and there is no explanation why they have come to such a distant place without tent or appropriate outfits. Nobody eats in this film, and the day is extremely short. Satinka is a rip-off of typical ghosts of Asian movies, and recalls Sadako of "Ringu" franchise. There are so many flaws that I could extent my review, but I believe this is enough to give a hint about this film. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


**Maybe Spoiler**

Wow man, thats that kind of movie that o starts and get excited about. A promising start, a plot that is interesting, some interesting act at the beginning... but hey, don't get yourself enjoying yet. This movie could be very, very scary and hypnotic but instead, the movie lost itself on the half way and never find the way home. When I finished watching this and saw my girlfriend's face, well, needless to say, crap movie at all. A freak bad ending, boring story about a tale of an Tree that was in some level, connected to the family. Sevy Di Cione really tried to get into it but the hole story didn't help him. Kiralle Hayashi saved the "Horror" category of this movie, her appearances was scary most of the time and she has that look, that side look that makes you really think about if your alone or not in the room. I can't say much of this movie anymore, when it try to connect past/future in real life and kind of strange connection by dream/reality well, thats where it messed every thing up.

But, I always think that movie is moment, maybe you like it. Give it try.


"Haunted Forest" failed as far as originality and the general storyline was completely ubiquitous and inconsequential, but while actually keeping me JUST interested enough with it's very unusual look. The majority of this movie takes place in broad daylight, under clear skies, in a forest full of roads... Sure, not the best setting in which to derive "scares", yet there are some excellently perpetrated scenes involving ominous and jolting ghost encounters in a genuinely - and dare I say - refreshing way! Many shameless and creepy split-second moments, plus a decently strange ending kept the movie "alive" throughout it's runtime, though it is difficult to ignore the shlocky and convoluted premise and over-used, rambling explanation including dead Native Americans, a soul inhabited tree, and a crazy hunter with some kind of "curse" upon him... This was all weak and pretentious drivel that I couldn't have found less affective. My biggest gripe over "Haunted Forest", aside from the previously mentioned and the lack of gore, would definitely be the ungodly horrible acting. Was there even any dialog in this movie? There might as well have been none... Such boring characters and just the sight of them, at times, tempted me to cease my viewing of the film. Also, the ghost began looking more and more like that of "The Ring", and those close-ups of the eye and the draping, black hair annoyed me. Overall, it has it's mildly enjoyable features, though nothing of any great necessity for horror fans...


Poorly cast, uninteresting location, amateur storytelling.

This is one of those movies that crams in all the back story just as it is getting to the resolution.

You can imagine the writers scrambling to think up an explanation for their ghost.

Not original, unsatisfactory payoff, and some scenes with a waterfall that I guess takes takes you to a separate section of the forest that is otherwise inaccessible.

I will say that the special effects surprised me, in as much as they seemed much more accomplished than any other aspect of the movie.

I like B-movies, exploitation, horror, and trash, but I wasn't into this.

The ghost was supposed to be Native American but looked totally Asian.

The picked very uninteresting woods to film in.


If a tree sucks you up in a haunted forest, would there be a reason to watch it? There really wasn't much to appreciate from this film.

Three friends go into a forest in search of a haunted tree that one of the groups grandfather had written about. Forests are scary by themselves, but you never really felt that in the film. Even the moments that were supposed to be scary, weren't.

The actors were very forgettable, and the pace was as slow as a tree growing.

IT just didn't deliver. It just seemed to be so many leaves in search of a tree.


God! I am a big time fan of Horror movies, i get the thrill and excitement when i watch them. But, let me assure you this movie comes with no such package. It bores you to death.

Based on some thought process, which is crazy to say the least, this movie revolves around a ghostly forest which has seen sufferings of a girl some 200 years ago. Who suddenly decides "Its my time, folks"! and she kills...

An American, an Englishman, and a stoner head into the forest in search of a hidden burial ground (just wait for the punch line). Sean, the American, has his grandfather's leather-bound journal, which details the horrific reign of Satinka, a malicious tree ghost with sharpened twigs for fingers who haunts the forest. Using the journal and the final photographs of a vanished tourist, the trio are intent on locating Satinka's haunted tree and the sacred burial ground that lies beneath. A couple of female botany students wander into the plot, apparently to keep things interesting.

It turns out Satinka was an American Indian who was killed by some crazy white boys intent on driving out all the Injuns. She exacts her revenge by stabbing victims with wood slivers, thus marking them, and then sucking them into the ground. Despite Satinka's Native American heritage, she looks and moves like pretty much every Asian ghost you've seen in J-horror movies (and their American remakes) since The Eye, black hair hanging in her face, dark eyes, crawling in stutters and jerks across the forest floor, with the sound of snapped twigs accompanying her arrival.

Please avoid watching it and wasting time.


Director Ken Cameron, a former high school instructor, attempts here to transpose some of his teaching experiences to the screen, apparently conceptually convincing enough to garner guaranteed funding from the Australian Film Commission along with the Merchant/Ivory production team, but any points of interest that may have been persuasive to his financial angels are lost in the completed production. Set and filmed in a cheerless lower class district of Sydney, with its casting auditions held at various schools of that city for many of the younger featured players, the piece won an award at Cannes Junior, yet there is precious little to sustain viewer interest in most sequences, responsibility for this shortcoming falling upon Cameron's disjointed screenplay. The storyline follows the fundamentally aimless and anti-social activities of Steve Carson (a ferret-like Rod Zuanic), who occupies his time by selling drugs, stealing, lying, cheating, etc., for no particular reason, while providing very little of entertainment value for viewers, and even less for the high school teachers and administrators who must have dealings with him. Steve's father is an unemployed sot, his mother has left the home to be with another man, and his older brother utilizes him as a schoolyard dope dealer, plainly a dispiriting background for the youth, but as depicted one feels no sympathy for him, as his deportment appears to stem from stupidity rather than as reaction to socio/economic pressures in this erratically paced work wherein puerile incident assumes precedence above character development. Additionally, young Carson's family members, equally moronic fellow students, and school staff are seldom well-drawn, the only characters of abiding interest being Sharon (Tracey Mann), a new teacher at the high school and, in particular, "Redback" (Steve Bisley), owner of a junkyard for motorcycles, who gives Steve an opportunity to learn a trade (welding) and also to restore a wrecked motorcycle, thereby opening a way for the boy to flee from an uncivil environment. Because Cameron fails to unify his visuals with potential effects that may be felt from the script, a viewer will find it difficult to empathise with Steve, whose general behaviour fails to demonstrate knowledge of possible linkage between causes of his actions (theft, drug sales, et alia) and their consequences, with apparent altruism by Redback being the film's sole strong positive component. Bisley, a top-flight actor, gives his role some depth, but we are too often in the company here of juvenile halfwits, directionless slum based teenagers who fittingly cluster at various trash dumps. The characters actually have no place to go, nor does the episodic plot, and a viewer should care a little about those performers with whom time is shared in a film, but few will be apt to do so in this instance.


John Bunny (as Tupper) is intrigued by a newspaper item announcing the arrival of heiress Flora Finch (as Rachel Whipple). The rotund Mr. Bunny would like to win wealthy Ms. Finch's hand in marriage. Believing that Finch would prefer a bachelor to a widower, he packs up his two daughters, and sends them away. To further impress the lady, he starts a baseball team. When Finch exclaims, "I simply adore base ball players!" Bunny wonders if she might like players more than owners

Bunny was the prototype overweight comedian. Compared to the other actors, his complexion looks very bad in "Hearts and Diamonds". Though I am judging more from touched-up movie stills than movies, I was surprised at his unhealthy appearance. Perhaps, the illness that would soon claim him had some effect. Finch doesn't have as much to this time around; though, she and Bunny always make a striking couple.

*** Hearts and Diamonds (9/26/14) George D. Baker ~ John Bunny, Flora Finch, Charles Eldridge, William Shea


This movie reminded me of a not so much of a hit film of 1993 called "Phir Teri Kahaani Yaad Aayee", starring Pooja Bhatt. Comparing Pooja Bhatt to Kangana, you may feel disappointed, but in her own way, Kangana has tried very hard. Shiny Ahuja is marvelous as always. I don't know why but I came out of the movie blaming him, as if it was he who sought relief of his previous self, when he was a child. At major points, the movie is a direct lift from " A Beautiful Mind". Partly misdirected, the story is strong and actors good. Kangana looks good in the movie. At some points, there is also a "horror" film effect that has been tried. It was meant in good stead, but has been overdone. Also, only a few songs are good, the rest mediocre. Overall, watch it if nothing better to do and a few hours to kill, else can be avoided in favor of Phir Teri....( which would be very hard to find)


It would be nice to see once a Hindi movie that is not taken off from American Movies. I found Kangana's character very similar to Gia. In Gia, Gia is an international famous model whose life spirals downwards due to heroine addiction and dies due to AIDS. With Kangana her character Sana has a mental problem that it costs her her life and her boyfriend played by Shiny to take care of (Gia had her mother for those who don't know). Throw in a twist of the imaginary person and her perception that the world is trying to get her and you add in Gia with Beautiful Mind. If you tried to fool us thinking this was an original idea....you didn't. Comeon, come up with a movie that is original....can Bollywood do that on a consistent basis..?? So far, I think not! I give it 3/10 for lack of creativity.


I had great hopes for this movie, which I rented after reading other comments, and also based on my previous experience with some excellent Cuban movies. This one turned out to be the worst, with no substance, poor dialog, and an incredible lack of action. Passion is shown as something evil, to be avoided by all means. The scenes of fainting people everywhere are beyond the limits of stupidity. Some of the characters are beyond fantasy, as is the recurrent idea of coincidence against all odds. Having met friends who recently came from Havana, it is clear that the director avoided showing the miserable state of that city. It is hard to believe that this awful creation received any award ever. The only reason I give it a 3 out of 10 is out of respect for most of the main actors, who were pitifully wasted.


Ok, I know just about everyone claims that the most recent bad film they've seen is the worst movie ever made. Well, it's been a while since the 1995 release of Wally White's ode to self-absorption "Lie Down with Dogs," and the film still ranks as the worst gay movie devoted to celluloid, and an atrocity on all levels. Here's 10 reasons why the film makes more sucking noises than a Hoover upright: ***1. Our "protagonist" (and I use that term VERY loosely) waxes unpoetically at the beginning of the film about how sucky New York City is, so he packs up and moves, haphazardly, to Provincetown, MA for the summer. Once there, he does nothing but berate the place for not being New York. Go figure. ***2. The film was obviously shot during P-Town's off-season; the summer resort looks more like an old-west ghost town. ***3. We're supposed to feel a sense of connection and brotherhood with Tommy, the lead character. Yeh, right. It's probably unintentional, but White's alter-ego is a whining, self-obsessed doink who is about half as attractive as he thinks he is. I'm supposed to root for this guy to fall in love? I found myself rooting for this guy to be hit by a bus. ***4. The film is extremely offensive to minorities. White tries to be funny, but instead manages to insult everyone from recovering alcoholics to men over 40 to Jamaicans. Even the latino pretty boy is (gasp!) lazy... one of a bazillion stereotypes perpetuated by this wreck of film. ***5. White's summer vacation is boring. I had more exciting stints at summer camp as a kid. ***6. The writing of this film is amateurish through and through. What's meant to be funny is just obnoxious, and what's meant to be touching is cloying. The characters are flat, the plot is nil and there's no dramatic rise to what little story exists. ***7. The director makes the assumption that all gay men aspire to be pumped-up pretty-boy airheads, dancing in their speedos. No, thanks, I'm driving. ***8. Cinematically, the film is poorly constructed. The editing is bad, the camerawork is bland. The movie looks like someone grabbed a camera for the first time and thought, "wow, I'll make a movie." ***9. Did I mention that the lead character is self-absorbed and obnoxious? ***10. The worst offender of all: the utter horror of the "Square State Theory" scene. This little gem sees Tommy as he unfolds his hypothesis that you can tell a guy from a square-shaped state by his tacky wardrobe, lack of dancing expertise or general ugliness. To make matters worse, he actually points out several of these hapless losers out while pontificating from on high in a crowded dance club. ***Can you tell how offended I was by this movie? As a guy from a relatively square state, I have news for Wally White... first, you might be part of a minority, but this kind "better than thou" behavior isn't far off from what fueled such lovely historical eras such as Nazi Germany. Secondly, those square-state guys are PEOPLE... they may know how to point and laugh, too, but things like self-contentment and decency usually stand in their way. Me, I guess I'm not so decent, so I have no shame or reservation when I tell you: your film is mean-spirited and just plain bad.


this movie has elements of other movies,some better(Cujo,Man's Best friend)some not as good(Rottweiler).the idea of a group of people stranded on an island and fighting for their lives is nothing new,either.this particular movie doesn't really add anything new to the genre.it's also pretty slow,with not very much suspense or tension.yet i found it just interesting enough to be entertaining.by entertaining,i mean,i think's worth a cheap rental,and i wouldn't buy it unless you can get it cheap.for me,the movie held promise,but just didn't deliver.i wasn't overly interested in any of the characters.for me,The Breed is a 4/10


Well basically the premise for the film itself does not bode well really. Genetically modified hounds? I think I can see what's going to happen. Oh s**t lovers! And rain! Would more would I need to know there's dark times ahead? S**T DON'T GO HUNTING AND TALK ABOUT DOGS! HAVE YOU NOT READ THE BLURB! Is it called blurbs when referring to films? I'm not too sure. Don't bother talking about relationships. Chances are either you or your love interest will die. NIGGA GONNA DIE! Oh creepy shots. Oh noes he is surrounded by the doggies! THE DOGS DON'T WANT YOU HERE. Fair enough, but do they really need to tear him apart? Just send him on his way. I'm sure that would work. F**K YES HE SHOT THE WOMAN WITH AN ARROW. (is shot the right word?) They are genetically modified by giving them rabies that don't kill you? So basically the rage virus from 28 days later but for dogs. A DOG IN THE HOUSE. S**T I DON'T THINK THEY REALISED DOGS CAN SWIM TOO! Back to the house! Should have listened to the brother. He knows where its at. ZIPWIRE IS THE FUTURE THEY SAID. Haha it stopped short. Dogs are an awful enemy. Dolphins would be much better. HOW THE HELL DID THE DOG JUMP ONTO THE ROOF? DOG? IN HOUSE? HOW MANY TIMES? In the attic! (Not) making a porno! S**t you're IN A CAR. There are DOGS running at you. What do you do? DRIVE OFF A CLIFF! (almost) F**K THE DOG IS IN THE WINDOW. The dogs whelps are possibly the best thing about the film. Yep. love interest died. No one cares. NIGGA GONE MISSING. No one cares. On a boat. No one cares. OH S**T THEY HAVE DOG AIDS. THE END. FIN. Bare in mind I stopped writing the s**t that happened at the end. It was awful. Well they did get dog aids at the end. But before that it was simply s**t.


Why is it that some directors let us their name to promote bad movies, Do they get well payed or what? This movie here is an example of a bad one promoted by Wes Craven. It starts of pretty well with a couple getting lost at sea, seeing an island and getting ashore. The dump blond of course go wandering around in the forest and gets attacked by some dogs. The end of the girl. That really is the best part of this bad movie. Then we see the arrival of friends, and of course they got beaten by the breed. First of all, there isn't anything spectacular in this movie, no gore, almost no blood no suspense. What we get is a lot of blah blah and some showing off of the skills of Rodriguez. You can see the killings coming from miles away. Why the dogs are on the island is silly. When an arrow hits the leg of a girl there's no blood running and in the next scene's she's just walking and running around. Well Wes, if you still are promoting those kind of horrors then surely this will be your last appearance on the set, got it?


OK, so i'm not the biggest horror fan in the world. I'll admit. usually i find the paper thin plots and laughable acting too much to bare. The only horror movies i can think of recently that have impressed me were 'The Devils Rejects' and '1408' - and this movie just completely reinstates my thoughts on why i generally avoid horrors. Lets see. First up they choose mans BEST friend as the 'monsters' - NO. Then they decide to stick with the ever familiar "5 teens lost 'somewhere' plot - NO. They used REAL, ORDINARY dogs - NO. Come on Wes, i mean Jesus...at least try and mean 'em up a little bit. Coming off the back as such repellent crap as 'Cursed' (A werewolf that flips people off? Kill me now) it's no wonder this was a tad on the dire side. What made it even more pathetic was some of the actions performed by the placid characters. Why on earth other people reviewing this film are saying they acted 'Real' in those situations is beyond me. Heres where we get into spoilerville...

1) John is an excellent marksman, yet he manages to miss one dog randomly and hit a girls leg even though every other shot in the movie he makes is dead on. Not to mention the fact he has a sack load of arrows and a whole bunch of times he could have simply started picking the dogs off one by one. But no, that'd be too easy.

2) The car in the garage that has been sat rusting for years works first time they try and then....surprise surprise. Not when they need it.

3) The dogs can climb on board a planes wing, but not over a little fence.

4) At one point, this guy (yeah...i didn't care enough to remember his name) has 20 baying dogs on him as he rushes to the car, yet, finds time to take his jacket off (an attack PROTECTION jacket) before he gets in the car? Why, oh why?

5) You're on an island, full of killer dogs, driving a car you know they can easily jump on and in. Yet you leave the F'ing windows down? come on now.

6) They drop the bow (retardedly) and pass by the same direction they dropped it on the way back to the house (NOT being pursued at this point). Do they think to check and grab it? Nah....too easy.

7) The black guy dies first. *Sighs*

8) They know the dogs can break into there house, as they had done before. Yet they still decide to stay downstairs and have a PARTY? *Sighs again*

9) The ending.....oh lordy lord, the ending...they had serious options for a semi-entertaining ending. The guys could have gone nuts and turned on each other like fighting dogs then Michelles character. They could have both just turned on Michelle, they could have let them been saved and then showed the virus spreading to another place. No, they went the James Bond route. I was half expecting Odd Job to jump out and start swinging bowler hats at people.

10) Just...ahhhhhh! How annoying are you people!

So yeah.....If you like your horrors full of cute pets that are a little bit mean to people, actors that need a slap in the face for even attempting any realism, the stupidest scenarios you can imagine and one liners that would make Arnie the govenator cringe, this is your movie.

There's worse movies out there (Strangers with candy anyone?) but as far as movies go this is pure drivel. I work at Blockbusters and got this rental for free. Do NOT part with any cash for this film. In fact, steal it, and burn it. Michelle....sort it out love. And Wes...If you don't make another Nightmare On Elm Street soon your reputation in the horror business is as good as (the living) dead.

Avoid.


This movie is a disaster from beginning to end and I justify my summary because even though it is suppose to be a terror movie there is not terror anywhere. The idea that normal looking dogs could ever be scary enough just by showing their teeth is something that beggars belief. Even if a genetic experiment was done on the dogs the movie is not scary at any point and look ridiculous. But there is something far worse and more sinister in this movie. We know they are good friends but it happens that once one of them falls victim to the dogs nobody really seems to care and they are left to their own luck. For instance, the black guy once he is bitten by two dogs in the cellar they don't seem even to try to rescue him from the dogs they shut the door and let the dogs finish him off or the guy they find in the woods wounded is left to be eaten by the dogs. This film is not believable at all and has many flaws. Why doesn't anybody grab a kitchen knife? I will not waste any more time on this review, I'll just sum it up. The plot is stupid, the idea ridiculous, not scary at all and full of flaws, discontinuity, badly written and thought out. My vote has to be 1 out of 10.


At first, I was all hyped up to see this film, mainly because I am a fan of Michelle Rodriguez. I have nothing bad to say about her, Taryn Manning on the other hand, well, let's just say that she must have had sex with all the right people to even have a career in show business because I just don't get it. What the hell is she doing here? The woman just plain sucks! With the exception of Michelle Rodriguez, this entire movie has the worst cast, the worst crew, and the dumbest story ever pulled out of a writer's butt! My advice: All fans of Michelle Rodriguez should watch this movie at home with the sound turned all the way down, because watching her is the only true enjoyment this dud of a movie has to offer, And That's All There Is Too It...


It seems likely that the only thing getting 'The Breed' off the shelves is the lure of it's young cast, and in particular, its co-stars Michelle Rodgriguez and Oliver Reed. Or, at least it might suffice, as the random date movie title for younger viewers. For all else, The Breed, is little more than a template horror movie that, although has the rare incentive of decent acting, offers extremely limited thrills or even decent writing.

The story centers on a group of friends--two of them being brothers--who return to their uncle's old cabin on some forested island, unaware that it is infested with a pack of vicious dogs that have either contracted a furious case of rabies or have escaped a genetic experiment (the writers seem to have a hard time deciding on which they'd rather go with, despite the stupidity in character's reasoning for the former). And that is essentially what the eighty some minutes of screen time boils down to--escaping the dogs. And of course, all that follows is from beginning to end is completely standard from the black guy getting killed first to the divergent brothers forced settle their differences when their lives depend on it.

It's quite the forgettable movie.


try doing the whole story for real much was left out of Griffith's life,Many parts missing and credit given where none is due.How do you interview a wife who only stayed for 5 months what did she know? Nothing and a grown man trying to get passed off as an adopted son please give me a break wake up and smell the coffee.Is everyone punch drunk?Get the real story thats worth telling.Much was missing from this mans life his mother was the driving force behind him and the only mention she got was did Griffith remember when she died? Emile was in the hospital for one month ask who was with him every day morning and night?When i hear the whole story then I will rate that story and not until then.


Considering that this bad episode followed another horrid episode (the one about the crew fighting it out at the OK Corral), it was obvious that the quality of the show was starting to slip. Despite the one very glowing review so far, it must be hard for readers to know what to make of the show since they only two reviews are polar opposites. Read on and decide for yourself.

The Enterprise respond to a distress call which turns out to be a trap by some Klingons. Through some odd coincidences that few seem to question, many Klingons are beamed aboard the Enterprise and an all-out war erupts--complete with swords and other ancient weapons. All the phasers magically have disappeared and the decks have been sealed off sort of like an arena. And, when people die, they magically heal themselves and fight on and on and on--all to the delight of a spinning ball of light that looks like it was created by spinning a prism. Eventually, Kirk is able to get himself out of his battle frenzy that was imposed by the spinning ball and convinces everyone to just be pals and laugh the problem away--at which point, brotherhood and the chorus of KUMBAYA drive away the evil force and all is back to normal (okay, the "Kumbaya" thing didn't happen--but it was almost THAT bad!). I feel myself gagging as I type--yecch what a preachy and stupid episode. It sure could have been better if they had kept the plot but given it some decent resolution that wasn't so cloying as well as better special effects to represent the creature. This is probably in the top five of the worst Star Trek episodes.


Jane Wyman and Allen Jenkins team up as the reporter/detective pair in their first but also the series final episode. Wyman looks great but simply does not have the wisecracking hard-boiled presence of the annoying Glenda Farrell. Jenkins is fair but Barton MacLane is better.

As in the rest of the series and many other films of this type, the amateur is a necessary component of bringing the criminal to justice. Torchy goes undercover in jail and on the lam in order to meet up with the notorious Denver Eddie. By the end of the movie she is in the arms of fiancé Detective Lieutenant Steve McBride.

Tom Kennedy steals most of the movie by playing a former Navy wrester turned policeman. In reality Tom was a boxer and he carries off his match as Harry the Horse with Bone Crusher (played by Tiny Roebuck in his final on-screen performance) with good comedic style. If you have ever wondered what the protagonists in a wrestling match say to each other while they are otherwise locked into their imposing holds, watch this movie.


Wow - this movie is unbelievable. The tone of the whole thing is so Jeckyl and Hyde - you have to laugh. The film opens with grave quotes from law enforcement experts on how teen gangs are the "corrosive acid to our society" and so on, and then the movie opens with a bunch teen gang members driving around to a song so non-threatening, so soft, so flaccid that it is unintentionally hilarious. The song "Baby, Slow Down" sounds like soft rock that even Firefall wouldn't sing.But the best part is the lead role - this guy is supposed to be this dangerous, seething guy capable of rape, murder, etc. and the "actor" who plays Cat looks like he should be singing Godspell or Joseph & The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. He's blonde, blue eyed and slightly effeminate - so its a riot when he's threatening black drug dealers or knife wielding Mexicans - this is the kind of movie where some of the supposed high schoolers are played by people who look thirty (like the guys in shower who are knifed). One interesting side note - a young John Ashton plays a high school coach who might have "seen something" - he's easily the best actor in the film (and there is plenty of bad acting) but Ashton went on to big hits like Beverly Hills Cop (he's Judge Reinholds, grumpy partner) and Midnight Run (where he's the sleazy bounty hunter competing with DeNiro). The film is filled with wimpy guys doing Grease talk, mixed in with Bowery Boys and yet some harsh violence. A mess. A weird mess.


This is without doubt one of the worst films I have ever seen. Almost everything about it is awful, especially the editing. This is no exaggeration. Watch something like Nosferatu, which was made in 1922, and then watch this, made over 50 years later and wonder why editing technology hasn't advanced in such a large period of time. The only thing this film is good for is that it's so bad you may have wet yourself by the end (which is crap, as if you had to be told). One of the worst films ever.


The first live action cartoon based film with Walther Matthau and little Mason Gamble is quite amusing, and this was straight-to-video sequel attempt. Basically Dennis Mitchell (Liar Liar's Justin Cooper) still causes misery for old neighbour George Wilson (Toy Story's Don Rickles), his wife Martha (Betty White) likes her and keeps reminding him he's a child. Mr. Wilson wishes Dennis could bother another old man, and along comes Grandpa (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot's George Kennedy) to take him out a little bit, but it is obvious he doesn't have as much time as he thought. Mr. Wilson isn't just worrying about how Dennis will make his life misery, he is worried that he is ageing too quickly, and cons the Professor (Brian Doyle-Murray) and Sylvester (Scott 'Carrot Top' Thompson) who in various disguises are trying to trick him into giving them loads of his money. Dennis meanwhile is not only causing chaos for Mr. Wilson and one or two other people in the neighbourhood, but he can't rid of "girlfriend" Margaret (Jacqueline Steiger), who wants to marry him. Dennis catches on to the con artists sponging off Mr. Wilson, and he saves the day in the end, and Mr. Wilson sees that Dennis does have his good side, for about ten minutes. Also starring Dwier Brown as Henry Mitchell, Heidi Swedberg as Alice Mitchell and Spy Kids' Alexa Vega as Gina. Cooper might be cute as the disaster prone little troublemaker, and the sequence where he tries to wash a car with candy floss mix instead of pink soap was amusing, but young Steiger is like the four-eyed equivalent of Annie, i.e. irritating, and it is a dull story, unfunny and just an overall boring family comedy. Pretty poor!


Is this movie ever horrifyingly awful. The first one was absolutely great and I can't believe they bothered with this and thought they could pass it off as a DTM movie. Don Rickles sucks as an actor and sucks even worse as Mr. Wilson. The kid playing Dennis is atrocious as him and this movie is just so over the top fake and unrealistic beyond forgiveness. It is already a very short movie and the length it is is already too long. To say it's not as good as the first is so far beyond an understatement it's ridiculous. Stay as far away from this piece of puke as humanly possible. Giving it a 2 is already being quite generous and that's right near the absolute bottom.


This is a movie directed at young children (I watched it with my little brother), who will eat up the slapstick and inept adults. If you have seen the first contemporary version starring Mason Gamble, don't see this. Justin Cooper ("Liar,Liar" and "Home Alone 3") in not even half as good as was Gamble in the first.

This movie would be totally worthless if not for the cinematography of Christopher Faloona. He uses strange camera angles (lots of overhead shots) and employs some cool tricks with the focus. This is the only thing that kept me from rating this movie a 1.

My Grade: 2


the first one was bad enough , why didnt they quit while they were ahead?? and the thing i dont get, if its a sequel.. whats with all the characters being played by different actors in this one???

i only seen part of it . but it was SO stupid that i changed the channel....


the first one was so cute. not one of the original actors returned for the sequel. it really doesn't even have a plot. there's nothing likable about rickles' mr. Wilson, unlike the walter matthau character in the original. and the dennis character can't hold a candle to the first! the 2 crooks in this are just plain silly. betty white is fine as mr.s Wilson, but we don't even get to know her. and the characters of dennis' parents are so wooden, they could have just used cardboard cutouts instead. the margaret character was just plain silly. i don't even know why they wasted their time to make a sequel. please don't waste your time with this stinker.


Producers of Vaastu-Shastra warns: it you watch this film we shall not be responsible means that if you regret after watching it, blame it yourself as we already warned you. Final word, watch it at your own risk.

Nothing much in the name of story-a couple, writer-husband (why he is shown a writer? don't know) and doctor-wife (why is she a doctor-don't know ?) with their little son and a sister-in-law comes to stay at a deserted house in the middle of a jungle. Perfect setting for chills and thrills. Why they need to come down to a place 20 km away from city, again don't know ? Now that house is haunted. Ghosts make frequent visits and some befriends the little boy, why only boy, don't know ? First the boy's evil-intentioned governess gets killed by ghosts. Later, Sister-in-law's boyfriend gets killed by ghosts and so is sister, when they are secretly mating in the house. In the end, an entire force of all dead people (Ghosts) appears to kill all those who are alive. Now if sole intention of the Ghosts is to kill the inhabitants of that house then why they waited till 2 hours of movie's running time, and get to work only in the climax. That's not all. There is even an insane man (Rajpal Yadav, now when is the last he played a sane character ?) who continuously warns about haunted house but is ignored by all. Why this character is needed, don't' know ? There is a ghostly tennis ball who does things on its own but later where it vanishes nobody knows ? For horror factor, there are some scary faces with loads of heavy makeup and lighting, but that's about it.

The biggest suspense in the film is why it is named Vaastu-shastra, which you will not able to crack even when the film is over. Immensely talented debutant director Saurabh Usha Narang (see his episodes of Haqeeqat on Sahara One TV) and even the cameraman Sachin K Krishn not able to erect a better narrative on this deadly (or dead) plot. Merely, a noisy sound track (Ajay Kumar-Kunal Mehta) and a haunting score (Amar Mohile) can't hold the audience for about 2.10 hrs. The content level is low in the film. Performances just passes muster. There are no songs in the film and they are not needed also.

At one place you find some relevance, when you see the name of production company The Factory. Indeed it is an assembly line product on the lines of previous Raat, Bhoot, Darna Mana Hai etc.

Read another warning from producers- if Bhoot scared you, this one kill you ? Well Bhoot definitely scare never mind if the narrative is thin but is properly packed with all gimmicks of a horror flick but this one sorry to say kills only your expectations but yes it might kill your factory Mr. Producer if you continuously churn out such flicks. Now this is a warning from a concerned viewer, are you listening ?