Think about Haneke films, some other films that have been interpreted as a criticism of middle class, upper class or bourgeoisie, city life, suburban life, family institution and think about some horror movies which have been seen in the same way which has become a trend now. This is a sick, but for them pleasant fantasy, isn't it? In such movies, middle class, upper class deserve being murdered, being raped, being tortured, getting pain. This puts a smile on some people's face. They see red. Apart from everything, this is anti humanism that sorry, but I don't weigh in with. In Haneke movies, one of the main messages is wake up! They say. Who should wake up for what? Middle class and upper class are evil? Middle class and upper class are disgusting creatures? City life is unbearable, so kill yourself if you live in a city, because you are pathetic and realize! your life consists of repetitious actions? City life makes you isolated and unhappy? Wake up! Those people draw a parallel between lambs and people, if they behave like a conformist or forget about being conformist, if you are not interested in such things, if you are not against everything, then you are a lamb. Not finished yet. Obviously, as we see from reviews of Haneke movies, being educated is pathetic either. Some make fun of it and they love movies which make fun of it. Good. And job absurdity. In T. S. C. some reviews write that the father has a good job, but it is monotonous, so it drags him to a disaster. Can we draw a conclusion like having a job is in their black list either? Yes. What is the point then? I will tell you: hate. Class conflict, Marksizm... In T. S. C. in Haneke movies, all the members of middle class and upper class are punished including the families who live from hand to mouth, including civil servants etc. A deadly bourgeoisie enmity. If you live in a city, you are from middle class, you are evil, if you have money, even if you turn an honest penny, you are evil. Think about the ending of T. S. C. It makes some people cheered up. Is this reasonable? I get bored of this. The movie is a criticism of suburban life, it stresses that suburban life is monotonous. Always the same. T. S. C. stresses that middle class and upper class consume, consuming is important in bourgeoisie life, the film criticizes consumer society. All living organisms consume in order to survive, not only human being, also animals and plants. Yes, you know these, but it seems that they don't. A middle or upper class family go on holiday and they are tortured physically and psychologically. George A. Romero is like Haneke. They interpreted his fourth zombie movie, Land of the Dead as a criticism of middle class and upper class. Zombies devour rich people. Enjoy! Rich or not, yuppie or not, townsmen or countrymen, civil servant or bank employer, these people enjoy watching the slaughter of people who they hate. And what about vilifying family institution and marriage institution? The Seventh Continent hates all. If a movie is not against these institutions, so does not criticize, then it means that the movie is conservative. What a ridiculous viewpoint! May be so that they symbolizes system. Le Charme Discret de la Bourgeoisie. It was an entertaining surreal drama, a work of art, a masterpiece and also a movie which everyone interprets differently, to me no message, but according to those people, no, it makes fun of middle class, it makes fun of their lives, their personalities. How miserable their lives are, how stupid they are. It is a satire. They view movies with a jaundiced eye, from dialogs, characters and images, they find hundreds of messages. Of course T. S. C. is not a quintessential art as Bunuel's work, besides it is extremely malicious. I remember the well dressed man with hat who sings song in the rain in 1952 and joy of living he has. And I know that how Haneke and his followers see him.


I, quite unfortunately, viewed this film in a film class I am currently enrolled in at Hunter College. As a preface to this film, as well as other Michael Haneke films, my professor declared Haneke as one of her favorite filmmakers, and discussed several film-making techniques (such as the use of the long take, as well as other realistic elements that were supposed to serve the story better) that Haneke offered in his films. I, being a fan of such techniques (and having used some of them in my own films), was slightly excited. However, I then saw this film.

This movie was horrendous. The beginning of the film, taking place in a car wash, was interesting. It grabbed my attention. Instantly, my mind started reeling: what was this? Was this related to what I was about to see? Was this the culmination of the rest of the story? Was I seeing the ending first? And, possibly most importantly, was I seeing a symbolic reference to what this movie stood for?

At the end of the film, I felt something deep inside me. However, instead of it being that truly remarkable and unmistakable feeling of seeing something that genuinely affected you as a person, filmmaker, artist or moviegoer, it was the kind of feeling that triggered the violent, savage part of me that desired to do little else than find Michael Haneke and tear his insides out with a pitchfork. This film lacked, in all sense of the word, coherency, from the first scene to the last.

I understand the concept of "realism," as well as the widely influential style of film-making inspired and, in some ways, birthed by the French new wave. However, this film was attempting to do something that it failed in every respect in doing: it did not seem realistic, the acting was overdone and completely implausible, it offered little to no explanation as to half of the film's plot (a.k.a. why was the girl so distraught, and why was the husband so mentally disassociated?), the directing was far from impressive, the story was boring (and I rarely use the word "boring," but it frankly was), the last thirty minutes or so were beyond ridiculous (with little explanation offered), and the final shot of the film was, to admittedly sound sophomoric (I guess mimicking the film), horrendous.

Skip this film, or burn the negative, and go watch a film by Lars von Trier, Gus van Sant, or Inarritu. Good luck.


This didn't work for me. Haneke might be a master of making the audience feel bad during watching. I wouldn't say I only like films with a happy end. But this so cold and without tension. So cold it hurts. And eventually makes you feel sick. The emotions in the film are of the dark side. 'The Piano Teacher' is even stronger, and would be recommended prior to this film. 'The Seventh Continent' gives rise to several questions without answers, and without letting you try to answer them. It's slow and boring; I had a hard time trying to focus on the film instead of thinking of other things. The scenes fit loosely together and it's by far too many close-ups for my taste; the whole film is filmed in a short-range perspective.

Wouldn't recommend the movie to anyone except those interested in the subject. 2/5


If for no other reason one should view this movie as a perfect example one two things. First being why you should not let an actor of questionable talent write, produce, and star in his own film. Second would be how not to make a movie...period. I suppose I'll give Rick Yune an "A" for effort seeing as how he wrote the story, produced the film, and starred in it. That's got to take a lot of work. That does not, however, excuse his lackluster performance and the stinted dialogue of the lead and pretty much all characters. Even Keith David, a talented character actor who almost always seems to pick lousy roles, couldn't do much even with the rather limited time he's on screen. In the time Yune spent putting his name all over this thing he could've done things like...oh, I don't know...learned how work with a fight choreographer. The young Chance, played by the ridiculously-named-but-very-talented young martial artist Boo Boo Stewart, wastes his time impressing with his skills early. Then Yune pitches all of that out the window by displaying the martial arts skills of a bag of hammers. What action sequences there are do not come off as anything special and some almost yawn-inducing. Sadly this movie could have been a showcase for the potential of more than just Yune, but it trips out of the gate and just continues falling farther and farther back until you don't even care how it ends. Well, at least I didn't.


I really like Rick Yune and it really isn't easy rating the movie that low. But I just can't rate the movie higher. As another reviewer wrote, you could give Rick Yune an "A" for his efforts. But it might have been better, if someone else would have written the story, someone (many?) would have helped him with the producing part and maybe if the movie had stronger leads.

The acting is way below average, but then again, the script doesn't seem to have anything that anyone could hold onto. The female lead might be beautiful, but is totally misplaced. While I'm writing about all this, some of you might wonder, why I haven't lost a word about the action sequences. After all this is an action movie and the really important part is the choreography of these scenes. I'd say that they save the movie from a "1" rating, but as the time and the stunts have progressed the last year, coming up with stunts like these, won't really cut it. There's Ong Bak, Tom Yum Goong and also Donnie Yen's and Jet Li's latest efforts. Even for a fan of the genre, this won't appeal to you. I hope for Rick Yune, that he finds better projects in the future.


I was really mentally fatigued so i decided to spend the evening with something mindless, just dribble in fact. It turned out more than i expected but less than what i wanted it to be. Rick Yune if given a chance IE, left the writing to professionals and concentrating his efforts on his acting, has a real potential to be ranked amongst Chow Yun Fat and those type of actors, but his skill has to improve, as well as his close hand combat choreography. They attempted a hand to hand scene trying to pull off the Bourne and Asset fight off in the last movie, but it was too messy and not visually fluid like you would have expected. Clichéd dialogue and plot tears this movie to shreds. I mean Van Damme, Snipes, Lundgren have all exhausted this regurgitated storyline and see what happened to them. I must say the editing was OK for a bad movie. The girls were sexy as in any B movie, but i don't think we will ever see the lead actress (? Ramirez)again as her performance was so unrealistic and paper thin. She is an Ashanti type artist. She carries a 9mm in her stockings while she is in concert, i mean come on. I am an avid movie goer and this movie gave me an opportunity to exercise my movie analytic skills, eg what bad fight choreography looks like, or what a script should avoid etc etc. So much for a mindless evening, ironic isn't it.


When i heard of this movie, it was very promising,like Bangkok dangerous or sort of.But hell no.The movie begins confusing and you actually don't get the right idea of the characters.The the plot goes even more confusing at the concert and keeps it's way of lame events all the way to the end.The boss-fight at the end is total OMG the collateral dmg guy was supposed to use some kind of sharp weapon not a kung fu pan.For those who don't know there are a lot of way cooler weapons in kung fu.By the way i've always thought that the evil mean guy in any movie shouldn't do kung fu, because it's kinda a defensive matrial art and it's philosophy is quite calming and purifying and he is a f**king psycho.The ending is lame as expected.I was expecting some kind of Big Hit ending where "main" hero was supposed to grab the girl after dealing with the mean dude, but no the makers of this had better idea:she keeps on singing some sappy pop-trash and he is somewhere.Rofl really... If after all this you've red you still want to watch the movie better rent it from some tormented soul


Nails, directed by Russian Andrey Iskanov, is about a hit-man unable to cope with the daily life. The leading character tries Vodka and pills but nothing will do the trick. At one time, unable to sleep, he stumbles on a magazine that inspires him to drive nails through the brain. And that's basically it. The first part of the movie is rather good - grey sweeping footage over suburbia accompanied by monotone instrumental music sets the mood effectively. A mood-setter is also the fact that there is no dialog in this part of the movie either, almost like an old journal film. However, as the film progresses the story gets old. The running time is about 1 hour which is about 30 minutes too long. The FX are not very convincing, although may be unpleasant for the casual horror fan.

If you want gore you'll probably will be disappointed. However, if you want surrealism, you'll probably like it a lot. Myself, I like my horror horrifying and my gore extreme. If I want surrealism a prefer other genres.


His movies are a complete rip-off, they fail on all levels. This guy has absolutely no talent, he does not understand the concept of surrealism, he makes self-indulgent, extremely amateurish no-budget films and thinks of himself as a big artist and drops big surrealist/horror names on his DVDs, e.g. Alejandro Jodorowsky. Sorry buddy, but these shoes will never fit you, no matter how hard you try.

He has no idea of how to direct, how to set light, use the camera, of timing etc. Only the score is sometimes interesting, but not subtle.

The guy who plays the hit-man looks like an 18 year old and has - of course - absolutely no acting talent, he even grins his way to some of the gore scenes. The story is nothing else than a bold statement without anything on the screen to support it. The gore and horror looks like its been done from 14 years old fan boys, I don't know how people can be disturbed or shocked by this ridiculous joke of a movie.

The same goes for Iskanov's "Visions of Suffering", its even more boring and filled with pathetic random imagery, which has absolutely nothing to do with surrealism or artistic expression, its just clumsy and shallow.

Don't waste your money or time on releases of this guy, he's just not capable to deliver anything interesting now or in the future but is a loudmouth playing around with big topics like Japanese Unit 731. Gosh! Get a life, Mr. Iskanov.


I went from cautiously liking this film in the first 40 minutes to despising it in the last hour or so. The schmaltzy sentimentality accumulates and creeps up on you, until towards the end you feel overdosed on insincerity to the point of nausea. The emotion portrayed is utterly hollow and manipulative in its dishonesty. By apparently trying to copy/compete with Hollywood at its most disingenuous, this film surpasses the worst of Hollywood hypocrisy.

There is plenty of style in the technical aspects of the film-making, but for all the "realistic" computer graphics recreating the city of Tokyo in 1958, no amount of vacuous slickness can give any honesty, reality or authenticity to the people and situations. The empty "rebirth symbolism" of the construction of the tower is an appropriate reflection of the empty film itself; is the film's soullessness symptomatic of the soullessness of the country's "rebirth" since the destruction of 60 years ago?


I understand that some people love such retro film. But I think this film not at all a good example of the genre.

There are good films in this genre--"The Sting",for example. In good retro films authors don't rely upon the nostalgic atmosphere,which is different by nationalities and which can not at all be the main problem of filmmakers. Good retro films have original, well-composed interesting stories and good actors, who can keep silent or simply walk around with absolute authenticity of the roles.

And of course, director of this genre must understand that retro films are stylized genre in the end, because naive admiration of the past may easily turn into a conservative, nationalistic political manifesto(Really the campaign for this film's domestic sales,including DVD release, gradually have got such nuance, saying "We are happy to have been born in Japan"!).

Not one of these important points was kept in mind or resolved by the authors of this film.

As a results,this film seems very naive. The story is banal, actors are too easily overacting,and the worst of all, there are plenty of CG images, without which good directors could have told the same story more effectively.


Obviously a film like this is destined to have a fanbase. While I absolutely found it truly awe-inspiringly dreadful, that same feeling I had as I sat through it will be a reverse for those who love absolute trash which is what this is. I never had a clue anyone could make such an inept hunk of crap and pass it off as funny. The plot, as incredibly(and messily)convoluted as it is, is about some Aztec glass skull which seemingly grants powers. Jesse and Charlie, two buddies living in a house that has rooms which lead to other times or alternate universes or whatever the hell these rooms lead to, decide to dig up dear old Gramps(played by Royal Dano, covered head to toe in dead make-up). Gramps is the holder of the skull, but certain beings from the alternate universe rooms each desire to covet the skull. So it's up to Jesse and Charlie to keep the skull from the hands of those willing to take it. The film has a nemesis of Gramps, nicknamed Slim who was the one that killed Jesse's parents in the opening of the film. Bill Maher has a small role that fits him like a glove..he plays the head of a record company who desires to have Kesse's woman and finds a way thanks to Rochelle, an old flame from his past. Due to bad luck, Jesse loses his girl, Kate, to Maher who finds that Rochelle, for some odd reason, is hidden in a cabinet. How a drunken Rochelle got there is a mystery(the one Jesse actually put in there was Gramps who, coincidentally found a button which revolves the wall of the cabinet), but Jesse loses Kate anyways. So Maher, playing the scumbag ohh so perfectly drives off with Kate and her bags while Jesse and Charlie commence prying the skull away from a Ptierodactyl. Yep, the skull was taken by a caveman who carries it to his jungle(in one of those rooms in the house). As Charlie was about to be bashed by the caveman, this giant dinosaur eats him. So they are able to get the skull just to lose it to a Ptierodactyl who drops it off on a high tree nest. And on and on the absurdity goes. There's a tribe of men who steal the skull from Gramps when he had just gotten it back thanks to Charlie and Jesse's "trading" a piece of raw meat for the skull(the Ptierodactyl actually enters the world from his jungle as does a caterpillar dog! when Jesse falls off the tree trying to pry the skull away from the friggin' bird). Soon Charlie and Jesse(with the aide of Ratzenberger, as an electrician/adventurer)have to battle the ancient tribe for the skull and save a potential female sacrifice in the long run. Shall I go one? There's eventually a showdown between Slim and Jesse for the rights to the skull and the cops come a callin' when gun shots are heard. Slim tries to shoot Jesse(but his head is gone when Jesse shoots it off with a shotgun)and hits a policeman outside instead commencing in a round of fire into the house burning it down. Jesse and crew wind up in the old west and get to bury Gramps who dies after Slim shoots him. This film, as I have tried somehow to describe above, is absolutely absurd. It's a junkpile of ideas cobbled together in the hopes that something entertaining might spawn from it and never does. You have this house who abilities are never explained. How come these rooms are a gateway into other times? Beats me. Why is there a caterpillar with a dog's head or an Aztec skull with powers to keep Gramps alive? So many goofy questions, and such little motivation by me to care. A disaster for which I consider one of the worst films of the 1980's.


This is one of the worst movies ever made. The first "House" was great. one of the first comedy/horror films. You really have an adventure inside of that "House", which was a normal two story house. This house thought is gigantic, and full of portals to other worlds. The two heroes are very weak. The plot is lame and boring. There is a zombie cowboy who is supposed to be funny, and he's horrible. He's watching TV in one scene, and sees Ronald Reagan (at that time the President) in an old film, and starts going on and on about how Reagan is a "sissy". This is a guy who just entered the eighties after being somewhat dead since the 1800s and he has a liberal left wing bent. Or... maybe it was the writer of the film displaying his political agenda on his sleeve, as happens so much, and always against the right. It's how things are, and people like myself have to take it, take it, and take it some more. This film is horrible. Really bad. There is no plot, bad acting. It looks like it was made straight to video.


This House tale has nothing to do with the first "House" of a couple of years earlier and doesn't really qualify as a sequel even as it tries to capture some of that same wry humor, but it doesn't stand well on its own, being mostly non-sensical. Plot has to do with another house, this one with Aztec-influenced architecture, also with other-dimensional passages now and then. Some ghost or demon has been after a special skull for unknown reasons, killing the main character's parents 25 years earlier. The main character (Gross) goes after the jewel-covered skull by digging up an ancestor's grave and ends up resurrecting his great great grandpa (Dano) as a 100+ year old zombie. The pic then dwells on this old dude in unfunny scenes, but Gross and his buddy (Stark) also show why they never had great careers in the movies. The cast is uniformly lame throughout. It also all seems to be an excuse to have a few scenes in a prehistoric jungle, with brief dinosaur FX. Bill Maher shows up in a small role; he made his mark later in his Politically Incorrect & HBO shows. Oddly enough, the main connection to the previous film is that another actor from the "Cheers" TV show plays a part (Ratzenberger here; Wendt in the first one). The old guy's nemesis finally shows up near the end, still after that skull. It's all poorly paced and exceedingly dull, failing at the humor and just plain stupid - unless you're 6 or 7 years old, maybe.


As hard as it is to troll through all the years of terrible films I've seen, I do not think it is unreasonable to say that House II is the single worst movie i have ever seen. It was worse than the first one even.

The film starts semi promisingly with a couple moving into a massive mansion, which looks like a castle. In the middle of the night Jess can't sleep, so he gets up and wanders around. After hearing a sound, he explores, and the dud jump scene ruins any hope of some good horror. From this point onwards the film becomes awash in the sort of feeble storyline and bad acting that leaves the audience screaming in frustration. The plot flies follows no apparent path, and the action leaps from pre-historic settings, to Aztecs, back to reality, to the wild west so quickly that one wonders how the film received funding at all.

The reason I did not give this film 1 out of 10 is because it did have some moments of comedy, both physically and verbally. Unfortunately there is absolutely no horror, and what little comedy there is quickly falls flat. This film is a waste of both the $1.50 per month rental fee and the 88 minutes spent watching.


House II: The Second Story starts with with a scene where two people are shot dead by a mysterious figure in a large house just after they hand their young baby over to someone or other, I don't really know who or care to be honest. An on screen caption now informs us that it's '25 Years Later'. Jesse (Arye Gross) & his girlfriend Kate (Lar Park-Lincoln) move in, the two people shot & killed earlier in the film just happen to be Jesse's parents. Precisely why Jesse has decided to move in now is unclear to me, I mean wouldn't the house have changed hands or had new owners in the space of 25 years?, but once again I'm really not bothered in the slightest bit so just accept it. Jesse's friend Charlie (Jonathan Stark) & his girlfriend Jana (Amy Yasbeck) also move in as well. While doing some research Jesse discovers that his great great Grandfather was a notorious outlaw in the wild west famous for stealing a crystal skull. Jesse, by some stupid reasoning, thinks that the valuable crystal skull maybe buried with his great great Grandfather's corpse & together with Charlie decides to dig him up. As luck would have it the crystal skull was indeed buried with Jesse's great great Grandfather & even luckier that no one else had thought to look for it there... However it seems that the crystal skull has magical powers & Jesse's great great Grandfather, who thankfully for my typing finger likes to know as just Gramps (Royal Dano), is alive. Jesse & Charlie take Gramps back to the house & Gramps tells them the story of the magical crystal skull, unfortunately it's very boring & uninteresting so I won't bother retelling it here. All you need to know in a nutshell is that the crystal skull has magical powers & the house was built as a temple to it & various people & creatures throughout time & space want it including Gramps old partner in crime Slim (Dean Cleverdon). Jesse & Charlie feel they must protect the skull from all these evil people & things, the end. Wrtten & directed by Ethan Wiley I didn't think that much of House II: The Second Story at all. The script is a bit of a mess as it tries, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to cross various genres like western, horror, comedy, fantasy & adventure with unsatisfactory results on all fronts. The characters are silly as are the monsters & situations the film creates, I mean what's that electrician guy Bill (John Ratzenbereger) all about? I thought he was one of the most stupid characters I've come across in a film for some time. It moves along at a fair pace but I wasn't really that interested in anything or anyone. The two main leads seem to be having a contest over who can come across the most annoying & it's a pretty tough call at the end of the day as they both obviously put a lot of effort into winning. There's no blood or gore & the only horror element is the rotten zombie Slim who looks quite good but isn't in the film that much, I also liked Slim's zombie horse as well. Talking of Slim's zombie horse the special effects on it are poor, as are most of the special effects in House II: The Second Story in fact, although as I've already said the zombie Slim looked good. On a technical level House II: The Second story is fine, editing, photography, music & overall production values are adequate. The acting isn't so fine, those two male leads are just so annoying to watch it's untrue & they are definitely not funny in any way shape or form. Generally speaking House II: The Second Story was a bit of a waste of time as far as I'm concerned but it moves along nicely, it tries to be a little bit different & provided me with at least some entertainment, it was just a shame that the film ended up all rather pedestrian, tame & somewhat dull. Not really my cup of tea at all, I think I'll stick with the original House (1986) rather than opt for a move...


House 2 is not at all a sequel to the first one. Different story,different house, different actors. And this one is not as good as the first house. House 1 tried mixing humor with horror. This movie is just plain humor which is not even funny for most part and not least bit a horror movie. The whole plot and movie is goofy and rolls non stop action. If you loved wackiness of the movie "Big Trouble in Little China" then you may want to check this out. Otherwise one of the worst movies I ever saw.


The first HOUSE was a decently amusing horror-comedy, but nothing at all great. Wouldn't you know, this sequel couldn't live up to it even half-way. It's almost as if it didn't even try... A husband and wife move into his family-owned mansion and discover photographs of his great-great grandfather; one of which shows him holding a skull made of solid crystal and is said to hold all the powers of the universe. The grandson, along with his buddy, go and dig up his dead relative and find the skull, as well as the old man who is a living corpse (for some reason). They then just hang out with the mummified guy and try to protect the skull from intruders from other worlds as well as dinosaurs and blah blah blah... I didn't even find this movie good in a 'stupid' kind of way. Whoever decided to go through with the production of this must have been severely kicked in the head by an angry mule or something because, otherwise, there was absolutely no reason for this nonsense...


You learn everything new everyday. Had I never watched this film, I wouldn't have known the following; apparently, cavemen had perfectly sharpened and rounded metal knives and wore make-up; apparently, newborn pterodactyl(whatever the plural form of that word is) have feathers; apparently, if you called an electrician in the late 80's, you'd get a pushy and respect-less jackass who prints out a business card that says "electrician and adventurer". Seriously. The first was decent at best, this is just plain bad. No reason to sugar-coat it, no way around it, it's just bad. It shouldn't even be classified as 'horror', seeing as there are virtually no horror elements whatsoever in the film. The comedy elements are there, but they are just ridiculous and pitiful. The attempts at comic relief are so in-your-face and obvious that it's hard to sit through. The better part of the jokes and gags are cringe-worthy. The plot is nonsensical fantasy-babble. The acting is atrocious. The characters are paper-thin and poorly written. The dialog sounds like it was written by a child(and a mentally retarded one at that). The score is so unbelievably, unforgivably 80's that it's hard to listen to without screaming at the top of your lungs. The special effects are so ludicrously obvious and easy to figure out that one has to wonder if that's what they're supposed to be. The whole film doesn't really make even the slightest bit of sense on any conceivable level... I know this was just made for a laugh, but, for crying out loud, even the dumbest movies have some purpose(if absolutely nothing else, then at least to entertain). This doesn't seem to have any purpose at all(other than to successfully squeeze money out of what I suppose must have been somewhat of a box-office hit of a first movie of the franchise). I recommend this to... well, no one, I guess, except for possibly 80's movie freaks who may get a kick out of just how bad it is. Everyone else should avoid. 1/10


After reading a review on this film and seeing it for only £2, I thought "How could I go wrong???"

I was (unfortunatly) mistaken....

Didn't anybody else (apart from myself) think this film was just PATHETIC ?? How any body can call this a "horror, comedy or fantasy" is beyond me. The ONLY excuse this film has is that it was low budget and was made in 1987.

The are SO many 'goofs' in this film you wonder how they didn't notice them.

Personal opinion.......AVOID AT ALL COST !!


I don't like the House series. I think these films were created for teenagers who can't decide whether they wanna watch horror or comedy. But they don't realize the House films fail in both genres. Episode 3, wisely re-named the Horror Show, was an exception because it starred the great actor Brion James (may he rest in peace) He made this film enjoyable and also the story had more horror in it. House 2 is a very dull thing. Two lowlifes hunt down a mysterious skull to keep a 170 year old alive. One of them looks a little like a Jim Carrey clone and pulls very stupid faces all the time. The other one looks like he's 15 years old. Great combination...not ! The land in a jungle and they're being chased by prehistoric birds. I kid you not ! When they come back to the House, they notice a little winged creature came with them and so did something resembling a green dog...And that is supposed to be FUNNY ?!? Well, it sure ain't horror. Before I started writing this review, I spent some time reading all the other ones, written by my fellow IMDb'ers. A lot of those guys will tell you to watch this film because of the good and original story !! ... Now, I am really confused. Did they see a different film, if you give any importance what so ever to a story...you'll see this ain't a good one.


I like horror movies. I've seen a lot of them in my time, and House II has to be one of the worst attempts at the genre I have ever seen. The first film was weak enough, but to top it with this splattering of childish and irrelevent plot, characters and emotions, not to mention the rather stupid special effects, I found myself wondering why I had even bothered.

I remember when it first came out how the kids in my class at school were so excited by it. I never saw it then, but I can see how the average 11 year old of the time would find it funny. But for me, a seasoned horror buff, there was nothing even vaguely amusing, gorey, or even mildly violent about the film as a merit.

They call it Horror/comedy...is this just a way of excusing its lack of merit in the horror or comedy genres?

The only saving grace in the film was that the stunts were performed by Kane Hodder, who played 'Jason' in several of the "Friday the 13th" films, but even that is just a point of interest rather than an extra star to the film.

Boring, Bloodless, Unfunny. Don't even remotely consider it, even if you have a "get one free" voucher at your video store.


I have no idea why this movie has a higher rating then House 3 (a.k.a The Horror Show) which is actually quite good. .

House 2 is on the other hand is quite possibly one on the worst horror sequels you will ever see, if you don't believe me then try watching it..

1/5

IMO the original House and House 3 are the only good movies in the entire series.


my sister and i had all four movies in the "House" series and decided to have a "House" marathon.we had just watched the first one,and had somehow made it to the end.but it wasn't easy.it was not a good film, at all.so, we suffered through the second one in.we managed to make it through 40 minutes of this dog, before we finally had to put it to sleep.this movie made the first one seem like Shakespeare in comparison. the acting was atrocious,at best.the budget was next to nothing as was the first one.the whole plot was ludicrous,which is to be expected,but not to this degree.nobody would behave like these characters did,given the same situations. a low 2 *


Ethan Wiley, the script writer of both House 1 and 2, almost had something good going. He took the same basic plot of House and added strange, supposedly humorous things. The result is an annoyingly odd movie where events simply take place. Not only do these events not make sense, but they are not fun like the first movie. The cast is interesting, as it usually is with this type of movie. Johnathon Stark is a little amusing, Arye Gross(The Experts, Minority Report) is no cowboy, and Royal Dano(Killer Klowns From Outer Space, The Outlaw Josey Wales, The Trouble with Harry) adds nostalgia. Amy Yasbeck(Casey from "Wings"), Bill Maher(loud mouth), and John Ratzenberger("Cheers" with George Wendt) all play forgetable roles in this mostly forgetable sequel. I had to laugh when this movie got name checked in Scream 2.


This film is indeed horrible. It makes the first American Kickboxer movie look quite good, something it definitely is not. The problems are many. I can't remember one single fight scene/action scene which was even remotely memorable or exciting. The characters never caught my interesting, and I wished they would disappear from my TV screen. It seems to be made by a bunch of amateurs. Maybe it really was a high school project, where some Z-grade actors/models got hired and were told to do a couple of karate moves. That's simply not enough to make a martial arts movie. And why the title "American Kickboxer 2"? OK, it's set in America, but it has nothing to do with the first movie at all. (and was the American Kickboxer title something that could attract interest? Who had heard of the first movie anyway?).

A failure at everything it tries to achieve.


American Kickboxer David(Evan Lurie), a long haired, buff, black-belt pretty boy and a LAPD cop with a foul attitude, Mike Clark(Dale "Apollo" Cook)join forces to find the kidnapped daughter of a former flame, Lillian(Kathy Shower). They will encounter an army of thugs working for Lillian's own relative, Xavier(Ted Markland)not knowing that her current husband, Howard(..the late David Graf, Tackleberry of POLICE ACADEMY fame)is actually the mastermind behind the whole ordeal.

Lillian and her slimy Uncle Francis(Greg Lewis)were left her father's company fortune, a plumbing business, and Howard, the one who actually built it into a great success, wants the royalties. So Mike and David must fight off a vast number of scumbags using their martial arts skills(..and handguns at their disposal, when necessary) in order to do so.

When I was a teenager, my stepfather used to rent these bad action flicks all the time, and I would sneak into his room and snatch them while he was gone to work, watching them. Most of the story-lines resembled each other and were recycled all the time. Normally you'd have a team(..a duo or trio)of cops, equipped with superior fighting skills, often engaged in hand-to-hand combat or exchanging gunfire with drug-runners or dirty, underhanded criminal lowlifes of some sort. While the criminals had automatic weapons which could fire off an endless supply of ammunition, they couldn't hit their desired targets while the heroes, with only handguns, could shoot a few bullets and down the opposition almost immediately. In physical battles the heroes could be outnumbered five to one and wipe them out with ease. Yet, no matter how ridiculous these scenarios are, I couldn't help but enjoy them. The heroes, including our duo in "American Kickboxer 2", aren't chosen for their acting abilities or skills at "emoting", but were hired for either the way they look on screen or fighting capabilities.

I had forgotten about Kathy Shower, quite a looker in her heyday, often a fixture in softcore Cinemax erotica during the 90s. She is the young woman who is the center of the three main male characters in the film. The villains are basically stuntmen who walk on screen to fire their guns, getting shot on cue or receiving their customary ass whippings. Plenty of squibs are used as henchmen become bullet fodder. When you enter an early 90's movie, often an action product of the direct-to-video market, you should not expect a stirring emotional story-line or complex characterizations featuring multi-faceted performances..because you will be ultimately disappointed. Yet, if you surrender to the mind-numbing ineptitude of these derivative, oh-so familiar action plots, then maybe "American Kickboxer 2" might provide you with a bit of forgettable entertainment to waste away 90 minutes. As expected, we get the usual female throwaway dropping by to show off her breasts near the beginning of the movie, a student of martial artist David, showing how it's important to be buff, with fighting skills, if you want arm candy or to get laid. Like a great many of these low budget actioners, "American Kickboxer 2" was shot in the Phillipines.


Dale "Apollo" Cook stars as Mike a renegade cop who joins forces with a Karate instructor (Evan Lurie) to save the daughter that could be either one of them could be the father. Awful cinematography and poor acting make this one unwatchable. Besides who asked for a sequel to American Kickboxer 1?


This movie is one of the worst of the genere, the only actor with a hint of talent is Evan Lurie (David).

The story centers around two rivals a cop, and a playboy. They are both in love with the same woman, and neither of them knows if her daughter is their child. And when the child is kidnapped they put their differences aside and join forces in the search for the kidnappers.

On the whole a bad movie with, but with some good fighting scenes.

I give it 2/10


If this is your first kickbox flick, you might not be too bored. If otherwise - DON'T WATCH THIS. No story, no actors, no budget. And - worst of all - even the fight sequences are much less than standard. After 45 minutes I got angry at myself for having spent 5 bucks for the tape. Watch CYBORG or BLOODSPORT if you want the real thing - and if you've already seen them - do it again rather than watching this uninspired one. the webhamster's rating is 0/10.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works (which this certainly ain't!) **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

A little girl is kidnapped. Her bed-hopping, stupid (and apparently deaf!) mother calls one of two blokes who may be the father, a violent redneck cop named Mike (Dale 'Apollo' Cook- not credited as the main kickboxing character in the movie!) and a pretty-boy playboy kickboxing expert named David (Evan Laurie- Steven Seagal is a very, VERY good actor after all- Jalal Merhi ain't bad either!) Obviously, they don't get on very well but after a lot of male macho bonding they manage to put their differences aside, race in and save the little girl.

80s action movies stopped being made in, well, the 80s. So this is a parody. Yeah, a parody of those movies, right down from the opening with the typically corny 80s opening balled right through, to, well, just about everything else.

The acting is indescribably poor (this Laurie just has to be seen to be believed- and so does Cook!) and the script is indescribably stupid. Like two parents being so deaf a fruit machine drowns out a helicopter landing in their back yard! The main villain ringing the clueless parents immediately after and declaring 'I've just kidnapped your daughter!' (well, duh!) And then the ditzy blonde bimbo ringing the cop and saying 'if I get the police involved I'll never see her again' (er, darling.......HE IS THE POLICE!!!) And if dialogue like "your ass is grass...and we're the lawnmowers" is what floats your boat, well, hahahahahahaha, this movie will, well, be right up your street.

Anyone who found No Retreat No Surrender amusing will find new heights. Hell, anyone who found Hot Shots! Part Deux amusing will reach new heights. **


Coffee and Cigarettes was worthless, which is why I'm glad someone else paid for me to see it. If you actually liked this movie, I would love to talk to you, because you are just kidding yourself. You think it's cool to like movies that you don't understand, when really you don't understand them because they are crap and there's nothing there to understand.

Here is a summary of Coffee and Cigarettes:

The movie opens and it is shot in that terrible teen angst black and white that kids who can't take pictures like to photoshop their digital photos into because they think it will salvage an otherwise crappy color photo. It doesn't salvage s***, and it just made me realize that the movie was going to be pretentious crap, just like all those pretentious look-at-me-I- develop-my-own-pictures-in-black-and-white kids' pictures of kids playing in playgrounds photographed through the chain-links of the fence, with the links in focus.

The movie is filled with a bunch of mini-scenes of mediocre B-list celebrities/actors having coffee and smoking cigarettes and talking about coffee and cigarettes and occasionally making a comment about how coffee and cigarettes isn't a very healthy lunch. It's artsy how they keep repeating the title. Oh, and it's artsy how all the tables are black and white checkered. 'Cause the movie is in black and white, get it?

But wait. It's even more artsy to change the whole premise of the movie halfway through when the tables stop having black and white checkers and the coffee turns into tea and the cigarettes turn into one person smoking and the other commenting on how cigarettes are terrible. Oh, and I bet it would be artsy if we insert a scene where Jack and Meg White (they're hot right now - they have that hit new album that in retrospect no one really liked that much, but they wanted to like it to be alternative and artsy - oh, there's that artsy thing again) are playing with a Tesla Coil. Then, Jack should quote Tesla about the world being a conductor of audiophonic harmony or some shit because he's a musician. Then Meg white repeats the quote and hits a spoon on a coffee cup and it makes a f***ing annoying ringing noise and then she does it again and everyone is like "f***ing stop it."

The movie carries on like this. The final scene is two old guys, both of which you've seen before but you're not quite sure where, talking about some piece of classical music. This is the scene where the movie tries to redeem itself by having some deeper underlying meaning. The one old guy says he wants to take a nap, then he just fucking dies. The classical music plays, obviously, and the movie ends. Maybe he died from lung cancer, or caffeine overdose, is that the point?

Pathetic.

The only redeeming scenes in the movie are the scenes with Steve Coogan and Alfred Molina and Rza, Gza, and Bill Murray. But they are bookended by the most worthless, pretentious, art-rock, deeper-meaning, repetitive, awkward crap I've seen in a long time.


Seriously, every reviewer on IMDb has crud for brains. It's a complete piece of bile tripe.

The entire thing is shot in black and white, the acting is supremely sub-par, the camera work is crap. Forgivable in 99% of the indie films out there that are carried by a story. Or even engaging dialog. This movie has *NONE* of it.

The vignettes are standalone (although the bit with the RZA, GZA and Bill Murray was referential), pointless and trying too hard to capture absurdist humor.

The use of Black and White does not provide deep arty scenes, or work as an illustrative device. The only reason to opt for black & white is so that Art House snobs will accept it as "brilliant".

I am a fan of deadpan absurdist comedy, I really am. In fact one of the biggest selling points was Steven Wright.

This is not a comedy. There are half-hearted attempts (Chick who is looking at handguns, Bill Murray "hiding out" drinking a pot of coffee straight, etc), but it falls short. Waaaaaay Short.

Look, I revel in "bad" films. I forced a friend to go and see "Slither" in the theaters.

I have a collection of zombie movies that, if moved to a physical medium, would crush a small child.

I enjoy the likes of Kafka, HS Thompson, the Vandals, Monty Python, Firesign Theater, Hedberg, etc et al.

This movie is a failure, epic and tragic.


Not since Alex Cox's "Straight to Hell" have I had such a shoddy, amateurish work put before me by a director whose work I otherwise like.

I'm a believer that there are no bad concepts, just bad execution, so while it may have been possible to make a good movie using Jarmusch's structure and theme, this is not that movie. Two minutes' worth of concept was regularly dragged out to ten minutes. The dialogue was half-considered, if that. Vignettes ground painfully away towards some ill-conceived, inane "punchline". The performers, even granted that they had little to work with, were visibly floundering; given that they were for the most part playing themselves, they never came across as people who actually existed, or that they had any reason to talk to the people playing opposite them; most often, they couldn't even convince me that they had ever actually drank coffee before. Only Cate Blanchett walks away from this car-wreck with any dignity intact.

I'm normally quite generous in my ratings, but this movie was simply insultingly bad. Jarmusch should have kept the only print locked away in a vault, with instructions that it be burnt following his death.

2/10, and that's only because I smiled when Bill Murray drank straight from the pot.


While I enjoyed the plot, and especially the cars, the film had some glaring continuity errors, two of which I note here. 1) The Jag is seen approaching the starting line with no race number, and in the next shot it is still approaching the start bearing the '55' that had been allocated. 2) From the start of the film, the Jag boasted wire wheels. During the race the car had pressed steel wheels most of the time, yet occasional shots showed wire wheels again. Why change the wheels - or was it a different car?

There were also some technical errors that should have been picked up during the editing, the most obvious being the microphone boom reflected in the car's windscreen at one point. Maybe it was too late to re-shoot.


One of the first films produced (but not directed) by Roger Corman is marginally okay tale of convict (John Ireland, who directed) who escapes from prison and then kidnaps Dorothy Malone and uses her and her sports car as a cover for entry into a race that will get him across the border and to freedom. Its an over ripe tale with lots of footage of race cars and a soapy romance between the two principles. I had always wanted to see the film because a picture of Ireland and Malone that appeared in a biography of Corman that has been on my self for years. Little did I know that the film was, outside of the race footage, little more than exciting than the still. Its not a bad film if you don't pay 100% attention to it, but as background noise, which is what it became, but as something to actually sit and watch from first frame to the last it's a bit of a trial. For Corman complete-ists only.


Lurid, titillating, and somewhat sadomasochistic abduction tale, most notable for its writer and producer credit. "The Fast and the Furious" boasts more star power than you might expect from an early Roger Corman effort, however. Dorothy Malone (as Connie) is the leggy Jaguar driver who likes to be roughed-up once in awhile. John Ireland (as Frank Webster) is the wrongly accused man on the lam, who prefers his carjacked Jag come with a blonde. Who wouldn't?

Nonsensical fast car fifties time capsule, climaxing in the "bonded" couple's off-screen encounter in an abandoned love shack, where he has carried her "over the threshold"; later, she hilariously sets the place on fire. Cinematographer Floyd Crosby is the father of the similarly surnamed member of Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. "The Fast and the Furious" is like a very old piece of candy you might find behind the couch - eat it cautiously.

** The Fast and the Furious (2/15/55) Edward Sampson, John Ireland ~ John Ireland, Dorothy Malone


Where the hell does the cop come from at the end of the film? He just appears and suddenly says 'We'll have to move quickly but it can be done!' and how did he know the dad was going to be divorced from his wife before he did? was he nailing her on the side??? How come the bad kid becomes the Italian kids friend at the end? despite having attempted to rape his sister, breaking the Italian kids leg and calling his mother a whore! Why was this film made? to promote 'soccer' in America? I've seen better football played by five year olds. This is one of the worst films I've ever seen, but a couple of the girls are worth looking at on a bored afternoon inbetween the AWFUL acting and badly choreographed football. And there are some funny moments, not intentionally funny though, 'Its in the back of the net already tomazzo! Visualise it!' The sledgehammer workout is worth a giggle and the way everyone comes together at the end for a happy ending is like the end of Waynes World - just for the two fit girls and the funny ending this gets two extra stars but I've seen better acting in porno and come to think of it better story lines and nicer looking people!


Now I would just like to comment on how the last person kinda missed the point of this movie. Firts off the main character , a 17 year old boy has come to live in CANADA not the U.S (one of the professors in the institute even say "If you can't find a coaching job here, how you going to find one in the states). He comes to live in Canada because his mother has died and is living with a supposed friend of his father who has a family on his own.The movie has a couple twists and turns that make it feel like a 2 hour soap opera instead of a movie.The movie starts off alright but at the end becomes quite ridiculous. Also many shots (no pun intended) were not taken well in this movie.For example the coach tells Tomasso to take a free quick, and he kicks the ball and you can tell it goes over the net,but the next shot makes it look like it went directly into the net in the most bizarre angle.


The best part of the movie was Emmanuelle who was real pretty. The plot was lame. It was funny seeing Paulie from "Rocky" in the movie. For a minute there I thought that Tomasso and his sister were going to have an affair, but that would not have been allowed on TV. I think I saw it on HBO 1 2 3 or 4 or Showtime 1 2 3 4 5 I can't remember. I guess the story did have a happy ending. I personally would not recommend it. I think I fell asleep before the end. I still wonder what Paulie was doing in that movie. Also the step-mother was a real witch in my opinion. She appeared to be very unforgiving and nasty. You may be able to find this in a video store, but it is not worth renting in my humble opinion.


This is a movie best viewed outside the US. It is about an Italian 17 year old who comes to live in the US after his mother is killed in a bank robbery. The script is poor and irrational. The best thing that you might gain from this movie is to see how some Italians view life in the US. It definitely IS NOT for entertainment for US viewers.


The Great Outdoors is yet another "disaster-vacation" comedy along similar lines to every other movie within its limited and predictable genre (e.g. National Lampoon's Vacation, National Lampoon's European Vacation, Carry On Camping, and Summer Rental). It doesn't play like a movie with a coherent plot; more like a series of comic sketches, linked together by the same characters and the same general premise of two bickering families attempting to endure a woodland holiday together.

 Chet (Candy) takes his city-bred family up into the wilderness of the U.S-Canadian border region for a vacation in a log cabin. Uninvited, his over-bearing business-bigwig brother-in-law Roman (Akroyd) shows up. The mismatched pair, their bitchy wives, and their wacky kids proceed to have various misadventures involving speed boats, grizzly bears, horse riding excursions, raccoons, etc.

 Candy and Akroyd are able to do this kind of thing on autopilot, and that's exactly the way they approach this film. Neither actor exerts himself, both seeming happy to aim for the easy laughs. The kids in the movie are generally annoying, ranging from Akroyd's eerie twin daughters (who look like they've just stepped out of The Shining) to Candy's eldest son who is desperate to find love in the woods. Some of the sequences are amusing, such as the scene where Candy foolishly attempts to feed the bears and ends up with two gigantic grizzlies sat upon the roof of his car, and the white-haired hillbilly who stutters maniacally about being struck by lightning over fifty times. More often, though, the sequences are predictable and fairly laughless. The Great Outdoors might entertain you if you're new to this kind of film, but if you've seen any of the others you'll find very little that is fresh here.


I see no reason whatever to watch this thing unless it's playing on Joe Bob's MonsterVision (poor Joe Bob will have to shoulder the whole job of junk-embellishment himself, now that MST3K is gone). Dumb, plotless and unfunny, except for the raccoons - who get all the best lines. There's a nice little brotherhood story connecting earnest, good-natured Candy to arrogant blowhard Aykroyd, but it's so badly bogged down that it doesn't manage to surface until the last 20 minutes and that's much too late. One from the bottom of John Hughes' barrel.


This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It's mainly a paper thin story sewn together by some awful potty jokes. Though it does get credit for the famous blow it scene this movie has nothing to offer for anyone over the age of 2.


John Candy stars in a tale of a vacation gone bad as a family takes a vacation by the lake and is ruined by their uninvited troublesome relatives that cause a whole bunch of trouble..some laughs but generally not that good..nothing to write home about..

On a scale of one to ten..4


I really do not know what this film is about. This is not porn, as there is not as much sex compared to the normal porn movie. The 'story' scenes are interspersed between the sex scenes, which makes it more like a porn movie. However, it is not a conventional film either, as it has almost no story. It appears to be a film about the life of skinheads, but it has so little substance, no character development and there is no emotion in it at all. The scenes seem fragmented and haphazard. There is no flow from one scene to the next.

I would recommend not to watch this film, as you are unlikely to get anything out of it.

By the way, I find a scene of man & woman sex a turn off in the middle of a gay movie. But that's just me.


Opposite to the more recent films of La Bruce, this one is simply boring. Most moves can be anticipated, acting is far too "professional", the story is nonsense, even if I will admit, that it may suggest that sex has to do with violence. But that is knowledge from the last century or even older. So what? I strongly recommend not to view "Skin Flick", especially if someone is usually a fan of Bruce La Bruce.


This must be the worst modern interpretation of a Shakespearean play that I have ever seen. As with most film versions Fortinbras was glossed over. Bill Murray's Polonius, while a good try, just was not up to it. I kept seeing visions of SNL. Ethan Hawke's Hamlet left much to be desired. He reminded me of the Ricky Fitts character from American Beauty, with his video camera recording every aspect of his life. Over all it was not worth the $3.50 I spent at Blockbuster.


Director Michael Almerevda wanted to make "Hamlet" more accessible by relocating the play to modern corporate America. By necessity, he is forced to cut the subplots which make this such a rich play. What is left is less than what you get reading "Cliff Notes."

The performances range from the uninspired to simply amateurish. Ethan Hawke has his moments as Hamlet, but overall puts nothing into the role. The same can be said of Kyle MacLachlan's Claudius. As Polonius, Bill Murray acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards. As Ophelia, Julia Stiles acts as if this were a high school production. Only Sam Shepard in his brief appearance makes an impression.

My recommendation for "Hamlet" is that you stick with the Olivier and Branagh versions.


This version of "Hamlet" uses the exact idea of Bazz Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet". A William Shakespeare play, presented in our decade, with all modern things interfering or completely changing scenes. All but the dialog, who remained as close as possible to the original. Ethan Hawke and Kyle MacLachlan are both very good, but unfortunately Julia Stiles destroys her scenes, with her flat and inexpressive appearence.

Still it's an interesting watch, but only if you're a big fan of someone involved in this picture. Vote: 4 out of 10.


This is as butchered as Shakespeare can get, if you for a moment forget about a insulting Romeo and Juliet with Leo Di Caprio and Claire Danes, or pitiful Titus with Anthony Hopkins. Movie, not just that it's very boring and pointless, but it's decapitation of Shakespeare's working. It's offensive to take his original setting of old Denmark, and put it into America.

Movie is not worth watching and is a big mistake.


One of Shakespeare's greatest plays gets modernized and transported to New York City in the year 2000, with Ethan Hawke taking on the role of the brooding Prince of Denmark. This version of `Hamlet,' written for the screen and directed by Michael Almereyda, initially holds much promise, with what appears to be an outstanding cast through which Almereyda can present his vision of this oft-told tale of murder and revenge. That `vision,' however, turns out to be somewhat clouded, and though the basic story remains intact, it comes across as something of a `Cliff's notes' rendition that is less than satisfying. And by the end we realize, too, that not all actors-- even good ones-- are cut out to play Shakespeare.

Hamlet's father, the King/CEO of the Denmark Corp. has died, and within a month his mother, Gertrude (Diane Venora), has married his uncle, Claudius (Kyle MacLachlan), who has also taken over the company. Hamlet, now ensconced in the Elsinore Hotel, grieving for his father, is appalled by the marriage of his mother to his uncle, and moreover, with such haste; but it is done, and there is nothing he can do about it. Soon, however, Hamlet discovers that his father was, in fact, the victim of murder most foul, and vows to avenge his untimely demise. Immediately, he sets a course that will bring the perpetrators to justice; but it is a course that must necessarily end in tragedy for Hamlet, as well.

With his screenplay, Almereyda has retained enough of the basic story that even the heretofore uninitiated will be able to grasp Shakespeare's original intent, at least in regards to the plot. The presentation, however, falls entirely short of providing the full impact of the tragedy. Almereyda's approach is altogether too solemn and lacks the energy needed to truly bring this film to life. And while it's true that the story is inherently introspective and melancholy, the director fails to explore the many possibilities available to him-- especially with the contemporary setting-- that could have made this vibrant and exciting cinema, such as the way writer/director Julie Taymor brought Shakespeare's `Titus' to the screen so successfully. Add to that the fact that Almereyda's adaptation of the play is terribly wanting; the character development is lacking, and though the language of the play remains, Almereyda's judgment of what to keep and what to lose in making the necessary cuts to bring a four hour production down to just under two, are questionable. Hamlet's famous soliloquy, `To be, or not to be,' for example, is truncated into oblivion. In the final analysis, this was a project perhaps too ambitious for Almereyda at this point in time; knowing what `happens' in the story is not the same as knowing what it's `about,' and in some of the choices the director makes, it's obvious that the `essence' of the play has simply eluded him, much to the detriment of the overall film.

As far as performances go, they range from outstanding to the downright laughable, which is disappointing but not surprising, considering the eclectic nature of the cast. Liev Schreiber, who has one of the best voices in the business and the elocution to match-- custom made for playing Shakespeare-- is nothing less than exemplary in the role of Laertes, and among those assembled here is in a league of his own. A tremendously talented actor, Schreiber has not yet achieved the acclaim he so richly deserves, languishing too often in forgettable films like `Kate and Leopold' and `A Walk On the Moon,' though he was perfectly cast as Orson Welles in the made-for-TV film, `RKO 281,' in which he was brilliant. Without question, with his masterful interpretation of the material and his natural eloquence, he is the saving grace of this film, in which, alas, he is afforded a less than propitious amount of screen time.

Only two others in the film even approach Schreiber's level of excellence, the first being Kyle MacLachlan, in his portrayal of Claudius. MacLachlan, at least, finds the rhythm and flow in his recitations that make his character believable and convincing, and his scenes with Schreiber are the most interesting aspect of the film. The only other actor in the film who can stand alongside Schreiber and MacLachlan is Diane Venora. Unfortunately, in this offering, Gertrude has been reduced to a role of silent observer in most scenes; when she does speak, however, her words are well spoken and meaningful, and it's a shame that she is so grossly underused here by Almereyda.

Then there are the performances that fall into the `acceptable' category, but are far beneath the capabilities of the actors involved, respectively: As Hamlet, Ethan Hawke adopts a brooding attitude that is effective, but he fails to achieve the commanding presence necessary to make his Hamlet viable. Sam Shepard, as the Ghost of Hamlet's father, is simply unconvincing. And Julia Stiles, as the doomed Ophelia, seems to be grasping at straws in a vein attempt at finding her character, and of the three mentioned here, her performance seems the most strained and unnatural, though it is so with both Hawke and Shepard, as well. All of which points up that, again, not all actors can play Shakespeare. It's difficult; and those who make the attempt should be commended for it, even if the results are less than noteworthy.

Make that `most' of those who make the attempt; because in the case of Bill Murray, someone should have put a stop to it right out of the chute. Murray is arguably one of the best comic actors the screen has ever known, and that is not something to be taken lightly; comedy is one of the hardest genres to master, and Murray is one of the best. But his portrayal of Polonius is embarrassingly laughable; there's no other way to put it. And it's one of the many reasons that make this version of `Hamlet' forgettable. There's just no magic in it. 4/10.


This was the worst adaption of Hamlet I have ever seen. Ehtan Hawke's pseudo-intellectual persona is tired. During some scenes, it appeared that he was reading off of cue cards. Tim Conway would have made a more believable Hamlet. This attempt to put a contemporary spin on a classic was presumptuous and poorly implemented. The Kenneth Brannaugh version is much more worthy of your time.


I'm glad to see that IMDb users were not fooled by Almereyda's ultimately empty, though pretty, adaptation of Hamlet. In reading press for the film, visions of mass delusions and payola danced through my head. This is a lush, beautifully paced film that fails miserably, because the director forgot that you must make a movie do more than look good.

I've read that the director did copious research on the play, watching other adaptations, etc. before embarking on his own journey. Apparently he didn't watch closely enough. His script relies heavily on a viewer already familiar with the play, and cuts or rearranges some of the most important scenes. The bulk of the scene between Polonius and Hamlet which begins with Hamlet calling the elder a fishmonger is gone. The final scene is so chopped up to fit Almereyda's modern conceits that it is virtually unrecognizable. That scene is also hastily and sloppily filmed. When does the King poison the wine? A viewer who does not already know that it is poisoned is lost. As was this production.

Problems with Almereyda's ham-handed script and spotty direction aside, the real problem here can be reduced to three words: acting, acting, acting. I haven't seen Shakespeare handled this badly since high school. Kyle MacLachlan shines above the rest in his role, and Diane Venora and Leif Schreiber are passable and sometimes even good in their roles. Steve Zahn appears to have the best handle on how to effectively play Rosencrantz as a modern day drinkin' bud, but unfortunately Almereyda has cut most of his role. But aside from them, much of the rest is embarassing and laughable. Julia Stiles comes off as a rank amateur; the cringe factor in her readings is off the meter. The coup de grace is the scene when she fully goes mad and goes cross-eyed as she's flinging polaroids about. She looks more like she's trying to approach a slapstick approximation of drunkenness than a despair-filled descent into madness. Bill Murray, who I love, and who I think is one of the most underrated actors around, is completely out of his depth. Afraid that by playing Polonius too funny, people will accuse him of putting his "stamp" on it, he plays it dry and manages to rip all the laughs out of the funniest character in the play. Polonius is a clown, and should be played as such. Ian Holm's definitive performance in the less-than-definitive Mel Gibson Hamlet is the high watermark, and Holm plays him like a proper court jester. Even Sam Shepard seems a little lost. Granted, Shakespeare isn't really his area of theater, but one would have thought he'd have a better handle on it. And then we come to Ethan Hawke, who I generally think is a very talented actor as well. But his sullen, brooding Hamlet is a one-note prince, and a pretty tedious note at that. While the much-talked about To be or not to be speech is wonderfully conceived in that monument of indecision, Blockbuster, with the not-too-subtle "Action" signs passing by our mirthless heir, Hawke reads the speech without ever getting out of first gear, without ever giving a hint of meaningful inflection. In my Brit.Lit. class in high school we had to memorize and recite this monologue...there were better readings in my class than Hawke offers up here, and his entire performance pretty much follows suit. His jovial, consoling advice to Ophelia to "get thee to a nunnery" is laughable, and while he hits the right note in the also well-conceived, but displaced finish to the scene, leaving the rest of the speech on her answering machine, we're still so busy laughing that the rage loses it's power.

This Hamlet is style lacking substance, as Almereyda tries to bind the limitless space of Shakespeare's text within a nutshell, only to find that there's nothing left inside when he's done.


this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.this movie had no actual connection with the original script of hamlet.


I love to see modern adaptations of Shakespearean drama; I think the texts are more accessible to the general population when they are put into familiar situations/contexts. This setting of Hamlet, however, missed the mark. In the first half of the film, most lines were spoken in flat monotone--the absence of inflection made the plot harder to follow. Making Denmark an American corporation rather than a political state was also unsuccessful, for the continued use of the terms "king," "queen" and "prince" did not fit the new setting. Also, Prince Hamlet's film "The Mouse Trap," which is crucial to the original drama because it seals Claudio's guilty conscience, cannot serve its function in this film because it has been modified from a drama reenacting King Hamlet's murder into a bad montage of random student-filmmaker camera shots which one can scarcely connect to anything in the plot. Those who are familiar with the Hamlet text will be able to make a connection, but if the benefit of modernization is to familiarize those who are unfamiliar with Shakespeare, then this film fails in its office.


Quite the interesting film from the warped mind of Bobcat Goldthwait. Shakes the Clown is his debut as a writer/director and tells the story about an alcoholic clown who, while passed out drunk, is framed for the murder of his boss and mentor. From the catch phrase "Loved by children. Desired by woman. Adored by bartenders everywhere" I was expecting something a little more perverse and out there. Instead, we are given a pretty run of the mill, mediocre comedy where the bumbling hero and misfit friends must uncover the evil villain, who until then is seen as the good guy. The loved by children part is a nice touch because no matter how mean or abusive he is to the adults, he is a fantastic clown (what agility on this guy). As for the desired by woman, he has a one night stand and a girlfriendhe is just being tormented by the number of ladies all over himas for the bartenders, he usually is outside while the friends stick to the bar. Shakes is just too good of a guy to really make the role believable as being a deadbeat.

The biggest surprise here is the amount of supporting players that have gone on to accomplish things in the industry. An almost unrecognizable Kathy Griffin, (pre-surgery indeed); the usual solid performance from character actor Blake Clark; newcomer Adam Sandler, a tad bit raw, delivering lines like he is at a stand-up event, the guy has come far; and Robin Williams, who steals his scene and is probably the funniest part of the entire film. Besides these, however, we get a lot of amateurish work. I don't want to be mean, but I could not stand Julie Brown. She has the looks and the affectionate glances to be the by-her-man girlfriend, but her speech pattern is horrid. Not being able to pronounce the letter "r," she sounds like me when I was 5 before taking speech therapy. How there is not a feature length gag reel is beyond me, because these guys could not have kept straight faces opposite her.

A couple more roles gave me mixed feelings. Tom Kenny, as the villainous Binky, has quite the extensive filmographyas a voice-over pro. I can see why he would be so successful, as he is very over the top here, great for cartoons, not so much when you have to see his broad facial expressions that go along with the words. He reminded me a bit of David Paymer, and I couldn't stop thinking how much better he would have done at the job. Paymer just has the sad sack, stick a knife in your back role down pat. The other role is the cop with high blood pressure. His delivery was awkward and a bit forced. Funny as it was, especially opposite his amused by the littlest things partner, he did stick out.

I must give credit to Bobcat for attempting to do something new in the genre. Although it is an overused plot, he tries to spice things up by setting it in the world of clowns; they overrun the town. I kept waiting to see if a normal person would arrive to entertain them. Moments do work throughout, like the fights with mimes, the rodeo clown clique, and the bickering at the bar, but there is just too much stuff that fails; it's so broad that it elicited more yawns than chuckles. I ended up having to play a game with myself to stay with it by finding all the hidden things I could. My favorites were the cop putting a gun two inches from a convict's face in the background while Bobcat is released from jail and the production company responsible for the clown television show, (watch the credits on the TV for it).


I remember my girlfriend and I going to see this movie in great anticipation on its opening weekend back in 1992. It just seemed perfect -- a comedy about a down-and-out clown with a drinking problem. Had a solid cast as well with impressive cameo appearances. The sub-plot with the rivalry between mimes and clowns was another great idea.

But it was, and remains, in the top 5 of the most disappointing and inexcusably awful films I've ever endured. Some films are bad due to low budget, or poor talent, or bad concept (or a combination of these things), but this had everything it needed and failed -- resoundingly -- on all fronts. I remember sitting there with my sweet girlfriend and just waiting and waiting for a laugh -- anything -- to show up. Only one thing made us laugh -- when Shakes is trash-talking with another clown in the clown bar and the clown is at a loss for words and says something like, "Well, you're the captain of the diarrhea club". Doesn't sound funny does it? In any other film it would have been a terrible and disgusting line but to a tearful of moviegoers desperate for a laugh, it was like water in the desert.

My lasting impression of this film was how deeply mean-spirited, overly dark, cruel, and scatological it was. It was as if 11-year-old bullies were given the task to write/direct/produce a major motion picture. Those attributes are rarely really funny, even to pre-teens.

You WILL be disappointed with this film -- it doesn't even have value as something to poke fun at. Instead of watching this film, watch "Kingpin" instead, which is a similar sort of film but is actually watchable and humorous at times.


First the only good news about "Shakes the Clown" is that the clown makeup and neon-type lighting provides an interesting setting. Now the bad. Both Adam Sandler and Robin Williams are totally wasted, smothered by Goldthwait's slapstick, gross-out, outrageously non-funny script. Clowns are supposed to be funny, therefore a movie about clowns should be downright hilarious. Well, car chases, puke jokes, drunken clowns, and various other nonsense turns what could have been a ground breaking black comedy into the disaster it is. Do not buy or rent this expecting black comedy similar to the brilliant "Bad Santa", because you will be sadly disappointed. I know I was. - MERK


*****Plot points that could spoil this movie****** When coming upon this movie written,directed and starring Bobcat Goldthwait in a the movie considered the Citizen Kane of Alcoholic Clown movies one word comes to mind: classy. However after viewing I promptly demanded the video clerk to return to me 74 minutes of my life. She upon viewing the synopsis of the movie said, "I think this is your fault." Anyways the movie it self drags on and is really not that funny. There is no real plot until the last 15 minutes of the movie (if you last that long) and even then is not worth it. Bobcat does not even use his trademark voice instead attempting to actually act it appears. Few highlights include Robin Williams in his mime school scene, and the scene where the clowns beat up the mimes (which is mostly funny since most people hate mimes). Overall this movie ranks near the bottom of all the movies I've seen.


Having read many of the reviews on this site I have noticed that numerous people claim that one either understands and loves the movie, or hates it. I happen to fall into the latter category as this movie is not only unorigonal, but fails to be funny in almost every way possible. The fact that this film could even use the line "Mime's a wasting" shows the low class of the film. Personally, I love dumb comedy movies (Adam Sandler and Chris Farley included) but this film failed to be funny on almost every level. I did not laugh once, and didn't even appreciate any of the jokes' attempts to be funny. The only scenes worth watching are the ones mentioned previously by RedDevil, whom I happened to view the film with.

Many have commented that this is a dark comedy that deals with alcoholism, however I have two major points to make contrary to this. First of all, this film is by no means a comedy if you use the standard definition of comedy. This definition of course is something that is funny. Secondly, this film does not deal with alcoholism well at all. After seeing this I felt no need to stop drinking, unlike the scenes in Requiem for a Dream. Overall, this project not only lacks polish, but ambition as well. The plot is useless and I couldn't help feeling that the movie made no point. I would like the 87 minutes of my life back, but seeing as that is impossible, I would like to keep anyone else from viewing this shoddy workmanship.


one of my favorite cheese flicks. if ya dig cheese u will dig this flick. i would love to give the movie a 10, but to rate the movie up there with the likes of citizan cane and gone with the wind would be insane. the only the i think would have made the movie better would be if kevin smith had written the screenplay.


Not to be confused with a 2002 movie starring James Coburn.

This is an insult to him, and his last piece of work!!! Movies have to have unique names! Is that so difficult. I'm giving a bad rating just for this fact!

Aren't there enough words in our vocabulary?

It really does a disservice to the earlier film of the same title if it is not a remake.

It's confusing for the viewer and may take away potential income from the previous film.

SAG requires all actors to have unique names, why not the same with movie titles? Is it so difficult, Richard Dean Anderson had to stick the "Dean" in because of the existence of Richard Anderson, known by many as Oscar Goldman on Six Million Dollar Man. Let us not forget Bill Macy from "Maude" and "The Jerk", still a cut up in his 80's, , and William H. Macy frequent David Manet collaborator. Jeff Dranetz


I have seen at least four other films (including Michael Moore's documentary) about the guns in America, and their easy availability - three of these were about senseless shootings in schools. And now we have another.

Unfortunately, this is the least interesting of the lot. Gus van Sant's "Elephant" tops the board in its classic understatement, and weaves disparate strands together in the end. With this movie, which dissects the aftermath of a school shooting starts off with a tantalising premise - what happens AFTER?

It is almost too horrible to bear, the mother (a marvelous performance by Marcia Gay Harden) of a shooter in a school massacre, the traumatised police officer, the headmaster who is so intent on stopping guns in schools that he neglects (oh cliché cliché!) his own family and so on are all formulaic plot devices at the best. The performances by the main actors are really good, but the poor material they have been given negates all.

There is no sense of interconnectivity between the individual subplots, not really even at the end, when a totally gratuitous bit of violence brings just two of the sub-plot protagonists accidentally together.

The movie builds up to nothing, and so ends with a big SO WHAT?


The film American Gun seemed like it never started far after the end credits began running. It seemed like, what the director was trying to say, was never actually portrayed on screen. With the exception of a few sporadic and impressive performances, there is nothing American Gun really offers. After reading all the comparisons to Paul Haggis' Crash on the back of the DVD cover, I was very disappointed in the outcome of this film. Many may argue that this film shows the struggle that people go through, dealing with violence in America, but the film never actually gives us a solution. Obviously director Aric Avelino's debut tries to omit any solutions to the rapid gun craze in the United States. He even traps the audience inside of a gun store before the credits roll. Overall this was an amateur effort by an amateur filmmaker whom will hopefully turn out some better film in the future.


The film looks at the impact of guns and their violence in 3 settings- through the impact on the mother (Marcia Gay Harden) and brother of a Columbine High type shooter in Oregon, a frustrated school principal (Forrest Whittaker) in inner city Chicago, and in a gun store in Charlottesville Virginia with grandfather-owner (Donald Sutherland) and his granddaughter (Linda Cardinelli from ER). This movie is slow, dull, flat and disorganized. It makes no coherent points. Don't waste an hour and a half with it. The first effort for this director is a waste of everyone's time. The 2002 version with James Coburn is infinitely more lively and interesting.


American Gun is a poorly titled film about how hard life is, and how people cope with tragic events. Parts are a take off of the Columbine massacre and details the lives of people involved before and after a similar event. The alcoholic mother and the brother of one of the killers, a cop that was first on the scene of the event and suffers PTSD. The vengeance oriented psychosis of the poorly equipped neighbors of the killer's family and the general public. A gun store owner and his grand daughter who is uncomfortable around guns but forced (somehow) to work at the gun store, a school principle living in a bad part of town working in a troubled school, some school kids that pass through a bad part of town as part of their daily life. The movie fails miserably trying to blame the lunacy of child killers and violent crime on the availability of guns. Violent and troubled people who want to kill are not logical thinkers; they see only the opportunity for violence and take it whether they use a gun, knife, car, or any other weapon. Not given the opportunity to get a gun, these people will inevitably resort to other methods of killing.


For starters, In regards to MICDI and claiming that American Gun was made before Crash is wrong ; Crash had already started filming in late 2003 and finished in early 2004. While American Gun didn't start filming until the summer of 2004. Just to clarify American Gun is a film about the lives and 8 people and how each of them are affected in different ways by guns in America. This movie is almost exactly like Crash with the exception of a little Bowling for Columbine mixed in. I did not enjoy this movie, it focuses too much on one type of class of people. It does not show how other classes of society are affected by guns in America. But I guess thats what you get with a movie that is just a little over and hour and thirty minutes long. Another thing i thought about this movie is it didn't have enough good actors (with the exception of Donald Sutherland and Forest Whitaker). So if you want a movie that shows emotion and depth the whole subject of the movie, I suggest that you rent Crash. And THEN see American Gun, you will notice a big difference.


Some people on this site were comparing this movie to crash. At best this is a poor made after school movie. The movie never takes off, it drags, it wanders, it bores you to death. The only thing this movie made me want to do is buy a gun to put myself out of my misery. I watched it for free and I feel like I've been cheated. I should have been happy when it finally ended, but I was only left wondering why I had wasted the last hour of my life watching this movie. I noticed that there were about 20 songs in the credits but I must have been so numb with boredom that I can't recall a single line being played. Each song must have been uniquely unremarkable. The cherry on the top of this little masterpiece was Donald Sutherlands character, he easily could have been replaced by a rambling old man with senility taken off your local public transportation line.


Felt like being beaten over the head with a "gun's are bad" stick for an hour and half. Paper thin characters and very contrived plots. Mixing them around doesn't really add anything to the movie. Each story wouldn't stand on it's on. We get shown the exact same message multiple times. I like the idea of the movie but the execution just wasn't there.

Above is my original review, but apparently it's not long enough. I really can't think of much more to say about this movie. I'm not sure you need to expend this many words trying to explain how mediocre it is.


At the very least you have to give Steven Bagatourian and Aric Avelino props for being the very first kids on the block to jump on the Crash-Paul Haggis bandwagon. They may not be very original, but boy are they quick on the draw.

Take your (soon to be) standard template of multiple, disparate, interweaving story lines, add a dash of hard-hitting social commentary (guns, racism, sexism, whatever is hot), throw them all together, and pray something sticks.

Unfortunately in this case, nothing does.

What you get is a movie that comes off as disingenuous at best since all of the "facts" (gun-facts, single-mom facts, modern day high school student-facts) feel like they came from cursory research from magazines or books of the week. None of the situations or characters feel genuine and to be quite frank, the bulk of this movie is pretty darned contrived.

The social commentary provided by this movie isn't especially hard-hitting either. Whether this timidity comes from a reluctance to offend or their unwillingness to go too far out on a limb lest they be called on their B.S. assumptions about everything they are writing about is unknown. I'm willing to guess the latter since there is ample evidence in this movie of their ignorance of the subject they have chosen to give the Haggis-treatment.

1 out of 10.


American Gun Mr. Black's Grade: C Starring Donald Sutherland , Forest Whitaker , Linda Cardellini , Marcia Gay Harden , Nikki Reed and Tony Goldwyn .

American Gun follows four different story arcs featuring seemingly disparate portraits of people who all affected by the proliferation of guns in American society. The film is very earnest in it's portrayal of the gun problem in the US, but overall it is pretty forgettable.

Ever been out in public, walking on the street or riding a subway and see a stranger crying? Naturally you feel some sympathy towards this person, but there is disconnect. Why are they crying? The new boyfriend never returned their phone call? Did they just receive news of a family member dying? Get a B on the Biology test? You have no real way to know. And that's how I felt in this movie, disconnected. Every 10 minutes or so there are these big emotional outbursts, and while you do eventually come to know why, there still is a serious separation.

There is some interesting material here, and Marcia Gay Harden's confrontation with her neighbors is handled very well. That's it baby.


If you don't know, the makers of this film made several faux home movies, supposedly taped by serial killer and rapists documenting their exploits. They were certainly different and truly scary. The film makers use some of the same techniques here but its not nearly as effective. The characters are a bunch of losers who decide to drink and get high in a haunted building. A sub plot has a jilted boyfriend pursuing one of the loser girls. The girls and their male friends, played by actors obviously too old for the roles, chatter away, make out, talk trash and do what real losers do....but its not much fun to watch. In fact the goofy boyfriend is a lot more interesting. He is somewhat appealing in a geeky way and even though he flips out and turns into a stalker, you feel a bit sorry for him. The others have no real life apart from getting stoned and drunk and aren't even likable, just boring losers.

The set is apparently a basement with utility tunnels, one of which appears to be a cave. At least it doesn't have straight walls like a building would. Why they call it a tower is odd. There are no stairs. All the action seems to take place in the basement. And its a small set. We see the same window over and over even though the people comment about the "maze" they get lost in. The gore effects are quite good but they don't start until we have been put to sleep by the endless chatter from the dopey girls. The camera work is pretty good too. The lighting is so low key and dark that lots of the good gore stuff is really hard to see. I know its supposed to be a dark old haunted place and all but a bit more light would have made the effects much more entertaining. Its also rather sad to read comments from persons obviously involved in making the film trumpeting this film as a "10" in press release language. Nobody talks like that. It doesn't fool anybody.

This movie will be liked best by fans of the makers earlier work. For other viewers its average at best.


OK... I love horror movies and I'm not that picky about what I watch but hey... This movie is just more than I can bear... I've almost never stopped watching a movie but this Redsin Tower is one of the few movies I cannot stand...

Let's start with the story... boring, conventional and seen three million times... come on, I don't see what's new here: a boyfriend wants to get revenge on his former girlfriend? a tower full of mysteries and bad things??? it's just the basic story of 99% of the bad horror movies out there.

but worse is the film.... the image is so dirty that it looks just like a cheap holiday movie... I enjoyed the Blair Witch Project movie but at least the image was something interesting... here it is just bad and blurry... nothing worth spending money to see...

Finally the acting is just awful... at times it just seems the actors are almost looking at the camera when delivering their lines ... I know why the actresses were chosen... mainly because they spend most of the movie talking about sex and walking around naked... frankly here too it's not worth losing your time watching...

As for the good critics .... I can only think about one explanation... they were left by the producer, director and lead actor of the movie... else... we didn't see the same horrendous film...


Being an August Underground series fan, I could hardly wait to get my hands on this movie and see something different from the obviously talented ToeTag crew. Yeah, sure, it's different, but this is not for me. I give it 3 out of 10 because of this: 1. This type of story is told about 10 000 000 times already. Girl breaks up with her mentally unstable boyfriend and he begins to stalk her. His behavior is increasingly aggressive and near the end of the movie he ends up butchering someone with an axe.This storyline meets one that is very reminiscent of movies such as " Evil Dead" because his girlfriend hooks up with the bunch of brainless , shallow bores and goes with them to party in an abandoned tower ( but where are the stairs inside of that tower? ) which is haunted by evil forces that like to kill and rape for no apparent reason. Nothing at least slightly original . From beginning to the end.

2. Most of the movie is boring and consists mainly of these characters ( i didn't get the impression that there are real characters here ) getting high, drinking beer, and talking about absolutely nothing relevant or interesting.It takes a lot until we get to the gore, guts and demons. And when we do, it ends quickly. Not much for the gore fans here.

3. The acting is mainly lousy and flat. It adds to my impression that this departure from previous entries made by the same crew is disappointing, because AU movies included good , very convincing acting.

4. Fred Vogel is obviously a talented director and he proves that in " Redsin Tower", but he's not good when it comes to writing scripts for horror flicks of this kind. Or maybe he is, because this type of mainstream banalities needs no good ideas, just recycling of the old, old, old senseless rubbish. But still, it could have been more interesting and dynamic.

5. The special effects are good because they are done by Jeramie Cruise , and he proved himself as the master of that art in AU series. There aren't much of them though.

6. The overall atmosphere in the movie is fairly O.K. , but it's not frightening or creepy because the plot quickly becomes very predictable.

7. There is something lacking at the end of the movie: explanation for the fact that the only person spared from wrath of " evil forces " is the dumped , homicidal boyfriend. Why? Did they like him because he's a murderer? But who cares, this is not the movie that's supposed to raise questions and make you think. At least I got that impression.

All in all: very typical,mainly boring, directed skillfully, acting average or below ( but the guy who played the dumped boyfriend was O.K.), good SFX and make-up... You can see thousands of movies very similar to this one. It's pale, predictable and unimaginative. I think I'll stick to the ToeTag's earlier work.


First thing I thought and said after finishing August Underground Mordum was "Well, that was f@ckin stupid." The first thought after watching The Redsin Tower was "Well, that was f@ckin weak." So I guess the difference between the two is one's a really negative remark and the other's a normal negative remark. So I guess, Toe Tag and Vogel did actually make a better film. But that's like me saying that piece of crap doesn't smell as bad as this one.

Redsin Tower is just an average film, flat out. The movie is simply about a group of kids looking for a place to party, have sex and do the cliché things teenagers do in a horror film. They end up choosing the supposedly haunted Redsin Tower. There's another weak and pointless side-story about a psycho ex-boyfriend who has unbelievable investigative skills. God knows how the hell he found the Redsin Tower, or why he went there. Did they mention it? I don't know and I don't care. So yeah, that's the story. And guess what? It stunk. Before complaining about the flick let me say what I "liked". I thought the gore/effects were done pretty well. But can someone tell me what the hell was hanging from the ceiling when the fat kid with the lisp looked up? A flying lizard/dinosaur thing? That on the other hand was not a good effect, it looked like crap. Another thing that I liked.....hmmm...okay I enjoyed one performance. The girlfriend of the Burnout character. She seemed to be the best actress of them all, and actually exuded a "nice girl" feel. Besides that I didn't give a damn about any character. I especially disliked the psychotic boyfriend and goth girl. I also thought it was shot pretty well, it was nice and clear.

But overall, the movie is just a weak, clichéd filled, amateurish movie that delivers no scares, unless the cheap loud sound effect trick was used. It's a completely average movie that a few people will enjoy, most likely independent horror fans. Only check out this flick if you're bored or if you're a fan of Vogel's previous work.