I just finished watching this movie on TBS and I feel sick. I have never seen a movie with such blatant proselytizing as "Starship Troopers 3: Marauder". One could argue that the Federation Network television deliberately parodies current television propaganda hypocrisy and contradiction of glorifying both extreme militarism and religion. However, the "real" parts of this movie - the parts that are NOT meant to be parodies of television propaganda - are what are most sickening of all. Specifically, the religious nut girl at the end repeating some prayer over and over, and forcing her agnostic commanding female soldier to repeat this fantasy nonsense. I have never cared less about a character as the characters in this movie - including the non-religious ones. But, that female religious soldier I actually was HOPING would become bug soup.

In greater detail, this movie makes a horribly lame attempt to draw some kind of phony distinction between a "true" religion versus a religion based upon mind-control by bugs. But, there IS no distinction. ALL religion, ALL belief in "god" is mind control!

The CGI effects were laughable. They were as bad as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon". But, at least THAT movie must have cost much less to make than "ST3:M".

The hypocrisy is never addressed of a people or species or government that glorifies fighting and killing for what you believe in such as freedom and justice (and lower taxation) but then murders a peace activist, and calls them a "terrorist", for fighting for what HE believes, such as not having a wasteful intrusive repressive government that hates freedom of speech. The murder by execution of the brave female officer who informed the black male officer of the soldiers stranded on the planet is never resolved.

The acting, the falling down whenever a bug comes up from underground and shakes the earth a little, is pathetic.

I kept hoping for some redeeming qualities to this movie, but they never came. So, 1 out of 10, even though it deserves a 0.


This movie was a disaster. It disgraces the title of Starship Troopers. Ever since number one, I noticed the quality of movies, instead of going up, it was going down by a landslide. The special effects were a disgrace. My 12-year-old brother could have don't better. The graphics were worse than starship troopers 1, which was made in 1997! But thats not all. The second they tried to put religion into it, it seemed like it was some Christian fan-bot movie. It literally hit an all-time low there. As if starship trooper 2's idea wasn't retarded enough. At least that movie had something in it. The last 30 minutes was like they tried to do something intelligent by putting in something about religion. Im sorry to say they failed miserable. Did you see that part where the girls start praying? Disgrace. In the end I couldn't believe that this was actually a sequel of starship troopers 1. And that means a lot, since starship troopers 1 wasn't exactly the best movie on earth. Still prefer the book.


NO!! I Don't WANT TO WATCH MORE!!!!This film it's piece of crap! Really, far, far, far away from the first "Starship Troopers". Don't say to me that is a good sequel, because its not, its a fucklng shlt!!

And the fact that the director are always insisting on the network news and propaganda : "would you like to know more?"...give me a break, it is simply a terrible rip off from the first "Starship Troopers".

But the worst thing in the movie, its definitely Casper Van Dien, trying to do a though character...but he fail 100%..

Im a Starship Trooper first flick fan, sincerely, this Starship 3: Marauder in my opinion is a bad movie. If you like this one, i recommend: "Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation" (its even worst than the third one).


I am quite tolerable with B class movies. They don't have big budgets so they work with rubbish/old timer/carriers never took off artists and thats OK. As long as they have a nice script and don't try to compete with big guys, they do just fine. However this movie...

1) This is the second time they released a movie with Starship Troopers title that is ABSOLUTELY rubbish. The main story is not too bad but side stories are ridiculous.

2) You don't expect anything philosophical from a Starship Troopers movie but the lines are at best copied from the first movie. All the characters talk in a very cheesy way.

3) The CGI's are Xbox level, not even PS3. Especially the scenes with Marouders feel like they are coming from a low budget computer game (deer hunter, anyone?)

4) Half the movie is wasted with religious talks, that lead nowhere. Makes you wander whether Vatican sponsored the movie. At one point I expected to see the pope jumping from a landing craft and start killing bugs. Its at that level, no kidding.

All-and-all, I'm glad I watched this one at a friend and didn't spend any money (just my time, which is bad enough). And it also made me sad for the actors. Casper Van Dien's movie carrier never took off, so I guess it is fair to assume he needed the money. But Jolene Blalock was a rising star two years ago. Her acting skills are limited but everybody loved her in Star Trek. What forced her to join this movie is a mystery to me. I guess she also needed the money wanted to finish and go home because like everybody else, her acting was extremely cheesy.


Man, I'll tell ya, how did they get the money to make this film? What a complete waste of a great original storyline. All the "god' talk ruined this film. That and the b-rated TV series format filming. The 1st Starship Troopers was great! Unique, artful, and energetic. It kept a great pace and moved from one interesting action point to another. It was really cool to see Rico and the gang go from a high school punks to gung-ho soldiers. It had big-name actors and big-screen cinematics...

And ST3? jeeez...nothing but a bible-thumping rant. It's a shame, cause the Maruader suits are pretty darn cool and are in line with the original book.


take an enjoyable movie, make a pants sequel, forgive pants sequel for trying, THEN make a 3rd installment, add a dolop of rubbish, a heavy lashing of religion, sprinkle with shoddy CGI and flavour with 1 hot woman from star trek, put it into an oven and let it simmer for over an hour until crap and awful. do not serve to anyone. I sat there hoping for a glimmer of hope, to be entertained like the 1st movie did so well, but instead they let loose on a shoddy script and pointless nudity (not even that got my attention) and some TERRIBLE (thats the only word i can use without getting kicked off for fowl language) acting from Cécile Breccia. She makes Keanu Reeves look Oscar worthy in ANY film.

i give it a very generous 2*, but im not sure why.


OK, lets keep this short and sweet. This movie is possibly the worst movie i have EVER seen, as the first one is one of my favorite sci-fi films of all time i have been bitterly disappointed twice so far !please save yourself the same heart ache and just watch the first Starship Troopers again while imagining in your own mind the endless possibilities they could of embraced to build open, then if you really must, watch the second and third films and see how it was completely and utterly screwed up. As for Ed Neumeier, you should be ashamed of yourself sir.

Sorry about the rant but some things just need to be said.


I've decided that it is no longer necessary to watch any more starship troopers movies. It is so far gone its disgusting. i don't know who's idea it was to make a third movie after the fantastic flop of the second, what did that sell? 4 copies maybe? i digress, they have strayed so far from the mentality that has made the starship troopers "universe" that its hardly a sequel. I regret to say that I expected for the movie to not be that bad, the return of Rico brought my hopes up only to be dashed away in a spectacular blast of suck. The bugs have been brutally destroyed in every possible way, i remember the good old days from the first movie, when a bug was so intent on killing its prey that it would try by all means to kill it, focusing solely on it and nothing else. In the third installment in a regrettably decomposing series the bugs don't even have a target it feels. In a scene they walk by a soldier and cut his throat in mid step then stem on a mans head. Yet it keeps on chugging. The digital quality of the bugs was just appalling. It was like looking at a video game from the 90,s. I don't know how a movie can actually DEGRADE its digital quality to actually get worse from the original which came out IN THE 90'S, and having bugs that are stupidly specialized, like the "Grenade" bug and the stupid fricken scorpion thing that shouldn't exist.Not to mention the terrible sound effects, it was almost as if someone had overlapped the same sounds and used sounds from 30 years ago to fill in space. And the troopers!! To the point that one wont even kill a single bug without the helping hand of a nanny aiming at it for him! I don't think a trooper killed a single bug in that movie, all of it was done by main characters. I have to say though, one of the biggest letdowns between the terrible CGI, fourth grade acting and sound effects would have to be the guns. I remember when i first saw the original starship troopers movie. I was obsessed with they're guns. They were the coolest for me! Keeping in mind that i had only seen guns in games like Golden Eye or Perfect Dark for the 64. They were a beast of a gun! it pumped out shells like no tomorrow, had a frickin shotgun stapled on the bottom, and it sounded awesome! Then came the "Marauder" guns. They looked more like over-sized toys than weapons, with a barrel that u could fit a tennis ball in, and a stupidly shaped design, it didn't look futuristic, it looked like a toy and i felt sorry for those poor individuals that had to use that misshapen device when they acted in the movie. So, thats it. There isn't a single good thing i have to say about this movie. It was terrible, i consider it a monumental feat that i even watched the whole thing in the first place.


This film starts off cheesy but I expected that. What I didn't expect was the salute to fascism at the end off it. First, the Christianity was WAY out of line and over the top, then the celebration of executing people for speaking out and not conforming to the "norm" as defined by society, complete with marching companies and a victory march musical background. I sincerely wish that I had come to this site to read some of the commentary on this before I shelled out good money and two hours of my life for it. I don't know what the producers were thinking but just about every ultra fascist theory and doctrine was extolled and celebrated. The only thing that they didn't do was execute some gay people for "failing to propagate" or something. It's not worth extending my thumb to give it a thumbs down. The sound that you hear is Robert Heinlein rolling over in his grave! What a sad place this franchise has come to.


1997. Was the year when first Starship Troopers came out... Man, when I watch it now, it is strong as it was then... Good story, good CGI, good acting... That film was entirely good.

Then 2004. came out second Starship Troopers... and I thought to myself " This is some lame try to make more money on the fame of first movie." And I wasn't wrong. Now 2008. and third installment comes. And its even worse.

I don't know why did I watch this movie for 1 hour and 30 minutes. Maybe because I was so bored and tired to get up from my comfortable sofa and change DVD. It starts, as you all know, like previous ones, with some news, etc. And the action! But believe me, the action you don't want to see. Casper Van Dien is horrible, text lines, acting. The other actors sucked as well, the whole plot sucks!

Maybe this review is to harsh, but I am angry when someone tries to make more money on fame of the previous installment. And this movie is all about it.

I just can't remember the last movie where van Dien didn't sucked. The movie like first Starship Troopers where he did a decent job. After that movie, he went to record such amount of stupid ones. Including this one.

My opinion: Avoid it! Avoid second Starship Trooper and the third. Its all just lame try to make more money. To lame...


Bland MGM Spaghetti Western knock off/imitation directed by Don `Escape from the Planet of the Apes, Damien: The Omen 2' Taylor. One of Dario Argento's first writing credits and one that he probably doesn't put on his resume. It even has Ennio Morricone scoring the film, but amusingly, essentially just rewriting his Leone themes and altering the instrumentation a little. In other words, its not the highest caliber of a production. Its a true Spaghetti Western in the same way that a Stouffer's frozen lasagna is traditional Italian food.

Basically, its about a motley group of men thrown together under the pretense of robbing a train car full of gold dust from an evil Mexican general and giving the gold to some revolutionaries. The men are, a Bluto-like strongman, a grizzled dynamite expert (who when we first meet him is a suave card shark, but for the rest of the film he looks like a hobo, like they abandoned his original characterization), a Samurai (who is so tan he looks more South American), a young Jim Morrison looking acrobat, and `The Dutchman' Peter Graves. Now, when Peter Graves is the driving force, the `cool factor' to a film, is there any doubt it will be lackluster? The tone is very lighthearted and the plot dumb enough that you would think it was made for children, that is, until a few soldiers are slashed by the samurai and the Bluto guy snaps a few necks. Some truly horrible moments include Peter Graves faking a Mexican accent, the crew sneaking underneath the train in full view of over half a dozen soldiers, the cross stereotype of the Latino general insulting the Asian samurai, the crew stupidly fearing the trains cannon (which is so huge it couldn't be used at close range, and would only be good if fired at someone directly behind the train and three miles away), and finally, an extended piece at the end when the action is completely halted for an extended 2-3 min sequence of the samurai running across fields like he was on the intro to Little House on the Prairie.

Ultimately forgettable, and rock stupid, but a fun watch, nonetheless.


This is an old-dark-house movie. A young couple creep around a weird mansion said to be run by Satan, where they run from and into one after another of an ill-assorted crew: a lady in distress, an ape, an ape-man, a midget, various odd-looking people, and (for some reason) two Chinese. They end up in a throne room where the hero is required to play a "Price Is Right" sort of contest involving a climb up seven steps with seven illuminated footprints; hence the title. For my taste it's too much of the same thing. The creeping around fun-house corridors is amusing for a while, then becomes repetitive. By comparison with Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton or Laurel and Hardy doing the same bit in two reels, it isn't truly funny. It's not frightening either, and apparently wasn't intended to be: the household is too absurd. Most films in this genre balance the comedy with a genuine threat, and usually two--one that the characters are led to believe is real, and another for which it's a cover. Here the cover isn't to be taken seriously, and neither is what covered. A few moments of fun emerge from the mix, but it's rather heavy fun. The novel on which the film was based was a straight thriller and I think could have been played straight to better effect--and still could be.


There is such a wealth of creative/imaginative/outstanding films of the past century, you shouldn't waste 1 minute or 1 cent on this dreck. May I suggest you start with Hitchcock, Harold Lloyd, Fritz Lang, The Marx Brothers, "REAL" 'Walt Disney' animated films from the 30's-60's, and ten thousand more (at least a 1000 in the last 10 years). Just start by watching Ebert's 100 greatest films list, explore, expand your horizons and ENJOY!

This is another 'family oriented' formulaic film of mindless drivel that offends anyone possessing two brain cells to rub together. Another case of marketing media products to the mindless masses. Unfortunately this apparently includes 99.9% of typical American audiences who also believe that 'Father knows best' and 'Leave it to Beaver' factually depicted typical American family units.


I don't know... I give kids this age much more credit then the director of this movie... I mean, it wasn't bad... it was fun... at the beginning and i know that they have to put in a lot of educational statements... but couldn't they found a better more intelligent way of putting them in? and the ending... it was too unbelievable... i dont know... as i said... maybe its just me and maybe I'm too old for it... but if i were a kid i would b insulted


I'm a little shocked that Michael Madsen was in this movie. He is one talented actor. He could have done much better than getting involved with Vice. I tried to keep from stopping the DVD player to pull Vice out. But that's what I did. The movie is sloooooooow. It moves at a crawl. Super boring action. I don't know when I officially had to turn it off before it put me to me sleep. I do recall Daryl Hannah talking to Michael Madsen in car then getting out. Daryl Hannah is way hotter with curves than she was in Wall Street. She's a timeless beauty. Even Michael and Daryl could not save this one. The plot written on the DVD sounded like it was was going to be smoking like a inferno of action. It was more like a match of boredom. The DVD was only playing 20 minutes before my GF asked me what's this about. It was taking so long for a plot to develop that it lost us. If you need help going to sleep one night rent Vice. It will do the trick.


(Warning: I'm not fully bilingual, so please forgive me for my poor English vocabulary) This one was awful from start to finish! There was no notable action: the main characters were in a big investigation, full of dull dialogues, and the creature was just wandering around in the sewers doing some cheap kills once in a while, nothing too original, entertaining or gory.

Not absolutely painful, just plain boring.

If you want to see something a little better with the same creature, try Syngenor instead. I'm a big fan of the genre, especially the "so bad it's good" sub-genre, but this one is definitely not in that league. Avoid.


Cheesy & low-budgeted 80's monster movies form a truly peculiar cinema breed. A small selection of them is so bad they become good again (or at least very amusing), but most of them are so bad they're just plain awful, period. "Scared to Death" represents a category on its own, namely the absolute worst of the worst. Besides being badly written, poorly acted, weakly directed and cheesy, this film is also unimaginably boring! Horror fans, myself included - are generally quite tolerant when it comes to 80's junk, but one thing nobody can stand is a mixture of cheese and boredom. The building up towards the killings takes far too long (up to seven minutes even) and when the creature finally strikes, we see absolutely nothing and the action promptly swifts to another scene. What's that all about? The story is also pretty non-existent and incoherent as hell. It's some kind of earthbound "Alien" rip-off, with a murderous monster dwelling around the sewers and occasionally perpetrating a lonely woman's house or car in order to kill her. One incompetent cop and one pathetic ex-cop slowly (better make that VERY slowly) discover the creature is a genetic experiment that went a little awry and got dumped in the sewers by its creators. They call it a Syngenor, which stand for Synthetic Genetic Organism, and apparently it has a large appetite and a preference for young chicks on roller blades. The sub plot about the ex-cop's beautiful romance with a lady whose car he accidentally hit is totally irrelevant and dreadful. There isn't the slightest bit of suspense or any attempt to create an atmosphere; all the potentially interesting sequences are dimly lit and when we finally catch a decent glimpse of the monster it looks like a poor imitation of "Alien". The cast members are a bunch of untalented nobodies and William Malone's direction is weak and uninspired. William Malone? Wasn't he also responsible for the more recent but equally stinking pile of garbage "Feardotcom"? Twenty years later and still a lousy director, practice doesn't always makes perfect. However, his other cheesy & low-budgeted 80's monster movie "Creature" (starring Klaus Kinski!) does qualify as so bad it's good!


This Married With Children Reunion was such a let down. One hour and all it was is a clip show. Just some quick clips about Al, Peg, Kelly, Bud and Buck. Jefferson, Steve, Marcey were there but no clips really about them. FOX really let me down. This show gets a D-. And thats only cause MWC the show rules.


If you read my review of "Married with Children: The E! True Hollywood Story" you already know that I hold that to a higher standard than this and for good reason. While that was actually informative, compelling, and highly watchable for even the most casual and hardcore fan alike. This is just taking heads with a lot of clips of past Married shows. No thought went into it whatsoever and it was supremely boring and tedious. Any TRUE fan of this brilliant show was let down to no end with this lame, lackluster special. Go watch the E! one (if you can track it down). This one is highly more accessible as it's an extra on the Season 1 set of the show, but it's vastly inferior.

My Grade: D-


There are simply times (often many times) when one decides to watch a film merely to enjoy watching a favored actor perform, regardless of the expectations of the film itself. And if the film looks not to be very good, then lowering personal expectations in order to continue to enjoy the film is in order.

However, there are also times when one should not make the mistake of confusing the lowering of personal standards in order to enjoy what might not be a very good film, with just plain, out-and-out stupidity.

I went mad with joy when I found that English actor Richard Bremmer was going to be in a movie that was actually going to be shown on American television. He is almost exclusively a stage performer. And unfortunately, very little of British television broadcasts or productions can be accessed in the United States, so that usually killed that option for me to be able to see him.

I tripped over my feet, running to park myself in front of my TV.

It served me right.

I knew full well that there could not possibly be any "version" of "Crime and Punishment" that could be portrayed in two hours. Even if every word of dialogue were cut and the characters used sandwich boards--it still could not be done. I knew that, so I smirkingly "lowered my expectations." What I should have done was to put my eyes out, stick my fingers in my ears, and have run shrieking out into the night, because THAT would have at least made sense. More so than this movie.

I didn't expect a good job of work, far from it. Not in two hours. I didn't expect good writing (I was at least not disappointed) and I did not even expect good acting. Not with the constraints. What I didn't expect, however, was such an intentional and hideous distortion of character of the story's protagonist, Rodya Raskolnikov. Rodya's character was forcibly twisted into a grotesque parody of "good guy" in the opening of the story, seemingly so that it could either serve as a vehicle for the young and painfully handsome Patrick Dempsey, or in the assumption that the American audience was too illiterate and stupid not to be able to understand the concept of "tragedy".

Or possible both.

This was an insult both to the story itself and to a fine cast. A lack of direction for Dempsey was apparent, also. He couldn't seem to understand the concept of "hysteria", which was the essence of Rodya's personality, and instead resorted to ridiculous movements and twitchings. This was sheer laziness on the part of director Joseph Sargent. He did not take out the time to teach the role to an actor who has a tendency towards being physically hyperactive in much of his work. The film makers took a character who was not a noble character in any way and turned him into nothing more than a clown.

Establishing the character of Rodya is the first and foremost thing in any production of "Crime and Punishment", no matter how restrained the time or budget might be. He must be established. The book itself is heavily reliant on speech, and there never has been a way to trim it for either a lengthy theatrical film or a television series, neither of which this production was.

The point of the novel's story was that Rodya caused unbearable and needless agony and suffering to himself. And that he went into it willingly and with a perverse pleasure. That was a part of the "crime" and also a part of the "punishment." He wallowed in his own self-induced emotional pains, and he enjoyed it. He fed on his own agonies. The novel's Rodya was an emotional masochist. He was not the classical figure of Greek tragedy. It is this spot alone where the writer and director failed majestically.

If Rodja's character is not established in the beginning of a film, then the entire story collapses and the film can from then on only be a sequence of loosely-stitched together scenes. Even Richard Bremmer and Ben Kingsly, whose incredible performances and clear understanding and interpretations of their respective characters, could not save this film. It was destroyed within the first five minutes. Bremmer and Kingsly are glorious actors and they were wasted in a way I've never seen.

It just didn't play.


The key parts of Dostoyevsky's novel are either missing, or are so badly twisted, that I found myself laughing hysterically throughout this movie. There were a couple of good casting choices, and some good sets, but otherwise, it is a complete wash. This movie completely misses the points of Dostoyevsky, but it isn't too clear on it's Russian setting either. The poor cast is made to deliver the English dialog with bad Russian accents. The movie opens with Raskolnikov trying to assassinate Tsar Nicholas II and Tsaritsa Alexandra as they are leaving a church! (only 60 years too soon and completely destroys the subsequent plot assumptions). Key scenes such as Sonia's Father's speech to Raskolnikov (in which is contained the main theme of the work) are gone. What is meant to be a scene in which Raskolnikov and Sonia experience profound repentance, grace and forgiveness during the reading of the gospel story of Lazarus, is twisted: Sonia reads one sentence of the Gospel (tossing aside the theme), and then it turns into a big kiss moment instead. Avoid this one like the plague!


A crime causes much grief and guilt for the young idealist Rodya Raskonlnikov (Dempsey) who cannot come around to confess his offense.

Beginning with the positives, Crime and Punishment has a fairly powerful cast with the exception of Patrick Dempsey. Julie Delpy plays an excellent Sonia, and Ben Kingsley could not have done a better Porfiry. The cast were great for their parts, unfortunately the actual movie wasn't too great in terms of quality film-making.

Without knowing any prior history to the movie (or the book for that matter), one can easily see that this was made for TV. The cheesy "spacing out" effects only used in TV are an abundance in Crime and Punishment. It is most noticeable in Rodya's moments of despair and depression. The overall impression of this version of Crime and Punishment is much more different than what I saw in my mind while reading the book. The words in the novel are dark, gritty, and full of heart. The movie is very simple and it's almost always in broad daylight! If anything, all scenes should be shot in nighttime 99% of the time since darkness relatively symbolizes desperation and grim moments.

Patrick Dempsey, as much of a sweetheart as he is, is NOT Rodya Raskolnikov. Rodya is a rough man, not a pansy. This was a complete casting error that ruined his character's complexity entirely.

For what it's worth, Crime and Punishment makes for a decent straight-to-television movie. If one is looking for justice to the book, let your imagination run wild. After all, an imagination is a much more powerful tool than a cheesy television film. Too much was changed in the transition from the book to the little screen. That was the crime. Watching this as a faithful Dostoyevski fan was the punishment.


Some scenes are ridiculous - the timing is all wrong and the director deserves an axe-treatment for screwing this book up. The Disney version would probably be better. The original story has many layers but they tried to make it into a shakespeare play or sumthin, but worse.. Shame on you. Ben Kingsley is good though, and I liked the genuine feel to the surroundings, but that doesn´t help this empty shell of a movie. If you read the book u might get inspired to read it again. If u have not - leave this crap alone. I bet the reason Kingsley (the police) looks angry at times is because he´s starting to realize the movie will suck.


Between the bad accents, the horrible directing, and the predominantly bad acting, it couldn't be any worse. Even poor Richard Bremmer didn't look good trying to act while using that rotten Russian accent. Skip this one.


I've seen this movie compared to Donnie Darko several times, most recently in another comment here on IMDb, however, they're nothing alike. Donnie Darko is a beautiful, thought-provoking film, while this movie just falls flat. It tries so very hard to be deep and depressing, that it ends up almost a parody of itself. The quasi-philosophical mumblings of the main character sound like they where stolen from a manga and none of the characters seem even remotely like actual people.

My advice, watch "The Go-Getter" instead. It too has a young man who's lost both a parent and his way, it too has Zooey Deschanel, and unlike The Good Life, it has humor and it doesn't try to be something it's not.


Amaryllis (Roselyn Sanchez) lives in Puerto Rico with her parents and has a job delivering pizzas on her scooter. She dreams of being a dancer and is very talented. But, her father, once a great dancer himself, with a New York company, is confined to a wheelchair while her mama drinks too much. Amaryllis' boyfriend, too, is a jobless "taker". One day, the young dancer's father commits suicide and her mother reaches out to her daughter's boyfriend for comfort. Amaryllis is stunned and flies to New York. But, getting a job in the Big Apple proves difficult and she needs cash fast, although a kindly retired professor offers her a low-rent room in his apartment. Having nowhere to turn, Amaryllis becomes an exotic dancer in a strip club, where she turns heads with her body and costumes as well as her skilled dancing. One regular client in particular, Dr. Christian (D.B. Sweeney) has his eyes on "Yellow", as Amaryllis is known, as a future companion for himself. But, will Amaryllis totally abandon her dream of becoming a dancer? This movie has one main asset. Sanchez is a most beautiful woman and a terrific dancer. She is truly the reason to watch this flick, as she makes it bearable. Sweeney is less successful, mostly because his role is a stilted, repugnant mess. The other cast members are quite nice, especially the man playing the role of the aging professor. Sanchez looks lovely in her street clothes but her dancing costumes are definitely eyebrow-raising. Then, too, the scenes around Manhattan are nice but the small number of minutes spent in Puerto Rico wonderfully showcase the island's abundant loveliness . All other production values are adequate but nondescript. However, these items are of little importance as the big problems with the movie are its themes. The world of a professional dancer is undoubtedly a life of cutthroat competition and repetitive rejection. However, this woman's descent into the dark world of exotic dancing is repulsive. Make that a ditto for the clients who frequent such establishments. Therefore, if you love Sanchez, skip this one and go get The Game Plan instead. Now, there is a lovely film which highlights her magnetic beauty and talent in a big, big way.


I really wanted to like "Night of the Howling Beast," or "Werewolf Vs. the Yeti" as it's called in the uncut version. Unfortunately, the filmmakers manipulated us into thinking this film was going to be more about Daninsky and the Yeti's battle. It was not. Once again, we get Waldemar Daninsky being bitten by a werewolf while on an expedition in Tibet. After he disappears, his colleagues follow his trail to Tibet where most of them are wiped out by bandits and an evil sorceress and her equally evil sorcerer lover. This leads to a fight between the sorceress and sorcerer, that leads up to the "climactic" battle between Daninsky (in his werewolf form) and the elusive Yeti of the Himalayas.

The battle between both was unintentionally funny, and had me clutching my sides from too much laughter. Unfortunately, it was too brief to leave a long, satisfying effect on the audience.

The rest of the film is what you would expect of a Waldemar Daninsky werewolf flick. Paul Naschy once again, playing his tortured character who does nothing but whine about his condition, and the quintessential female lead who loves Waldemar unconditionally.

The bonuses include a couple of decent gory deaths (a woman who's back is skinned by the evil sorceress, being the most memorable one), and the competent photography that perfectly captures the beautiful locations. Paul Naschy, of course, delivers a competent performance as the tortured Waldemar Daninsky, and Juliet Mills (Beyond the Door) does quite well as Waldemar's love interest. Their chemistry is really the only thing that keeps the story moving along.

Overall, NIGHT OF THE HOWLING BEAST is nothing new. It's the same Waldemar Daninsky story but with a new setting. Paul Naschy fans should enjoy this nonetheless, others will feel extremely disappointed. It would have been much better if they had focused a tad bit longer on the battle scene between Daninsky and the Yeti.

A word of warning. It is extremely RARE and almost impossible to come by, especially in its Super Video release. You can acquire a legitimate bootleg copy of it on horrortheatervideo.com for fairly cheap. Check it out only if you are a Naschy completionist.


So we have Paul Naschy joining an expedition in a Tibetan mountain region. Or somewhere, as this movie looks like it's shot for the most part in some forest in Spain. And then we have snow. And then there's sun and plants. I don't know  it might have been shot on some distant planet in outer space were continuity errors are part of your everyday reality.

So, Paul Naschy stumbles upon some cave, enters it and finds two vampiric wenches (that's my guess) and has sex with them (both of them, at the same time, thank you very much). I couldn't tell if those sluts turned him into a werewolf, or if Naschy's character was already a werewolf to begin with. Either way, Naschy is a werewolf and he gets to wrestle around in the snow with a yeti (who just happens to wear a similarly looking werewolf costume, just like the one Naschy's wearing). And then I think this movie ended. I think I spotted an image of Buddha in this movie too, somewhere. Can't really remember.

Good Badness? I'm inclined to shout "Yes!", but for the love of Christ possessed, I can't remember why... 1/10 and, uhm, I guess, ehrr, maybe 5/10..., meaning 9/10 for being the worst piece of rubbish out of the lot, and 1/10 because I couldn't laugh with it. So, that's 10/20, which would boil down to... Aw, screw it. This movie sucks and Paul Naschy is a sleaze-ball. 1/10, and no goodies for Naschy.


Two weeks prior to me writing this user-comment, the legendary Spanish actor, writer, director and reputed sleaze-ball Paul Naschy  a.k.a. Jacinto Molina  passed away from cancer. Even though I disliked and heavily bashed a lot of the films he starred in, including this "The Werewolf and the Yeti", I was still a big fan of his work and charismatic appearance and I hope that he'll rest in peace in the hereafter.

Anyway, unlike the cool titles such as "Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll", "A Dragonfly for Each Corpse" and the more recent and criminally underrated "Rojo Sangre", this clearly wasn't the best film to pay a personal little tribute to the departed euro-exploitation star. "The Werewolf and the Yeti" is an incoherent and inept mishmash of half- elaborated ideas and generally speaking just a load of rubbish, in fact. What happens if you sent a wolf man out on an expedition to the Himalayas to hunt down the abominable snowman? A very exhilarating and pleasantly deranged exploitation highlight, you'd expect, especially if you also throw in some lurid vampire women in a cave, evil Tibetan smugglers and an ancient myth about Genghis Kahn (*). Wrong! This actually is an infuriatingly boring and imbecilic film. None of Naschy's "Hombre-Lobo" flicks I've seen so far are any good, but this is really bottom-of-the-barrel, with unfinished story lines and truly pitiably poor production values. The werewolf transformations are laughable and the special effects deserve a poor zero out of ten rating. It's basically just a series of Naschy's face gradually getting hairier. It even somewhat looks like he's having a severe heart-attack whenever he transforms. Unless I'm mistaken, I also didn't spot any Yetis, Sasquatches, Bigfoots or whatever type of snowy monsters until very late in the film. And even if it does appear, it's very difficult to tell the difference between the werewolf and the yeti. Wasn't the abominable supposed to be snow-white? The dialogs are painfully poor and the even the sleaze footage is likely to put you to sleep. By the way, you know how to recognize a film scripted by Paul Naschy because he always foresees a sequence of him having sex with beautiful woman that would usually never fall for him. Mostly, he even has sex with multiple women at once.

(*) I was quite intoxicated when watching this film, so it's possible that I made some of those story lines up myself. In that case; my apologies.


La Maldicion de la Bestia, or either Night of the Howling Beast as it's known in America & the Werewolf and the Yeti more commonly in Europe, starts with the Newman expedition in Kathmandu. The expedition consists of Professor Newman who is an anthropologist and two other men. They hike across the snowy mountains in search of the famed Yeti. Unfortunately the Yeti finds them instead and kills all three men. The credits run. The film then switches to a house somewhere in London, we get a shot of the river Thames, the Houses of Parliment & Big Ben just to prove it. Actually this little bit is really funny because the filmmakers decided to have bagpipes playing on the soundtrack as well! Sylvia (Grace Mills) introduces Waldemar Daninsky (script writer Jacinto Molina as Paul Naschy) to her Father, anthropologist Professor Lacombe. Waldemar & Lacombe discuss the ill-fated Newman expedition. Lacombe says that officially the three men were caught and died in a snow storm. However, Professor Lacombe has some photographs taken & sent to him by Newman appearing to show irrefutable proof that the Yeti actually exists. Lacombe is organising an expedition to carry on Newmans theories and asks Waldemar to join him, Waldemar agrees. Once in Tibet the members of the expedition meet up. They include Waldemar, Professor Lacombe & his daughter Sylvia, Larry Talbot (Gil Vidal), Melody (Veronica Miriel), Ralph, Norman & finally a guide called Tiger. Tiger informs the group that the weather has turned bad and they cannot travel safely, but he knows someone that might be able to show them a way. No one is interested except Waldemar who takes Tiger up on his offer and hires his friend who both set off alone. Everyone else stays behind waiting for news of their return & possible safe passage around the bad weather. Waldemar and his guide get caught in bad weather and are separated, luckily Waldemar finds a cave to shelter in. Unluckily for Waldemar the cave belongs to two evil Vampire, cannibal, ancient god worshipping, nymphomaniac twin sisters. Don't be too hard on yourself Waldemar, it could happen to anyone! After having a threesome with them, the twin sisters attack Waldemar who manages to kill them both but not before he is bitten by one. Waldemar is now infected with the 'curse of the beast', since when did being bitten by a Vampire turn you into a Werewolf? Back at camp with Professor Lacombe and the expedition, after Waldemar fails to return they decide to try and find him. On their way they are attacked by Sekkar Khan's (Luis Induni) bandits and are all but wiped out in a gunfight. Only Sylvia manages to escape into the mountains, the bandits kidnap Professor Lacombe because he is a 'wise man' & Melody because she's a pretty young girl, hey it would be a good enough reason for me! They take Lacombe and Melody to Shekkar's palace where a terrible fate awaits them at the hands of Shekkar and his evil witch Wandesa (Silvia Solar). Sylvia eventually meets up with Waldemar again, together they decide to try and rescue Sylvia's Father which leads to torture, murder, a daring escape & a fight to the death between two bloodthirsty beasts, the Werewolf and the Yeti! This Spanish production was directed by Miguel Iglesias under the pseudonym of M.I. Bonns and is frankly a bit of a mess, it's almost as if your watching various different Spanish Naschy horror films pasted together. The script by star Molina is bizarre to say the least, lots of things happen but none of it really makes any sense. The English dub version has ridiculous dialogue like "two beautiful young girls, flowering & white" or how about "I'll see if I can relax my nerves". A lot of the dialogue sounds unnatural and very forced. There is very little gore or violence, a few bites, one brief cannibalism sequence and the most graphic part of the film when someone has the skin on their back sliced off. La Maldicion de la Bestia also contains a few scenes of nudity and an attempted rape, too. The special make-up effects are generally poor, Molina's Werewolf make-up or transformation isn't going to impress anyone these days. This film also contains probably the worst day-for-night shots I've ever seen. On a technical level the film is generally bland and forgettable, photography, editing, lighting, acting, music and direction although passable could all have been better. On a positive note the scenes in Shekkar's palace and especially his dungeon are very atmospheric and look the part with their flickering flame torches and crumbling stonework walls. And to be fair the film moves along at a good pace and isn't overly boring. Basically it's just not a very good film, no matter how interesting the outlandish premise sounds. Overall very little to recommend unless you a fan of Naschy or Spanish Werewolf films, which most people sensibly aren't.


This film stands out while looking at the DPP list of Video Nasties due to its wacky title. However, that's not to say that the film itself is one of the more interesting on the list...as it's actually just a collection of ideas, mercilessly thrown together with barely any coherence or point. Many of the ideas in the film have lead to good films in their own right; here we have a plot involving a werewolf curse (well done in The Wolf Man), a hunt for the yeti (well done in The Abominable Snowman) and a sorceress (well done in many fairy tales). However, it all feels very random and the plot running through all these ideas fails to be interesting at every turn, thus making the film very boring indeed. The story itself takes place after an expedition into the Himalayas to find living proof of the mythical Yeti. Renowned adventurer Waldemar is part of the expedition, and the story picks up when he is captured by two demon women. After being turned into both their sex slave and a werewolf, he is set free to roam the surrounding land.

The plot sounds like it's going to make for a very interesting movie, which makes it all the more disappointing that this isn't. The Yeti is a creature that has lead to a load of rubbish films, including fellow Video Nasty 'Night of the Demon', and family flick 'Bigfoot and the Hendersons'. I've got to say that I came to realise during this movie that I don't like movies set in the snow very much; the location doesn't seem to make for a very interesting setting. The film is notable for the fact that it was written by and stars Jacinto Molina; also known as Paul Naschy, who is apparently a big name in Spanish horror cinema, although this the first film that I've seen from him. Despite the fact that this film was banned in the UK back in the eighties, it's not very gory; thus making it one of the disappointing entries on the list that didn't really deserve to be banned. The only real good (or bad, depending on how you look at it) scene sees a young girl skinned. Overall, I really can't recommend going out of your way to find a copy of this film. It's not easy to come by, but thankfully I didn't have to spend too much to see it.


This movie has its artistic qualities. But, it is not definitely its purpose. Richet is an extremist obsessed by revolution. He tried to make a film inviting young viewers in "banlieues" to put everything on fire. For instance, cops are constantly portrayed as racist and violent, and are called enemies from beginning till end. The script tries to explain how their revolt is justified, and that true violence is the only way to escape their problems. The climax is the end: after a cop coldly kills a teenager, all his friends start to break public phones, burn cars, until a whole police unit come for the "final fight". So you might watch it to see how far violence goes, but it is dangerous to see for the minds it was made for. Richet could be sued for hate incitement.


Everybody likes a good mystery and a good movie, and together the two make a potent combination; unfortunately, you get neither with `Lush,' written and directed by Mark Gibson, a film that leads you down the path apparently for no other reason than to lead you down the path, and that's considering it from the most positive and objective point of view one could possibly muster. Rarely does a movie leave the viewer with such a pronounced sense of indifference as this one, or with the feeling that the entire experience was, at best, pointless.

When Lionel Exley (Campbell Scott), a promising professional golfer, chooses the comforts of the bottle over his career, he is ousted from the circuit. He goes back home to New Orleans to sort out his life, which he does by looking through the bottom of a whiskey glass. Then he meets Firmin Carter (Jared Harris), a hopeless alcoholic with one up on Lionel, however, inasmuch as he is wealthy, which means that when he hits the floor, at least it's the best that money can buy.

Lionel quickly becomes something of a confidant to Firmin, which leads to a proposal Firmin makes to his new found friend, which could be a lucrative proposition if they can pull it off. Lionel demurs, however, as in the sober light of day it all just seems too ludicrous. But after another night of drinking, it appears that Lionel just may have pulled it off after all. The problem is, he doesn't remember a thing-- and suddenly the police are in his $9.00-per-night flop house room asking questions...

A story told in cryptic terms can be a challenge to an audience, and unraveling a mystery can be an engrossing and ultimately satisfying experience. But only when there's something actually worth unraveling. In this case, it would be more accurate to say that it's the film itself that unravels, except that it is never together enough in the first place to do so. Gibson's presentation is seemingly so convoluted it's as if he did it intentionally, not to effect good drama or mystery, but in hopes of concealing the fact that the story-- such as it is-- is just so obtuse. And the real pity of it is, he wastes the talents of some actors who deserve better. Much better.

As far as performances go, Campbell Scott is solid as always, but his efforts here, while commendable, are ultimately an exercise in futility. Even an Oscar worthy performance couldn't salvage this one. And that is not to say that this is an award winning performance; it isn't-- but it is credible, and Scott does about as well as anyone could with the material he's given to work with. The good news is, there are greener pastures ahead for Scott (as well as all of his costars here), because after this, there is definitely no way to go but up.

Happily, Laura Linney-- proving the old adage that what doesn't kill you makes you stronger-- earned an Oscar nomination for her work in her next project, giving an extraordinary performance in an extraordinary film, `You Can Count On Me,' which was also one of the best films of that year. In this one, Linney-- like Scott-- brings more to her role of Rachel Van Dyke, the affluent southern belle who becomes involved with Lionel, than anyone would have the right to expect, including her director. Considering how poorly written this screenplay is, she deserves a lot of credit for even being able to `find' her character, let alone make her convincing-- which she does. But again, the best performance in the world couldn't save this one.

Also turning in a decent-- albeit wasted-- performance, is Jared Harris as the self-destructive Firmin Carter, a character nearly as pitiful as the film itself. Taken out of context, in fact, Harris actually does some commendable work here. And again, it's a case of the actor doing everything humanly possible with what he was given, which certainly wasn't much.

The supporting cast includes Laurel Holloman (Ash), Nick Offerman (Gerry), James `Kimo' Wills (Pats), James R. Hall Jr. (Buddha), Don Hood (Har) and Sherry Francis (Mrs. Van Dyke). A lamentable attempt at filmmaking, the best thing that can be said about `Lush' is that it makes you appreciate a `good' movie. In defense of Gibson, it should be pointed out that this was his first attempt as a writer/director, which is no easy undertaking even for a seasoned professional. When you see a great-- or even a good movie-- it always looks like it was brought to the screen so effortlessly; and that's what makes a great filmmaker great-- that ability to make it all look so natural, and `easy' to do. It's like the old `I-could-have-written-that' out-of-hand dismissal of a best selling novel; it just looks so easy. Rest assured, it is not; and hopefully Gibson will learn from this experience, pick himself up and move on to bigger, better and more worthwhile projects in the future. I rate this one 2/10.


Recipe for Meat Pie... Ingredients: Some incompetent film-making hobbyists, grand ideas blended with total delusion, crude jokes stolen from the nearest schoolyard playground, nonsensical material that's just plain unfunny... and a whole lot of egos, each convinced that he is in charge and an "expert".

Method: After writing woefully inept script, reject feedback from people who actually have a clue about writing. Remain convinced that this is "commercial hit" material. After unsuccessfully trying to recruit pure talent such as John Cleese, Bryan Brown and Michael Caton, or celebrities such as Steve Irwin, cast some washed-up comedians and former reality TV contestants. Cluelessly throw together a film with a camera from the local pawnbroker and await mocking from anyone unfortunate enough to catch a glimpse of the garbage


The world would be a happier, more enlightened place without this movie.

The plot of the film is so undeveloped that it would be better described as a premise - a guy gets his genitals removed by a mincing machine and gets a transplant from a black porn star.

Once the entire plot has been presented to us in the space of about three minutes, we have a long sequence where a number of out-of-place lowbrow jokes about everything that's funny if you're drunk. In fact, I'm wondering if the film makers were drunk when they wrote this, shot it, edited it.

The characters are very, very one-dimensional, generally limited to a single characteristic each. We've seen all these people in a dozen other movies, and relocating the little bit of 'action' there is to a pie shop in an obscure Australian town does not warrant a 'new' movie.

In the end, if you feel like having some simple, no-brains-required laughs and don't mind that the larger part of the movie is going to be bad, you might as well check this out. But don't say you weren't warned.


Rude, crude, amateurish, self-indulgent and just plain unfunny. When I first heard what these people were trying to do with this movie, I was confused. After reading the script and seeing the movie's description in Ralph magazine, I am even more confused. The storyline seems to be a joke that someone made over the breakfast table, and didn't realise it should have stayed there. For the little bit of "story" that is there, it does nothing but to string together jokes which are either weak or stolen from other places, sitting in sequence in a disjointed, incoherent manner. Thank heavens that this will never be seen in cinemas (and in my opinion should not even be on this site), and please, let us be spared of any other nonsense that these hacks try to impose on audiences


I'm all for freedom of expression, and would never deny someone the right to independently get a message across to film audiences. However this movie, an attempt at independent comedy, seriously stands in the way of other people having the chance to express themselves. It also demeans just about every group in society with its feeble attempts at humour, and insults viewers in the process. Seriously, who thinks audiences are going to be amused by jokes about masturbation, menstruation, penis transplants and various racist and homophobic slurs? The Australian film industry is struggling to find an identity, and, as much as I admire anyone with a mission to get some Australian product out there, films like this will only damage the industry's already-low reputation and stop real films with real messages getting the chance they deserve.


Barely watchable, possibly one of the worst films ever made. To the director I would say: get a real job.

It's not even funny bad like some old or dated cult flicks, it's just truly awful. Poorly crafted, derivative, unoriginal, amateurishly produced. Also borrows liberally from SBS TV's Pizza. If you are going to appropriate ideas, why not at least rip off something good?

I've seen first year film student projects that are far better than this waste of space.

One of the worst films I've ever seen by far.

You can watch the whole thing on YouTube, but I bet you won't sit through the first minute.


It should be illegal to make a film this bad. Watching it was like having a pencil shoved in my eye and it being swirled around, then having a bunch lit of cigarettes put out all over my body. But other than that it was OK.

I feel this way and I was getting paid while I was watching it at work. They say it is like American pie. This, my friend, is nothing like American Pie. American Pie had a plot, this was just a bunch of idiots doing stupid sh#$* on camera with no rhyme or reason at all.

Anyone thinking about watching this movie, just know, it is 89 min of your life you will never get back.


It's got to be a warning when the big marquee names are ex reality TV contestants and comedians who wonder what happened to their once-thriving careers. This group of cardboard cut-out non-entities are perhaps the main flaw in a deeply flawed movie. Imagine how this puerile rubbish was pitched: "Hey there's this guy, right, and he loses his wee-wee, and gets a new one... and then we can do these jokes about Viagra and 69s and poo and farts and other stuff that we came up with after six beers and a whole stack of old comedy tapes. Yay, we got a winner!" Since they've used every other tacky gimmick, how about issuing the audience with 1D glasses to see the characters in all their glory? With characters as feeble as these, the movie can at least be saved by some great jokes. Which makes it more of a shame that there aren't any.


OK so since they had a really old joke about Pauline Hanson in the movie i guess i can just use that famous old pauline line... PLEASE EXPLAIN i so did not get what the point of this movie was. i mean, there's a guy who gets his penis chopped off by a mincing machine and i'm like OK, is this a porno? then some tacked on story about some professor with a grudge against the pie shop owner, and i'm like, is this meant to be some statement about small town revelry. then there's all this nonsense crap about 20-somethings being promiscuous and i'm like, is this a story about youths out of control. Then IMDb says its meant to be a comedy. where were the jokes? where were the larger then life characters? where was the point?


"There's nothing funny about Meat Pie.

It's a bunch of set pieces with people getting sh*t on and ejaculated on, blokes kissing blokes, and things happening for no reason. The acting's worse than a skit on The Footy Show, the "jokes" are bastardisations of gags from other films and The Simpsons, it's borderline racist - and much worse, completely nonsensical." And I'll just add that it's rude, pointless, stupid, unfunny, pathetic, and it cost me 80 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. It's the worst thing I have ever seen, and I hope that nobody makes the same mistake I did of being nice enough to give it a chance


Oh Come ON! No movie this stinky gets a rating this high without a concerted campaign to pump it up. Best Christmas movie ever? Please! Haven't the producers run out of relatives to write these reviews? Isn't anyone else a little suspicious about ratings of nothing but 9s & 10s-- not even "Star Wars" or "Gone with the Wind" is this consistent.

In all fairness, Alan Cumming was palatable in this low-low-budget made-for-TV flick. But the script is so clunky we were rolling our eyes and asking ourselves what would possess anyone to recommend such mediocrity. Even Rowan Atkinson had a hard time making these lines funny. I'm sure he didn't get paid nearly enough.

Young kids might actually sit through this, but anyone older than about 14 is likely to pass out from boredom waiting for a laugh. Go lift a pint at the pub and come back in an hour...or make that 70 minutes. No need to waste a single moment on this one.


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in very long time. I watch 5 movies or more each week and this is truly dreadful. The film quality is very grainy, camera work is lousy, editing is so bad I couldn't follow it in some places, script is horrendous, acting is over-the-top stupid, story is marginal at best...

It's just plain awful. Were people paid to give this movie 9's and 10's in review? There can be no other explanation. Either that, or everyone saw this as a kid before they developed any taste what-so-ever.

I feel bad because I asked my local library to purchase a copy based on IMDb's comments. Now I might have to forget to return it so no one else gets tricked into watching it. Please stop the site abuse from phony reviews!!


JUSTICE, or BACKLASH, was a dull and plodding TV flick about a prosecutor attempting to avoid being executed by a Colombian drug cartel. I watched it thinking it was going to be a Jim Belushi vehicle, but Belushi wasn't the star. A TV actress named Tracey Needham was, and while she was very attractive, she ain't no Jim Belushi. I didn't quite make it to the end, as I had to leave for work and I was getting bored anyhow. Charles Durning co-starred to no particular effect. While glossily photographed, JUSTICE looks like it was strictly a paycheck for all involved, including the legendary and ageless Henry Silva as Sal the Joker. And here we go again: IMDb wants more lines, God knows why. Brevity is often the beauty of a movie review. But not here. No sir-ee, Bob. You gotta drag these things out. Drag them out, I say!


I guess I've become spoiled by watching mainly good movies in recent years, but this was by far the worst movie I have seen in a long, long time. It didn't even have the redeeming virtue of being entertainingly bad; it was just plain BAD. The acting was uniformly wooden, and the script was laughable. I was deluded into thinking that the film was worth seeing by the fact that James Belushi and JoBeth Williams were in it, and even Charles Durning is often good for a laugh if nothing else. God knows what they thought they were doing when they agreed to appear in this turkey.


All films must necessarily proceed from the script. When the script is drawn from the Collected Cliches of North America and the largest line item on the budget is cocaine acquisition, the result must be worth far less than the life force used to view it. The only good thing I can say about this movie is that Tracey Needham is pleasant to look at once she wipes off the Marilyn Monroe makeup.


Am not from America, I usually watch this show on AXN channel, I don't know why this respected channel air such sucking program in prime time slot. Creation of Hollywood's Money Bank Jerry Bruckheimer, this time he is spending a big load of cash in the small screen. In each episode a bunch of peoples having two team members travels from on country to another for a great sum of money; where the camera crews shoot their travels. I don't know who the hell gave this stupid idea for the show. It has nothing to watch for, in all episodes we see people ran like beggars, some times shouting, crying, beeping, jerky camera works..huh it's harmful to both eyes and ears. The most disgusting part in the race is the viewers finally knows each of the team members can't enjoy their race/traveling experience. Even though, to add up the ratings the producers came up with the ideas of including Gays in one shows, sucking American reality show.

It's nothing to watch for, better switch to another channels.

The Amazing Race = The Disgusting Show.


I bought this movie on a pure whim of decent premise. The back eludes to neither pro or anti-bush, and even quotes how it's made for "thinkers". This is all garbage.

Basically, you're gonna assume it'll start off with Bush getting picked off somehow by some dubious fellow, and move onto an intriguing "what-if" scenario. Questions riddled my head, "wonder what Chaney would do much different?", "how would the U.S. really respond?", "what would become of Bush's course of actions?", "what would happen in 2008? 2018? 2050?", "how would the rest of the world view this?".

But forget all that, you're set on a journey of 30% anti-Bush protests news clips before death, 60% forensic "whodunit", 10% no freedom wagon.

Firstly, this movie is overwhelmingly anti-Bush with the only pro-remarks coming from his speech writer (all mainly personal, not political). Second, this is NOT a political movie, it's a murder mystery you don't care about because it didn't happen.

Even when it mentioned Chaney moving up to presidency I perked up for a moment, as if the opening credits ended and the movie were about to begin, but no, no, back to some fictional trial with a bunch of malarkey about evidence. It's fictional, make overwhelming evidence, make the assassin found dead, and give us a political yarn to unravel.

This movie deserves to be protested, shot, then put on fictional trial before we all come together and whine about crappy movies.


When there is so much propaganda happening in the U.S. right now do we really need a fictitious documentary confusing the truths and facts about government vs. people?! It sets such a truthful tone that it feels like most of the effort of this "documentary" is to nullify all credibility to true documentaries on Bushes real agenda for the world. I give it the worst rating not because it wasn't well done, on the contrary it is executed with perfect timing and very possible outcomes... the only problem is if you make a movie make sure that it is a MOVIE, not a mockery of people's intelligence. I watched this with my wife and we didn't know what this was about and what to expect, we were looking to this for knowledge but as soon as we saw the dates and the assassination of the president we looked at each other and said, what the hell is the point of watching an aftermath of B.S. We got to the end of the film just to see what this turd could possibly bring to anyone, and were very disturbed about all the fake tears made out to be documented, what's the point of getting actors telling you their fake stories when you have real people who have the same exact story (taking away the assassination of Bush of course) but have authentic sorrow, not crocodile tears! we couldn't understand how this even got air time, it has good actors but still you could see that they are ACTORS. There are thousands of true facts that film makers could use to create documentaries on the subject to inform the masses, isn't that the purpose of documentaries, to inform?! just when I thought that the U.S. couldn't get more confusing in their actions, someone decides to make a "mockumentary" further confusing people unaware of what is really going on in the U.S. and easily influenced people. The makers of this movie either have a hidden agenda of their own or they were looking to make a quick buck. If you are ready to lose 90 pointless minutes of your lives that you will never get back, and get your intelligence insulted, then watch this! otherwise steer clear of this awful, horrible "documentary" movie. We hated it with a passion.


The title of the movie is the spoiler. Set in 2008, we witness the assassination of George W. Bush and view the aftermath. With the numerous precedents for killing US leaders, the premise, however shocking, sets up what could be a cornucopia of possibilities. Such imagination is never exercised. The movie is not a commentary on US or world politics but a tired re-telling of the problems with what happens when the justice system investigates with blinkers.

The use of CGI techniques is clever. However, if the movie let imagination run wild we would have a memorable commentary rather than a boring CSI botch-up. If you are in the market for a cutting edge political expose, don't bother going to this turkey.


Terrible. We all could come up with a fictional storyline of if the President died with the here and nows.

Ugh...this was painful to commit to watching the whole show...because I knew it was going to be 97 minutes that I will never get back.

The dialogs. The too-close to reality of a story that never happened and the 'victim' ~ the President is still alive.

Dum duh dumb...dumb

I'm still stammering to figure out what the purpose was to even spend the time to write this story?

I can get barely ten lines in on what a waste of time this was. BTW, most of the acting was terrible and so contrived. The CIA guy who was almost crying...very unreal. The only satisfaction I got out of this is no one would think this was real because of how bad the acting was.


You know, I thought I had seen it all--San Franciscans protesting going into Afghanistan after witnessing the devastation of the 9/11 attacks, the daily drum-beat of every metropolitan newspaper blaming the US for all the world's atrocities (led by the fanatical liberals at the NYT), the Cindy Sheehans of the world blaming our president for war crimes, and on, and on, and on-- but I will never understand the likes of people that claim they "love this country," "support the troops," and believe in national security, meanwhile stabbing our leaders in the back every chance they get with the daily gratuitous, ad hominem attacks and movies like Death of a President. And all in the name of "art", "satire", dissension, or whatever lame excuse liberals use to justify their perverted ideology. We are at war people! Even if it's not a declared war, our people are out there dying in a hellhole that is Iraq. Regardless of how we got there, anti-patriotic propaganda like this uncalled for. Dissent, yes; undermining our country during these times is really ridiculous!


From the acting on impulse as some have said to the manipulating of the office of the president, to propel a sideways political agenda, to racial-profiling, finding, weeding out those who wish to kill Americans and dance and party all night afterward, I say, this was interesting.

Although, there were no good, Bush-isms. Like "We need to 'thinkify' on the threat of terror in America, as well as terror on it. Or other Bush lead in, speech banter. This movie complete with CGI Special effects was an entertainment. Those who were running from place to spot scrambling to do damage to the United States, show the unrest in the world, that was there, before we were even a country. Let's face the music here, we have Americans that seem to care more about the terrorists welfare, than they do about other Americans. Let's get down to it, there are approx. (As reported by a media outlet)19% of Americans who trust Muslims, that they are a 'religion of peace'. Talk about an organized religion. They are organized against the U.S. and always have been. The other problem with some people who identify with so-called peaceful Muslim's is that the radical extremists will never be stopped by the so called--' peaceful' ones anyway. And they are not going to negotiate with a President and remain peaceful. It will end and they will resume seeking bloodshed, non-Muslim's, that's right.

The president aside from the footage of Bush himself was a little weak. Whereas one might say I had to remind myself this wasn't real, another was saying this was a special-effects soggy lunch. On a rainy day.

The players themselves, from the aides (the actors) where good but could have been better at seeming as if they were really in this life and not simply making a 'Phocumentary'. This will not be a seminal work to all who will see this presentation. But of those liberals who wish to assassinate the President, this will be a special effects extravaganza-festival for them. However this will remain to others, who have seen more than this movie and have a different understanding of this world in which we live in, an intellectual 'wheelchair' to the Liberal base that doesn't indeed look for the good in America but continues to find a 'Villain' in the U.S.

My question is, before 9/11, when there were still three thousand people in one piece, and Bin Laden was offered to President Clinton, on two different occasions, when William passed on taking him, because he said, "We have no business, with Bin Laden." Why did many 'assign' blame to a President who didn't pass on finding the killers and those with them and insisting on bringing them to justice? Why isn't it, instead of getting angry with the (those who have had a crime perpetrated against them) (The U.S.) Many terrorist attacks on the U.S. outside the U.S., on our military bases around the world, at our Embassies around the globe, on our airlines over Scottland, Libya etc etc, etc.

Is it correct, that some of the American masses seem to want to lay down and let the perpetrators have their 'way' with us? What is this guilt about? what do you call having guilt when some one commits a crime against you? The guilt of a Fool?! Just as long as we don't offend them. The ones who kill for no reason except for the god of their Kohran. Right? But, regularly they are just nice folks, a religion of peace. A Piece of what? The peaceful Muslims simply cannot stop the violent ones. All peaceful ones can do is talk. Which in the real long run accomplishes....nothing.

Why wasn't this movie made with Bill Clinton as the example instead? That would have been a lot more original and fascinating considering the truth of the details concerning the nuclear materials given to Kim Jong Ill, in 1998, to make an energy power plant. Sure. Just look at him now.

George W. Bush didn't start this. Even to those who say he 'Lied' that there were no weapons in Saddam's country. No nothing was shipped off to Syria or Iran or any other place, right? Right?! Remember, it took the U.S. with the U.N.s help, six-months to get into Iraq. A lot can happened in one day. It took the U.N. half a year, to make up it's mind. Look at the History, he (President Bush) is simply attempting to finish what had been started, long ago.

Look at the History and look into the facts. Soldiers have died in Iraq, yes there was no draft, men and women went voluntary and died in honor for their own country as our fore-fathers, stated "That the tree of Liberty will be sprinkled with the blood of it's patriots from time to time." More people have already been killed this year in drunk driving accidents than all those in Vietnam and Iraq put together. And next year more will be killed and on and on. I must say this in stark contrast, there is no honor in being killed by a drunk on the road. (although those who died most likely have 'honor'. Those who fought in Iraq have honor in fighting for our country, we should never forget. But this movie wanting to kill the President which is what it is really about due to the war in Iraq, should have more truth about this, rather than the empty glorification of the act perpetrated on JFK now transferring it to President Bush (*)


I saw "Death Of A President" a few nights ago and found the movie to be incredibly boring. Aside from all of the "hype" regarding whether or not the movie has moral issues, to me, this is of no concern. I just found the movie to be plan boring. So boring, in fact, I left three-quarters of the way through it. Don't waste your money or your sense on this ridiculousness.

Though the acting seems real, at first, the actors lose their grip as the movie progresses. Do the motion-picture business a favor and just forget about this money-thirsty, controversy-seeking film, really.

Second thought, do us ALL a favor by just ignoring it, period.

Thanks!


This movie seems like the last chance for Mr.President G.W.Bush. He's hit from above, exactly from some upstairs floor of a building in Chicago, during a night in the next year. A hard day's night: the movie begins with some "protesters", as the documented buffoons calls the people asking for justice, THEN peace. Mr. President, rarely called by his name, justifies his killers: "the protesters"....something that recalls Jesus, rather than J.F.K. After 20 minutes, he's shot down. My god, again... No, this time it's just by fiction....something that Mr. G.W.Bush, accidentally, Mr.President, and accidentally very down as regards popularity in 2006, knows very well. He knows fiction at least as much as fiction was the Iraq mass destruction weapons, and their sites proofs that were shown to the Americans, and to the world. Fiction again with his Edipo's death year: 2007. Have you ever dreamed about some loved one's death ? A car accident, or some other sad ending ? Did it happen during a trouble with your loved one ? How did you feel once awake ? Well, go and make your excuses to Mr.President: you've just seen His best dream ever.....instead of explaining a lots of unpleasant questions, he's just dead.....by fiction, of course. The rest of the movie is your personal nightmare.


Greetings and if any of this does indeed spoil the movie for you then you really have not missed much anyway but there is a disturbing aspect with this production that just must be commented on. Using real Bush footage and not making the movie based on a fictional character is just stupid and also inviting if not inciting assassination as a glorified and approved method of action. The major problem with this is its banality. All the people are just mono-dimensional and so obvious that its painful. The reconstructions of the forensic evidence or lack of it would never pass in the real world unless you were in a totalitarian dictatorship. If these people are suggesting that, then they are worse than stupid. The next infuriating thing is the incredible lack of any balance regarding the Bush presidency and what has really been done during his Republican period. It is almost as if these people at Borough were paid for under the table as a Democrat Propaganda film. One wonders where the money came from (really)? The production technique was fairly good and that was what the 3 points were for. But it is just unbelievable that in this advanced western culture we still get garbage like this passed off as a work of art etc. just like that idiot Michael Moore. It is nothing more than the ravings of a fringe delusional leftist ideology and belongs in the coffers of regrettable efforts in the making of motion pictures. Just in case you are wondering. I am European and not a US Republican. But I suppose that will not matter because the Democrats and all the wet liberals and leftists are so closed minded that any thing that puts down Bush must be just brilliant. Poor fools you!


I decided to go in to this film somewhat blind as I was only aware that it dealt with the assassination of George W Bush. The idea had some real possibilities and I disagree that it is disgusting to speculate what would occur in such a situation because it could lead to some meaningful conversation. What was disgusting was the acting in this film and how wrong they were in developing the plot.

First, I have never seen such poor acting in a film (maybe Karate Kid 3). When they would cut to the interview segments it was almost unbearable to watch. The actress who played the speech writer was so unbelievable and her performance seemed more comedic than serious. Thats not to say the other actors were much better. I would go as far as to say that not one role was cast properly. Another character that deserves mention is the lawyer for the accused. One thing the director did right was not give her much screen time.

The other issue I have with this film is how it focused on the investigation of the assassination rather than the political implications. It was impossible to get in to this story. Its obvious that part of this film is an attack on the Patriot Act and its destruction of civil liberties but I feel that this point is lost in this mess of a movie. If there is a valid political statement to be drawn from this film, I don't see how anyone would even care to recognize it.

This is a film that should not be viewed by anyone who respects good acting or an interesting story.


I just suffered through 'Death of a President'. It consists of 100 minutes of fake interviews with the fake investigators of a fictional assassination of George W Bush. Even the killing itself was a bore...just the sound of a gunshot, and W bends over slightly before being shuffled into a waiting vehicle..just like the Reagan hit in the 80's. No, you don't get to see Chimpy's brains blown out. The rest of the film is just a sob story about how the poor Muslims are always getting blamed when anything bad happens to America. Sorry, I'm not buying it. Muslims WERE to blame for 9/11, and this piece of leftist garbage that vilifies the USA for acting against Muslim terrorists deserves the box office failure it received.


Anyone who's not seen this, don't feel pressured by the supposed controversy. The whole thing is as entertaining as being steam-rolled into your armchair by a Lee Harvey Oswald documentary. Why the harebrained duo, Range and Finch, picked this subject is obvious when you scan the hair-triggered rags and the inflamed threads on this board.

To explain my low rating. It earned the slothenly four during a long slip from a decent five when it failed to convince me that its creation was justified. Put simply, this was perhaps the most disrespectful tirade against a political figure I have ever seen; they flushed thousands of Franklins down the toilet and this bobbed up? There was no message beyond the flimsily appended, "Patriot ACT, wah wah wah... Patriot ACT, wail cry wail!"

Pathetically shallow.

Or was it? If you put on your special investigation specs and look closely there's a veiled finger pointing at Cheney. Could he have been the second gunman at the Sheraton? Was his motive for the assassination piggy-backing into office? He had demonstrated a keen ability for the murder method earlier in the year and numerous trips to the table would have furnished him with almost as much aortic experience as his crack team of cardiovascular surgeons. All that's left is opportunity. How convenient then that he doesn't show his face until the President is already critical, and then only to try to derail the investigation and cover up his misdeeds.

Very suspicious. Thought provoking! One thumb and a pointer finger up!


i saw this movie yesterday and during my sleep i dreamed that bush was gone for real. today when i woke up and found out he's still alive and in office, i had the shock of my life :-)

but honestly, this film was well meant and everything, but as always you get pointed in the wrong direction. bush is not going to die from some assassin unless his puppeteers allow that to happen, which is totally unlikely. don't worry, he will probably survive us all :-D

the only presidents or high officials to die are the ones exposing or opposing their masters. JFK, Washington and the others who were assassinated had something in common? hint: it was NOT al-qaida or bin laden.

stop falling for the deception and start looking for the common denominator.


It's not great. The film is made up of real, judiciously edited footage and specially filmed sequences. There are talking heads - a speechwriter, head of the divisional FBI and the duty head of the Secret Service. They help narrate the story, emote and get interpolated (clumsily) in the footage with Bush.

I was expecting the bulk of the film to explore what happens politically in the vacuum Bush's death creates. It's a gross missed opportunity that the film degenerates into a whodunnit with all the usual suspects. As a result one sees that the only reason the film was made was to indulge someone's fantasy of disposing with Bush and make the consequent point about the folly of invading Iraq. Again. 2/10


I think Death of a President was interesting as it examined a "what might have been scenario" but i think it is disgusting someone would make a film depicting someones death. If Bush had really been assassinated then by all means make a documentary about the causes of the assassination but to make one on a president who is not dead is despicable. I hope this film gets worldwide condemnation as the producer seems to find it exciting if someone dies. I will certainly not be recommending it to anyone. Would the maker have made a film about the assassination of Tony Blair, maybe, about Mahmood Admedinejad? I don't think so, about the pope, i don't think so, about anyone of political or religious importance, i certainly hope not and i hope this film is the last of its kind as it sends out a terrible message to everyone in the free world as the leader of the most powerful nation in the world is shown as being assassinated.


After reading the other reviewer's comments i thought i would give this film a chance, what a mistake... the films afternoon TV movie quality was only lifted by the portrayal of the psycho gangster who is running around trying to find his car full of smack. The lead character almost has an incestuous love for his rock star (nearly) sister, who sings a few ditties but is hardly hazel o Connor in "breaking glass".

The lead character of a car theft, doesn't seem to have much one screen charisma and looks as though he is nearly falling asleep in his deliver of some of his lines.

The smacked up heroin addict, that is his old pal and sister's boyfriend seems either cold turkey or 100% with it, and i'm sure would be seen as a poor example of why not to do heroin by people who have been through such troubled times.

please don't bother, get breaking glass out instead!


Mad Bad was flat. The story wasn't interesting in any way. It never seemed to click. The silver lining to his poor movie was Vincent Riverside. He was awesome! He did his best to save this movie. You can't ask for any more than he gave. Vincent Riverside has a screen presence that is commanding. This was a copy cat of the Nic Cage movie with Jolie where he is a car thief. I was disappointed that the movie tried to be slick instead of have any story. It was a car commerical that tried to be a movie. Vincent Riverside reminded me of Christian Slater. This actor should be in a studio movie soon. He has too much talent to not rise above low budget movies.


Humans have fled the evil force that now rules the known galaxy, yet some living in a neo-primitive society (a hybrid of Conan the Barbarian and power rangers) fight back.

There is just no way for this harmless summary to convey the wild mediocrity of this film. Comparing it to even the worst heroic-fantasy has to offer doesn't do it justice, because while those films are merely poor, this film's badness is extreme. Not content on featuring a ludicrously complicated plot, "Turkish Star Wars" boasts action scenes and characters that would make the worst Power Rangers/Xenia hybrid you could imagine look like Lord of the Rings. This is before you even consider the petrifying inclusion of shots stolen from Star Wars (particularly one shot of a TIE fighter exploding before the FAlcon, which reappears at least 10 times in the film) in the wrong aspect ratio and the shocking inclusion of music from Indiana Jones.

Yet this film is a marvel because you'll be spellbound, either horrified and unable to move or laughing yourself into a coma. Subtitles are hardly necessary, because as a visual feast of ludicrousness, the film delivers. But see it translated and you're in for one hell of a headache...

What makes this film a cult classic is that you can't overcome that sneaking suspicion that the makers were doing this intentionally. If so, they are geniuses to rival Kubrick.


I know Turkish and you missed a lot for not knowing. By understanding what they are speaking, it would be much funnier. I watched this film twice and will watch it again. It is not a comedy but better than most of them. Try to find subtitles for this film or find a Turkish friend!

Let me give a summary instead.

Two astronauts go through a portal and find themselves in an other planet. The planet is being ruled by emperor and the emperor has an army of monsters and robots. The only think that he needs to get the ultimate power is human brain. (Two of them would be much better :D )

This should be enough I think. The film is simple enough but dialogues make the film even funnier.

The important think about this film is; it is a science fiction, fantasy, action film which was made with a low budget. It is also one of the first sci. fi. try for Turkish film industry. It is a brave attempt but like most of them really poor in quality.


But only because it is the worst, worst movie ever made. It is horrible! C.Arkin starring (or maybe "black-holing") in this movie claims today that with this movie they managed to create a miracle with the given resources at that time. The question is "why did you do it then?" Was someone threatening you that either you make this movie or he'd kill you? But, still for any viewers around the world this movie could set the lowest limit of how a movie could be made. Collect a few puppets and add some household gadget to the interior of your car, don't forget your motorcycle helmet or maybe you can borrow it from a policeman or construction worker. Challenge this movie by making your own one!


I used to think that Cuneyt Arkin films are things that should be ashamed of. He is such a man that in every movie he flies up, saves the world, destroys an army or a kingdom on his own. Stupid isn't it? Bu what about Matrix? Transporter? Vertical Limit? Triple X? Mission Impossible the Movies? I do not think they are much too different. Watching a person defeating hundreds of people is great fun without thinking the logic in it. So I think Turkish producers have discovered this 20 years before Hollywood. Cuneyt Arkin's films have been paid great attention. This is the result of the producers' invention about people's likes.

Special effects? Surely a very low budget gives you this. Did you know that the monster costumes were all done by Cuneyt Arkin himself? It is a horrifying experience for movie as an art, but do you know that lots of actors and actresses that have acted in Turkish movies have been living very difficultly? Lots of them have died in misery.

As a brief, this may not be the worst movie but definitely the worst director I have ever seen. But if they had had the technology and the money that any ordinary Hollywood film, the thing may not have been that bad. If you want to laugh, watch it. If your stomach would feel bad when you see a bad movie, do not watch it. But this is not what the Turkish movie is. To have an opinion about expert acting and directing in Turkish movie, see Yol(1982-Serif Goren)(Best Movie Award at Cannes Festival 1982).


Honestly, there isn't a whole lot to say about this film that hasn't already been said. An "after-school special" type film that bytes Home Alone is pretty much on point. And it's also completely awful and the writing is horrendous. Essentially, this is the film's plot- Takes place in one of those newly developing neighborhoods... Parents bug kid about having remote control toys, parents then leave house, then burglars enter kids' house... kid uses remote control stuff to fend off burglars... burglars cook steak... kid uses remote control stuff to obtain steak... kid eats steak... roll credits... we are all now dumber for watching this film.


Poorly written, poorly plotted, poorly acted, poorly filmed. As a matter of fact, one of the few redeeming qualities was the quality of the body-double (though the transition from actress's face to the body-double was also poorly done). I felt like I was watching some sort of corporate training video: same overall quality...same overall message.


Even though it looked from the box like this movie was low-budget, with a cast of unknowns, I thought it might have some possibilities as a mystery story. I discuss the plot below but do not give away key details.

In this 1999/2000 movie, a down-on-her-luck-with-men career woman played by Andrea Roth works at an ill-defined sales firm or ad agency for an apparently kinky boss (Rae Dawn Chong). Chong invites her out to party at the raunchy nightclub "Pork." Roth has just broken up with a "needy" nerd boyfriend who keeps calling and following her. At Pork, Roth is attracted to but repulsed by a crass, slick-hair, leather-jacketed, cigarette-hanging-out-of-the-mouth "bad boy" (Linden Ashby).

Soon, Roth returns to the club alone and picks him up. In one of a number of confusing, poorly presented physical scenes over the course of the film, she lets him press against her and hang her over her apartment balcony railing. It is not clear whether this is meant to pass for wild sex or (as Roth seems to gossip to Chong) just elaborate, get-acquainted foreplay for a later session.

Meanwhile back at the office, Chong promotes Roth over two macho jerk co-workers (one of whom Roth is rumored to have dated). Roth comes over to their table at a restaurant, where they are crudely bad-mouthing her under their breath, to try to give them a pep talk. She meets a shy, orange-haired, big-glasses accountant from the firm, who the other two put up to asking her out. He later joins her for a polite dinner at her place.

As the increasingly sluggish movie drones on, Roth gets more involved with the bar punk but then tries to pull back when he grows so rough and possessive that it becomes abusive. The nerdy accountant, a shadowy brother, and the old boyfriend hover in the background. One of the macho jerks from the office ends up stabbed to death. The second soon meets the same fate. A scruffy, dogged young cop starts investigating, with the help of a tomboy waitress who wants more of his time.

Roth's old boyfriend is arrested when a knife turns up in his car, but he claims he had nothing to do with the killings. Chong drops by Roth's apartment to console her depressed friend, feebly comes on to her, is rebuffed, and is later accosted by the jealous, angry bar punk. Another victim turns up, this time strangled in an alley. In a long, labored, violent scene, the psycho killer is confronted in Roth's apartment.

The best that can be said about "Dangerous Attraction" is that slender, strawberry-blonde Roth looks pretty on screen, the cop and waitress are likable and make a cute couple, and there are a lot of suspects to confuse the issue for a while. Beyond that, the movie ends up being a frustrating failure.

Early on, the film uses some touches that seem to hint at depth and creativity (such as Roth's cryptic narration over a hazy bike-riding scene and Chong's odd behavior). It throws in some melodramatic frills toward the end.

But none of this can hide the fact that there is nothing special to the story, dialogue, cast, production values, or sets. The writing is far too thin to sustain the film, which becomes tedious, drawn-out, and overlong. By the time the movie grinds to a halt, with a final "shock effect" scene at a hospital (as much of a tacked-on gimmick as an earlier scene of a figure's silhouette in a wheelchair), you could not care less. The characters and acting are dull and flat, even in supposedly dramatic scenes (especially Ashby's annoying performance). No interesting color or detail is developed about the characters or the settings (their professions are mere window dressing). The detective work is almost non-existent. The film amounts to nothing more than an uninvolving, monotonous, surface-level effort that strings you along for what turn out to be cheap, shallow, trite, predictable, unsatisfying payoffs. The best description of the movie that I can think of is a thin crust of formula with no filling.

There are also amateurish mistakes, going to substance and style, that make the movie feel like even more of a waste of time. A character gratuitously gives Roth the address of that person's apartment, which leads to a key plot point, when there is no way in the world the person would have wanted Roth to drop by. Chong is poorly used in the film. She is relegated to a lifeless performance in a bit part, and is unflatteringly dressed and photographed, making an attractive woman look old and overweight. For some reason, the movie comes up with nothing but drab sweat-suits for Roth to wear in most scenes (including when she hosts the accountant for dinner). And the love scenes are ruined by sloppy, obvious cutaways to a body double for Roth who does not even have the same shape. This is insulting and unprofessional. The movie has no business using nudity if all it does is to make scenes look fake.


1st watched 5/7/2005 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Penelope Buitenhuis): Disguised as a sex flick, this thriller goes to ridiculous proportions with it's main psycho character as he goes on a killing spree with those who have contact with the main female character, Allison. I won't give away too much of the rest of the plot for those who attempt to watch this, but basically the murderer isn't himself. Who is he then, you ask? He's another person, of course(OK, I think I've already said too much). But anyway back to the review. The acting and writing is subpar in this movie, which is a good reason that it will stay on the "B" movie shelf at your local video outlet for as long as it lives there. Avoid it unless you just have to watch Andrea Roth, who plays Allison take a few showers and have rough sex a couple of times.


Of course, I'm saying that lightly. It's actually not that bad, but it could have been better. What they do need to work on is the accessibility of this movie to others.

Watched the DVD and it's the most basic dvd out there. No menu (couldn't believe that one) Standard screen no subtitles no extra's of any kind. Basically, if you find it on dvd, it's one step better than vhs, but unless you collect on a actor bases only, it's a rental only. 4/10 ps: even in this case, the dvd is better than vhs because it'll never get screwed like tapes will. Although if you smash it.. oopsy.


This was very very boring and lame, this should need some more happiness, kindness and entertainment to make it a great movie for all ages because it's about like 2 very clever kids who really know a way to save Christmas and escape a evil dark attic in an old crooked house and like every 10 or 20 minutes, the young kids keep returning to the attic. This movie is not really a Christmas movie, it's more like a dark nasty movie that makes it more like a Halloween movie like the attic and cave parts and stuff Even when I was 9 year old little girl I didn't like this. The music was great but the whole movie was just bad. The script was like out of the brain thing that even a 2 and a half year old probably wouldn't really like. I wasn't interested in the storyline either and some parts of the cover is unfair and incorrect, Jill had on a blue and white dress in the cover, but in the movie, she has on a type of Cinderella dress? Although she does look kind of cute in it and all she is one of my top cutest cartoon characters, but hey? Some of the characters look uncute and ugly, but whatever the movie is just plain weak and boring.


This mean-spiritied telling of a Christmas classic (!) is just plain bad movie-making--poor "acting," a confused and confusing plot, florid animation art, and a pack of goblin characters (what classic is this?) that will scare many a small child. Held to the Disney standard, this is a very poor stab at making movie magic.


The first half of the movie was ok and pretty innocent, but then the rest freaked me out. I can't see anything animated that is worse for a child to see. This movie is pure evil and will cause nightmares of demons with glowing red eyes. If you want your child to watch this, you may as well have them also watch The Exorcist.