For years, many fans wondered about what has become known as the "hybrid version" of Superman II, which was half directed by Richard Donner and half directed by Richard Lester after Donner was unceremoniously dumped from the project.

Superman II was a very strong sequel despite all the production woes, but has not held up nearly as well as the first film, and now plays more like camp in many spots. Was this Lester's influence, or was the plan always to lighten the tone of the sequel to create more of a popcorn film? Well, we all got our answer in 1983, when Superman III debuted, this completely under the guiding hand of Richard Lester.

From the film's opening credit sequence, a completely farcical series of events, you get that sinking feeling and realize that anything resembling cheese and slapstick in the second film was directly the influence of Lester. The first Superman was grounded in a sense of reality, even if it was a comic book one, which is noticeably absent from much of Superman II. In the first film, Metropolis always seemed like a real city with real people inhabiting it. The second recalled a city on a sound stage with only the vaguest sense of a distorted reality. Well, the filmmakers decided to distort reality further in Superman III by ignoring what made the franchise great and going with a hipper, more today approach. They accomplished this by centering the film around the casting of Richard Pryor. The problem with this approach is that there is absolutely no reason for Richard Pryor to appear in Superman III other than the fact that he's Richard Pryor.

The idea behind Superman III is actually a fairly intriguing one, where a computer genius constructs a super-computer, which in a unique turn of events alters the mental stability of Superman, turning him away from his All-American persona. Suddenly, Superman is no longer the hope for all mankind, but the "anti Superman" intent on destroying us. It also contains one of the best moments in the series, as Clark Kent and the evil Superman actually battle each other. It's one of the highpoints of the entire series, yet still can't avoid being disappointing by the overall poor quality of the production.

I Thank the heavens that a good 20 minutes of this movie was cut for theatrical release because it just made the pacing even worse!, most of the footage cut was more pointless forced comedy moments and the only high point of the footage being reinserted for the Extended TV Version shown numerous times in the late eighties were the newly created opening credits in space, rather then the credits appearing during the opening montage in the theatrical cut.

So what went wrong? I would put the blame squarely at the feet of Lester and the Salkinds, who seemed to want to make a "Richard Pryor" Superman movie rather than a film that was true to the spirit of the characters and the original film. Pryor is given far too much screen time despite the fact that he's not even the main villain. The producers obviously figured that, if they're paying Richard Pryor, they may as well use him, whether it benefits the film or not. So what would I have done differently? Well, the plot about a super computer and an altered Superman is a fantastic direction for the film to go, but that's where they left it. I would have eliminated the character of Ross Webster, the ultimate corporate bad guy, and everyone around him in favor of Gus Gorman, the computer genius trying to dominate the world on his own. The Webster character is totally unnecessary and a more maniacal Gorman working in solitude would have been far more menacing But the catch is that with Pryor in the role of Gorman, the producers obviously felt a need to allow him to redeem himself in the end, so I say they should have removed Pryor, too. This could also have cut out much of the unnecessary comic drivel that ruins Superman III.

Ultimately, Superman III is not the worst entry in the series, but not for a lack of trying. Richard Lester proved once and for all that he really didn't understand what a Superman movie should be, seemingly relying on British slapstick comedy that is taken right out of an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus "where it belongs!" and a pathetic, poor script that he and probably only ten other people found amusing. He must have forgotten that Superman is aimed towards an American audience. The movie does actually start to get good from the moment supes becomes "anti-supes", Watching the dual between Clark and Superman really lets you see how the whole movie could have been made "dark and serious" and kept out of the silly comedy path "even with Pryor and other factors etc" If Superman III had been made this way it probably would have been better then II!. The Superman vs. Clark scene proves this, In Superman II where Zod and Superman battle it out, the end result is disappointing and nothing really happens other then Superman throwing Zod into a Coca-Cola sign, the confrontation in III is far far better!. With all the great characters and history that Superman has encountered, there were really limitless possibilities for this sequel. Unfortunately for fans, we happened to get stuck with filmmakers who obviously were limited in their abilities, talents and taste!. The last 35 minutes of this movie on a whole deserves a 6/10 rating. Why could the other 85 minutes of this movie not of been the same!, The rest of the movie deserves nothing more then a poor...

3/10


when i saw this for the first time i was more of a kid than now......a little kid and i was a big superman movies fan.....i even liked this one a bit....and when i see it right now i still enjoy some of it....it is enjoyable to see superman turn evil....it is the best part of the movie....or maybe the only good part of it......richard pryor is too dumb at some parts of the movie and the opening credits belong to a Charles Chaplin movie.....a bad Charles Chaplin movie........the musical score is not bad.....mostly because it is filled mainly with John Williams' music but still it could've been much better........the only excellent thing in this film is Christopher Reeve's performance......but the rest is disappointing....specially when the big computer battles superman....disappointing but certainly better than the fourth superman movie........** out of 5


Bad, bad, bad. This film could be used as a torture device. I

thought Superman could save anything. Obviously not this movie.

This movie was the Richard Pryor Movie, not about Superman.

Since when was Superman a comedy and not an action/drama?

Richard Pryor and poor script writing made this film absolutely

horrible. It was very slow moving, and went nowhere. I wonder

how Warner Brother execs. approved this. I like Richard Pryor, but

he had no place in this movie. I thought Superman IV was was

worst Superman movie. I may have to re-think that now, after

having to endure watching this one again.


I just rented superman 1 2 and 3 and watched them in succession. 1 and 2 rule of course.... but this piece of " needs to be banished from video stores everywhere. not only is ot completely far-fetched with the whole "uber computer" who has more powers than the terminator and my pentium III combined, but the plot is WEAK, and the acting is HORRIBLE. check out the scenes where "evil superman" tries to act tough. oooh.. tough man he is. whatever. dont rent this.. its a 1.5 hour trip into a bad place. even worse than "batman and robin"


This Superman movie, along with the following sequel, is one of the sorriest excuses for a movie ever conceived by producers. The whole thing just reeks. It's as bad as a movie can get. And the folks responsible for this sloppy, junky, stupid movie clearly had no respect for moviegoers. It's a total embarrassment for everyone involved.

It seems that they tried to go in the BATMAN TV series route (notice how the super computer in SUPERMAN III looks like the Batcave in the TV series) but at least the TV show, as cheesy as it was, was fun to watch. This is just painful from beginning to end.

Avoid at all cost!!!!


I'll save my total disgust for Supes IV. But here is my beef with Superman III:

The opening sequence was ridiculous. I appreciate that the filmmakers want to make a fun movie, but to do a scene that reminds the viewer of the Keystone Cops is off the mark.

Richard Pryor. Great actor. Great comedian. Poor choice. But I guess it's not his fault. The premise of the movie itself was silly. But I love Richard. (God rest his soul...)

Okay...I'm still waiting for someone to explain how someone with no computer training or education can solve this unsolvable code...using print statements!

Christopher Reeve. I'm a big Chris Reeve fan, so I won't bash him. (God rest his soul...) The only thing that REALLY bugged me was that his hair was brown...with highlights! HELLO!?! Supes hair is jet black...or did no one look at the first two movies?

The line "Let's see how long he can live without air!" What??? Are you kidding me? Ummm...didn't he just send a nuclear elevator from Paris into space a few years back? Get real!

Lana's son...Tommy or Timmy or whatever. What an annoying little kid. He deserves to get beat up.

Special effects. Did they fire the SFX people from the first two movies and hire some graduate of Devry? No offense Devry...

Aghghhh!!! I was just so frustrated watching this movie. Oh but wait until I saw Superman IV: The Quest for Peace!


I just watched Superman III and was excited to see Richard Pryor on the cover, but then I even thought as I was paying for the rental "wait, why am I excited to see Richard Pryor more than Christopher Reeve?", it was an interesting thought. But I was thinking maybe it's just because I was just more used to being excited about some kind of comedy, but the problem was that it seemed like the comedy took over what could've been a great super hero story.

Superman/Clark Kent is now invited to his high school reunion where he sees his old high school crush and they hit it off. Gus, played by Pryor, is a computer worker, he is asked by a big boss to play with the computers and control the weather and more! But when Superman interferes with that, they decide to throw some kryptonite at him, but it fails, but turns Superman into a bad guy! Hence the alternate title of "Superman vs. Superman".

Like I said, it just didn't seem to balance right with these two huge movie stars. In the 70's and 80's, Richard Pryor could do no wrong, he was so popular, and I think that overshadowed Christopher's presence on the screen. The comedy and drama didn't mesch well, I just think that this could've been a great sequel, but just didn't excel to what it could'v been.

4/10


Film-making is one of the most comprehensive of artistic enterprises. Whatever other artistic activities it uses, the most essential component is story-telling. One can be subtle, but one dares not confuse the audience.

Superman is supposed to be a good guy, but here he gets some "kryptonite" that instead of weakening him makes a villain of him. Yes, we can accept that Superman could weaken into a real Clark Kent if he so chooses, but turning into a bad guy whose vanity causes him to make travesties of human rituals and culture?

It is not subtle; it is confusing, and confusing a mass audience is unforgivable. Movies are storytelling, and at that this movie fails badly.

So here's how I see the tetralogy:

Superman: the movie .... 7 -- good but not great.

Superman II .... 6 -- entertaining, suitable for occasional watching, especially of one likes the genre.

Superman III .... 3 -- clearly substandard, and best forgotten

Superman IV .... 2 -- What were they thinking? Better yet, were they thinking?


Not long ago, I wrote my ideas as to what SUPERMANs III and IV should have been for Superman Cinema's fan-fic section. My version of SUPERMAN III picked up where the last film left off, with the relationship between Lois and Clark/Superman dead and gone. In it, Lana Lang returns to rekindle her relationship with Clark while a pair of insane government scientists mass-produce Bizarros for use as a disposable army. Spurned on the basis that such an army would violate human rights, the scientists use the Bizarros to wreak havoc upon Washington and end up in direct conflict with Superman.

Why am I telling you this? Because what I came up with was way better than the actual SUPERMAN III. It's no secret that the Salkinds originally intended the SUPERMAN films to be camp comedies, a plan that Richard Donner and Tom Mankiewicz undid when they made SUPERMAN as a dramatic film. Even though both men had been fired from SUPERMAN II after filming 80% of the picture and replaced by Richard Lester and the Newmans (who rewrote and reshot much of the final film, and are the "masterminds" behind III), enough of Donner and Mankiewicz's influence was stamped into the film to keep it from being totally screwed up. With SUPERMAN III, Donner and Mankiewicz's influence is completely absent, and we finally see what the Salkinds intended the SUPERMAN series to be all along. And what we get is a campy, dumb, and unfunny insult to the mythos. Not even the superb FX work, a good rescue scene at a chemical plant, and Robert Paynter's comic book-panel photography can make this film feel like genuine Superman.

It's not the idea of having Richard Pryor in a Superman film that makes this film bad, or using Lana Lang. It's not even the idea of using new villains. What makes this film bad is the sheer carelessness and idiocy of it all. For a film that revolves around computers as a menace, the villain should have been Brainiac, the genocidal AI of the comic books. Instead we get Robert Vaughn and Annie Ross as greedy tycoons who sucker a computer wiz into helping them corner the commodities market. Not very exciting. Instead of giving Pryor a meaty, serious role that would have tested him as an actor and have fit into the tone of the Superman mythos, we get Pryor as Gus Gorman doing standard Pryor shtick and not being funny at all. Instead of Lana Lang having some zest and excitement to her, we get a very bland and dull character played by a very boring Annette O'Toole. It also doesn't help that Pamela Stephenson's Lorelai character is beyond annoying, that Lois Lane barely appears in this movie at all (the Salkinds were punishing Margot Kidder for openly sticking up for Donner), that none of the plot threads are remotely satisfying, that Superman is now a bit player in his own movie, that Ken Thorne's abysmal and boring score continues to reduce John Williams' powerful fanfares to shrill and campy disgraces, that Richard Lester's disdain for Superman shows in his indifferent direction, and that the acting is all-around awful. Even when Superman ISN'T evil (and the "Superman goes evil and fights himself" scene is the lowest point in the film), Christopher Reeve comes off as smarmy and insincere (probably because he realizes the film sucks). And let's not forget the horrible slapstick gags, which are totally out of place here. And why does Metropolis have such a strongly British feel to it in the opening sequence? Shouldn't it be more American? Shades of SUPERMAN II's Idaho residents with British accents....

I can't say that this is as low as the SUPERMAN films can sink; the upcoming Jon Peters-produced SUPERMAN movie promises to be even worse. But of the Christopher Reeve cycle, this is by far the worst of the four. To those who assert that this film is truer to the comic books than the first two, I beg to differ. The first two films are kin to the best Superman comic stories. III is kin to the absolute worst.


There are some redeeming qualities which saves this movie from being as awful as "Superman IV": the Rube Goldberg-esque sequence in the beginning of the film (where one mishap causes another & things get worse); the charming courtship between Lana & Clark (for a change, Lana really likes Clark but doesn't care much for Superman); and when Superman's evil twin starts doing naughty things like flick peanuts at windows to break them, or straighten the Tower of Pisa, I think he even comes on to Lana! But it's not enough to save the entire movie from being an embarrassment: the writers & director have overemphasized the comedy, casting not only a lame Richard Pryor (who lost his sharp wit after he almost torched himself), but also a typical blonde bimbo as the villain's mistress, and the guy who plays Lana's drunk ex-husband. And Lana's kid is such a pain you wanna slap him! The production values are cheaper, due to a slashed budget. Reeve and Annette O'Toole as Lana give nice performances, but the film is quite average, a far cry from "Superman I" and "II". Too bad


I'm surprised. No, really, I am. How can people claim that Superman 3 is better than the first 2? Amazing. Truly Amazing, considering the great talents of Richard Donner who brought one of the most beloved superheroes to life in the first film. These "people" obviously have no exposure to engaging and epic storytelling; that sense of wonder and genuine awe, something that this POS NEVER HAD!!! To be frank, the only redeeming qualities of this film are Ol' Supes fighting his evil twin (also known as Bizzaro) and the first appearance of Lana Lang, played by a young Annette O Toole who is much better in Smallville than she is in Superman 3. Don't even get me started on the plot because quite frankly, Superman fans and true believers, THERE IS NONE!!! The appearance of Lana Lang is for lack of a better term "phoned in". In short, Lana Lang was a wimp compared to Lois Lane. She's nothing more than a mere stand in than an actual love interest. The concept of Superman fighting his evil twin is a nice idea, but ultimately falls flat on its a**. As with Richard Pryor, this movie's idea of comedy relief is easily rivaled by the act of trying to scrape a used condom off the floor.

This review goes out to those with an IQ of a 10 year old. Trust me because after seeing this "film" you may want to seek remedial attention.


The big mistake here was the casting of Richard Pryor and the general shift in tone to silliness and stupid comedy scenes. Yet the highlight of the film (similar to Spidey 3) is the exploration of the dark side of a superhero. The whole sequence in which Christopher Reeve turns psycho and ultimately splits into two personas, having a big fight with himself, is the only reason the movie is worth seeing, and most people fail to acknowledge that Reeve actually did some truly good acting here, good enough so that the "bad Superman" is convincing and somewhat scary -- especially the scene where he is sitting in a bar, unkempt and unshaven, breaking holes in a mirror behind the bar while flicking peanuts at it (never mind that alcohol is not supposed to have any effect on Superman). Unfortunately, the rest of the film is garbage.

Aside from this, the story is not really about any central idea or concept. Robert Vaughan is just a generic Lex Luthor with a different name -- think about it, he even has a blonde bimbo mistress like Gene Hackman did in the two previous films. What is his grand scheme really all about, and what does he want to achieve? Darned if I know. The climactic sequence with the supercomputer is simply bad. The special effects are not very good in this one. And where is Margot Kidder as Lois Lane? She is largely absent from the film. Although Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang is a solid substitute, and in terms of her character at least the film is somewhat faithful to the comics.


Superman The Movie was the blockbuster of its time, an allstar cast, and a fresh new line of Special Effects, and awesome Storwriters. It is the best in the series, and has stood the test of time. Superman II was also very good, it lives up to the first one, and the new Richard Donner cut coming in November should be even better than the one we're all accustomed to! After the first seqel though, is where things began to change...

At the end of the 2nd movie, "COMING SOON SUPERMAN III!" was the first sentence in the credits. Lets get our hopes up for the next one the First two were great! Audiences soon found that was not the case for the 1983 film starring Christopher Reeve and...Richard Pryor?!

WHAT WAS WRONG?

After I, and II Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder were openly angry at the Producers Ilya and Alexander Salkind for firing Richard Donner off the 2nd movie, he had filmed the 1st film, and most of the 2nd when this happened. So Hackman refused to show up in III. And Margot talked about the Salkinds or something publicly about the Salkinds firing Donner.

So...They kept her pretty low profile in Superman III, saying she took a Vacation to Bermuda. This kinda killed off Clark Kent's original love life for the movie. The Salkinds also made some other choices that killed the movie. They decided to go with a campier movie this time. Completely diminishing the seriousness of Superman I and II. Richard Pryor wasn't too bad for the style of movie, but...he doesn't really seem like the best computer genius.

Now to the point, Superman III suffered deeply from the aspects above. Being the only movie to fail to have Lex Luthor, and Lois Lane. It was a poor sequel to the 1st two. And I rate it a 3/10. The special effects as far as Superman flying, and using heat vision were at their best here, but still this wasn't enough to save the movie. The script was also way too Campy. Poor Job here Salkinds. So this movie failed to get good reviews, and lost popularity. The new November DVD Should be great though! The Best part of Superman III was the battle between Clark and Evil Superman. Christopher Reeve was a great actor, and showed a whole new role for himself in that small part of the movie where he is evil. But this was indeed a good performance by Reeve. (But without Lois Lane he had to start over again with the Lana in Smallvill, and Pryor also made too much of a competetor of all the attention)


The opening sequence to the film, kind of a Rube-Goldberg type slapstick thing which ends with a man almost getting drowned in his car, is a dead giveaway to the audience that this film is not going to be in the same league as the first two Supermans. It's supposed to be funny, but it just clunks along like a tank with lead caterpillar treads, and it goes nowhere fast. Apparently Lester and the Salkinds really didn't understand how slapstick stunts work, and they should have been locked in a room with a copy of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" until they got it right.

The movie does pick up a little bit from there, and there are a few good bits that save it from being utter crap: the fight between 'good' and 'bad' Superman in the junkyard, with its denouement where Clark undoes his shirt to reveal the original hue of the costume, is quite nice. Some of the moments with Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang are decent, too - I'm not her biggest fan, but she suits the role of the small town girl that Clark left behind and fleshes it out well.

Everything else until the very end is, well, bad. Going from Terence Stamp and Gene Hackman to people like Robert Vaughn and Richard Pryor is a terrible, terrible decision and completely undercuts any sense of real portent or menace that a decent villain is meant to have in a film like this. You can't believe for a moment that Vaughn's lightweight character and his nitwit entourage would be any kind of match for the Man Of Steel, and Pryor's role, even as an innocent dupe, just isn't what this film needs - he is completely out of place here. Give me the Pryor from "BiCentennial ******" instead; THAT character belongs in a Superman film.

There is just a bit of style and flair in the final showdown scene with the Super Computer where the villains are transformed into nightmarish robot slaves and then Superman is lashed repeatedly with huge energy bolts and pulled helplessly inside the guts of the computer - you actually get a sense of conflict and drama, and the clever way Supes saves the day by using his smarts and cunning almost saves the film.

But it's not enough. 75% of the film has the same problems as the opening sequence - it just doesn't work or hold together. Unlike the first two films, the stuff that is supposed to be funny simply isn't, and most of the stuff that is supposed to be dramatic is spoiled by bad timing or misjudged performances that ruin any sense of involvement in the film.

Rent the tape or DVD once so you can fast-forward to one or two of the scenes with O'Toole, the fight in the junkyard, and the fight with the Super Computer. Otherwise, I think this movie killed the franchise - by the time Superman IV appeared, no one was interested anymore.


4.3/10 is generous. My biggest problem with this movie is being able to predict scenes 20 minutes in the future. My young daughter and I watched it together, and at first I was ready to change the channel if it got too scary. She had the remote, however, and during commercials kept changing channels. She nearly feel asleep before the "climax", which occurred with about 30 seconds left in the movie. The last 10 minute set of commercials came on and then the wrap up: big plot hole here, but you'll have to watch it to find out.

As far as being nominated for B movie status, I would reserve that for movies that were intended to be good, but turned out to be turkeys. This one seemed destined for mediocrity from the start.


You've seen every single element of this movie before. Perhaps not in exactly the same order as presented here, but from the opening shot the plot is as predictable as the taste of a Big Mac. The only surprise is John C. McGinley (Scrubs) and Dabney Coleman as the inevitably corrupt Senator. There is even the little girl and her rag doll, the police captain, the main protagonist who is seen as a joke on the force, etc etc.

The script reads like a term paper. (First term).

Yet if you're willing to laugh at it (there's no opportunity to laugh with it), it comes across as a classic in its B-movie genre, instantly forgettable but watchable after 1am.


I've seen many terrible tv-movies, but this one's probably the worst so far. I just cannot say one good thing about this movie; I'd rather watch tv-shop for two hours than this one again.

Should you still choose to watch it, remember you were warned.


"Til Death" is not one of the better crypt episodes, it simply doesn't have any known stars, and the plot is too predictable and I really don't care for the voodoo theme. Well anyway you have two people I've never heard of that being Pamela Glen and D.W. Moffett who star with the setting taking place at a land plantation. But a new secret plan this tricky new developer who needs money to buy the new land can only get his inheritance from a millionaire princess. Well now you guessed it that's right voodoo time! Just go to the old potion and witch doctors for help to land Mrs. right! And the voodoo works only to end up being terrible with the bride as a never ending occult! Really a pretty weak episode of "Tales" with a predictable plot and little action or drama and it really hurts not having any star power. So pass on this episode.


Despite knowing that the film industry will always sacrifice originality (and therefore risk) to make money it still amazes and annoys me that rubbish like this gets made. Can't a producer realise that making an interesting and vaguely original film will likely make more money through positive word of mouth than a bland, boring, seen it all before piece of cable movie sh!t like Sick House. This film was average, listless, un-engaging, dark and unintelligible, with a pointless and unnecessarily confusing twist ending. I'm desperately trying to think of something positive to say about this film and all I can come up with the cinematography and general look of the film was quite interesting, well that is at the few points in the film where it was possible to actually make out what was happening. Another positive point was Gina Philips who turned in a creditable performance.


The film is a complete mess. The premise might be sort of interesting, but the already everything but clever script that has written "novices at work!" on every single page additionally gets messed up by a directing that gives a new quality to the word "confusing". And if that wasn't enough, it seems the material was edited by someone on LSD, otherwise there's no explanation for this... hmmm... montage. Putting the footage into a shredder would have shown better results. My regards to the actors who tried hard to put some life into this.

Producers listen up: little money is no excuse for bad craftsmanship!!!!


Don't get the pun in my summary? Then this cheap British horror flick might be for you. If you do not want spoilers, you may read some of the positive comments a few stoners already have posted here. Otherwise:

*** ******** ************ SPOILERS ************* *********

Want something you can barely see, even when you use the undark special feature on your DVD remote? How about something that starts and finishes with unintelligible chanting by kids' ghosts? Want to see an archaeologist who's been poking around in an abandoned building "for months," but still has no idea of its floor plan? Wanna see this same chick hear her boss say the site has been quarantined and slated for immediate demolition due to an infestation of rats and plague germs (not all that unusual in many world cities), prompting her to cut through miles of police tape in the dead of night for a few more minutes of snooping? How about a security guard who gets knocked out early on, but pops up running like Jack Bauer at the last minute? Or four random hoods jabbering incomprehensible Brit slang implausibly locking themselves into this same abandoned building with "Lara Croft." And how often can you see a caper featuring three studs tooling around in a stolen car in the city center with a chick NINE MONTHS PREGNANT? Or getting into constant deadly fist fights with each other to claim credit for her pregnancy? With the expectant gal suddenly responding to her heebie-jeebies by tearing off ALL her clothes and hopping into a cement vat of cold water in front of these guys, where she soon "delivers" about five gallons of slugs? Or everyone ignoring a collage of eight-foot ghosts and decaying child ghosties (and if the characters cannot see these apparitions, why bother to show them to us?)? And most telling of all, if you appreciate a filmmaker who shows you a clock stuck on 11:59 (p.m.) every ten minutes to remind you that nothing you're watching is REALLY happening, and has the audacity to think he can throw in 30 seconds of quick-cuts action just before closing credits to explain what ACTUALLY went on according to a script which must have had more scribbled afterthoughts than typed original entries, then SICK HOUSE probably is up your dark alley.


We hear about it far too much in the horror genre: a poorly made film with an interesting premise.

Had this shied away from the punk-teen angle (like that of Bava's 'Demons') and headed for straight horror (maybe on the level of 'El Orfanato'), it could've had the chance to be a rather good film. Instead, poor writing, bad direction, seemingly bored actors, and silly camera tricks in exchange for real scares, we're left with yet another forgettable haunted-house picture.

I'd say pass it up and wait for 'The Orphanage' on DVD. Or, if you can't wait, check out 'The Devil's Backbone.'

-AP3-


A few years ago I saw a movie called Madhouse that was pretty good. Not as good as another similar one called Session 9, but still a fairly entertaining horror thriller about a mental institution. I expected something of the same with The Sickhouse, but I suppose it is meant to describe an orphanage from the late 17th Century that had been infected with the Bubonic Plague. We get a brief history lesson at the beginning of the movie about how the Plague swept through London in 1665, killing 15% of the city's population in a single summer. An American archaeologist thinks she has uncovered an ancient black cult involving priests and the plague victims, but she is brushed off by a British colleague, who is indifferent to her interest despite frightening revelatory evidence that she has uncovered. Public health, she says, sometimes has to be put before archaeology.

Enter a car full of British punks, screaming through the streets in a stolen car and filming themselves using a stolen video camera. Before long, midnight strikes, they run over someone or something in the street and come skidding to a stop, and we cut back to Anna, the American archaeologist, who has somehow stumbled upon a buried 17th Century street.

This is where I got lost, and I stayed lost for pretty much the rest of the movie. We see clocks striking midnight a lot, so clearly something happens at midnight, but it's never really very clear what it is. And what is the deal with the buried street? I guess the Plague was so traumatic that that just paved over the old streets and built modern London on top of it? I have no idea.

Anna is a huge problem in the movie. She claims to have this huge historical knowledge (and also does that intolerable thing late in the movie where everyone is fearful for their lives and she is frantically giving history lessons), but is astonishingly clueless about how to handle the Plague. At one point, one of the characters is supposedly infected with the plague, so they put him in a wire cage and then Anna suggests that they all go wash their hands.

Wow, all those primitive Londoners had to do was wash their hands! Think of all the lives that could have been saved!

The movie soon leaves any story behind and descends into a shabby special effects display that reminded me of old Nightmare on Elm Street movies. And if the special effects weren't bad enough, they also throw in the "I don't think any of this is real" thing, so none of it matters anyway.

The story, rather than having much of anything to do with a mental institution OR the plague, is about an orphanage in which a series of terrible thing happened to five of the orphans. Surprise, there are five characters in the movie and, as Anna explains, history "seems to be repeating itself."

No reason is given but none is needed. This is standard, 9th grade creative writing. Now we have the catalyst that introduces "death's design" which was kicked to death with three Final Destinations and provides a weak drive for the rest of the movie.

There is a romantic moment at the very end of the film that is spectacularly out of place and dissolves immediately any character development that might have come before, and like much of the rest of the movie, it ends with a small child whispering some utter nonsense to us. We are told that the plague doctor will live on forever, "and you being a malignant host, an infant herald of doom."

What?!?

Well, let me give you a little chronology. The Sixth Sense - 9-year-old boy sees dead people. Ghost Town - annoyed British dentist sees dead people. The Sickhouse - American archaeologist sees dead British people. That would be really interesting if the movies were released in that order...


I was hopeful when I read the description on Netflix. Haunted hospital or asylum just creeps me out. Too bad the premise has never been done well. This film is no exception. There has to be one that is better than The Sickhouse, Session 9, the remake of House on Haunted Hill, the Attic Expeditions, etc. because they all sucked for myriad reasons. At least "Haunted" had some actually scary moments, not just psychological mishmash and gruesome imagery.

It was too jumpy. Right in the middle of the tension-filled hall-stalk or door-open, the scene cuts and jumps to a map for a few moments and then back to the scene, where nothing happens.

The plague doctor ghost villain was certainly scary in appearance, and his plague-victim ghost minions as well, but more back story was needed to set the mood and really explain things. They were just there and a freaky cult was mentioned. They should have gone more into it. That was actually intriguing and had major scare potential. Instead we get the same stalking villain-and-minions, teenage chavs getting offed (well, that was pretty good) in bizarre ways, and an undeveloped connection between several plague doctor cult killers.

Of course, it had the obligatory sole-survivor-as-reborn-villain-for-sequel setup, too, which just pisses me off. DONE TO DEATH.


While this movie may somewhat accurately depict callous British imperialism towards native populations, and is sympathetic to the trod-upon Maori, "Utu" (Sumerian for sun, but for the Maori it means revenge) ultimately fails as a story and film because so few of the more prominent foundations that the film lays at the beginning are actually paid off at the end.

For instance, we see the settler Williamson (admirably played by Bruno Lawrence) understandably go mad in his quest to avenge his wife's death and loss of his home at the hand of Te Wheke, going so far as to construct a frightening, custom four-barrel shotgun. Yet does he actually end up using it in the end? He finally gets the opportunity to execute his wife's killer, only to inexplicably back down and instead allow a Maori soldier working for the "pakeha" (non-Maori, mostly for white man) to do the deed, apparently mesmerized by Maori chanting and suddenly becoming sympathetic to a culture and cause that is not his own.

Lt. Scott (well played by Kelly Johnson) is torn between his New Zealand roots (a "pake" born on the North Island) and his adherence to military life, but understandably seeks his own revenge against Te Wheke for the loss of his Maori lover. As we've seen in other films about the long arm of British imperialism, a soldier's military training ultimately wins out in the end. Yet he too backs down from his final judgment and chance to avenge, to allow the Maori soldier (revealed to be Te Wheke's brother) to perform the execution of Te Wheke.

Te Wheke himself is driven mad by his vengeance against his former employer (the military), when he came across the destruction of a Maori village at the beginning of the film. At first he is depicted as a cunning warrior out to save his fellow Maori, but he makes some very stupid mistakes in the end, ones that defy explanation and logic (unless you buy the "revenge always trumps intelligence" line). The soldiers are thus shown as ultimately superior intellects in warfare, and while they may have been, Te Wheke was taken so easily, almost casually so, after months of successful evasion. And why did he turn upon his own people? Does madness make him do this? If so, it's too easy and ultimately unbelievable.

As a prior reviewer posted, why was the Maori village destroyed at the beginning of the film? Should the viewers assume that this is because the British are on a campaign to wipe out the Maori to take their land? Or was it done as some sort of vengeance for supposed affronts to military authority? But this is never explained, so we must take it at face value that the British imperialists were pigs, yet superior nonetheless to the blundering Maori.

Bravo to the filmmakers for exploring the pointlessness and waste of British imperialism and of the concept of revenge, and for showing the dichotomy of Maori killing their own kind in service to a foreign military (as was seen done in India, Africa and countless other island nations and countries during the 1800's British imperialistic campaigns throughout the world), and in alluding to the latent homosexuality of one British officer, further denigrating the indigenous culture they are trying to oppress.

But moviegoers seeking to learn more about Maori culture and history should definitely look for other, more competent and complete sources.


When I read posts saying they thought this film wasn't very good but then they found out how low the budget was and now have new respect for the film...I cringe. (I also cringe when I see 10 stars for this movie as they are obviously affiliated in some way) A film is either good or bad no matter how big or small the budget. Can you tell a good story? Can you keep the pace of the film moving? With all the limitations there is on a low budget film can you make it entertaining? As far as After Sundown goes, the Original Edit didn't take itself so seriously, had better music, lighting, sound, smoother edits and above all else humor. I know all this because I directed the film and with the help of our talented D.P. put together the Original Edit that premiered in front of 400 or so at Billy Bob's in Fort Worth, Texas. The version available in stores was altered by the Executive Producers in a failed attempt at making this a serious horror film. With all that being said, it was still a great learning experience and having Lion's Gate on the resume can't be all bad.


A campy horror flick made to be gory fun on a very low budget as a master vampire and his wife turn some people into the undead and others into flesh eating zombies.

Through flashbacks, you discover that a 19th century preacher's daughter turned vampire bears a demon child as her vampire husband comes to take her and the baby away. The townspeople subdue and stake the husband, wife/daughter, and baby after a fierce, but one sided, gun battle with the husband, and a tortured child birthing scene.

Present day - A group relocating an existing cemetery for developers uncover a buried non-decomposed woman and her baby (in 19th century dress) with wooden stakes in their hearts. Awe struck, the group takes their bodies to the morgue for examination. They pull the stakes out, and leave the bodies unattended. Well, you can guess what happens next at the morgue. In the mean time, workers pull a silver cross from the chest of another body at the cemetery - guess who.

Flash backs to the 19th century fill in some of the blanks as the master vampire husband searches for his wife and child wreaking havoc along the way.

The twist is that the vampires control the mindless zombies.

If you're looking for attention keeping entertainment, skip it. If you're looking for some low budget gore and a combination of zombies and vampires, then this is for you.


I have seen more than my fair share of low budget movies, but nothing as bad as this movie. Poor direction, lighting and acting. You could tell that the director did not have real control over the film, even thought the idea was interesting he just shoot from the hip. The overall lighting gave you the feeling that someone was just walking around with a light bulb. Lighting should have been used to enhance the movie instead of helping kill it. The acting was so poor that even your low budget porn films have better actors than this main stream film. I cannot believe that the casting director chose these actors. Go to any street corner in California and you should be able to find better actors. No I am not talking about the zombies. They should all find new jobs far far away from the film industry.


This is another one of those movies shot on video with a nice looking DVD box that gives the impression it's actually a film, when in reality it looks like it was shot on super 8 video by the neighborhood kids. I know it was shot one a canon xg1 after watching the "making of" documentary (another one of these low budget films with a "making of" documentary that acts like they've just finished making Citizen Kane). Normally I stay away from these movies (I don't say film because it's not) because they're terrible and movies made by amateurs don't entertain me, but this was at the library and the library usually doesn't have these "shot on video" movies, so I duped! There's no logic in this movie whatsoever. For some reason, a vampire's blood turns people into zombies. It's never really explained why but there's lots of lapses in logic and stuff never explained in this garbage. Like when they find the body that hasn't decomposed like it you'd think it would have having been buried in a 120 year old cemetery, the police would be called since it was obviously just buried. But for some reason, the idiots in this movie are under the impression that it was buried in the 1880s and never decomposed. Also, they never seem to wonder why a "dead body's" eyes seem to flicker as if they were trying to pretend they were dead but are not.

The "writer" of this movie is under the impression that hoards of zombies being shot is somehow scary. It's not. This is why just anyone should not be allowed to make a movie. There should be some sort of test you should have to pass first before being given a budget, any budget, to do something like this. If you're supposedly making a "horror" movie, learn about what is scary, not simply "ooh, it's zombies, and even though it's been done now a thousand times, people will think ours are great!" Of course the "acting" is awful but the direction is worse. Way, way too many close ups. The "directors" need to learn about "establishing shots" so the audience can have an idea what is going on, instead of these annoying constant close shots.

My favorite part of the movie is when the girl asks the Sheriff "why don't you just run them over?" He was thinking "because they're unpaid extras. We just don't have the budget for it"

But the thing that bugs me the most about garbage like this, is when you see comments in the IMDb where the people are praising this obviously awful movie. I mean, look at how many comments they have for other films. Zero. It's so transparent these are people from the movie, it's insulting. There's no way anyone in the world outside the production of this movie would actually think this thing is great and comment here on top. There should be some sort of rule that people who worked on a movie cannot comment on their own work in here.

Avoid this garbage like the plague.


This USA/Brazlian film is depressing for awhile as it concentrates of the abandoned street kids of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, of which they are thousands and thousands, unfortunately. Since it's carnival time in Brazil, however, the mood picks up and so does the sex as Rae Down Chong leads a parade of naked women.

The executive director of this movie, Zalman King, is known for his "soft porn" flicks, and this turned out to be just about in that category. It really isn't a memorable film and certainly your time or money.

If you want a better film dealing dealing with the horrors of the street situation in that area, check out "City Of God."


oh dear. waves of kids being murdered in favellas in rio de janeiro. an interesting, if disturbing topic. who is responsible? enter rae dawn chong, beautiful but somewhat limited actress (see Commando) and one of the Kemp brothers (of the hallowed thespian soap opera school of acting) Add revered (reviled?) soft porn director Zalman King and the result is an excuse of a film that doesn't really work on any level. The directing credit is actually shared between King and one Walter Avancini, and the difference in opinion they must have had is obvious as the film changes direction frequently, unsure of it's path. the flashbacks are repetitive and irritating, the voodoo sub-plot ridiculous, the characters either too sleazy for words or just plain awful.If you want to see Chong naked this will(maybe)satisfy you, but at what price? There probably IS a good movie to be made on this subject matter, but Boca isn't it.


Don't even think of watching this without first reading the book. And if you have read the book don't put yourself through this mockery of one of the most outstanding novels ever. This movie takes from one of the greatest works ever crafted by man and somehow screws it all up. It takes way too many liberties with the story and replaces almost all of the themes and metaphors with simplistic and uninspired doppelgangers. Although the book was exemplary this movie only takes from it slightly. The screen writers probably didn't even read the book. The themes are inane. The dialogue is downright horrible(except when taken from Camus exactly). The Actors while well meaning do not hit the mark with their characters. And serious flaws in the story line are plentiful like weeds. Also plentiful is female nudity, but it's not erotic or even meaningful it's just obnoxious and quite frankly sickening.

Unless you want to see a version of the Plague that puts Oran in South America in 199..., changes the Rambert character to a woman who fingers herself in a cafe while checking for Buboes, changes Tarrou and Grand into giggling novelties, and replaces the enlightening separation theme from the second part of the novel and changes it so that the characters and merely horny, than this is for you.

This "Plague" is an insult and owners of the rights to Camus' works should be shot for letting this mockery manifest itself. Don't bother with this awful movie. Bullets are cheaper and provide the same feeling when put into heart.

If you are at all interested in renting or buying this awful movie, don't! Read the book! It is one of the best you will ever read I guarantee. Plus it turns this movie into a comedy as you laugh at the possible thoughts of the producer, screenwriter, actors, director, grips, cinematographer, etc... It's apparently impossible to give no stars with a review. So now the makers of this film owe me one.

However bad the movie was the book made up for it in spades. If you enjoyed the movie (shame on you) read the book and be amazed at how good it could have been.


Wow, right from the start this movie is a real downer, not exactly an uplifting film! This is really depressing.

William Hurt, Robert Duvall, Raul Julia, Sandrine Bonnaire and Jean-Marc Barr star in a film dealing with a plague that is infecting a South American city. It sounds interesting, which is why I rented it, along with the great cast.

However, I found this very disappointing, not only because it was so depressing but it's too talky, the photography disappointed me and I think it tries to be a lot "smarter" than it comes across. I can't see a lot of people enjoying this film. Half the cast members don't seem to be into this story, either, especially Duvall who usually gives great performances.

A friend of mine suggested I read the book and forget the movie. I should have taken her advice. At least the author was famous.


Too talkative. Crappy acting. Pathetic writing. I could go on for a while... It is a shame that such good material was wasted. The film is clueless, since the makers had no vision. The film even manages to become boring. It also tries too hard to be meaningful and deep, but it just isn't intelligent enough. The photography is OK, though. But that's about the only good thing in this movie. As far as I know the film is only out on DVD in Asia. The DVD can often be found on eBay. Not that I would advise you to buy it, though.

The DVD is 4:3.

Some of the actors deliver performances that are far below their usual standard. This must mean that director Puenzo did a lousy job.


It's unfortunate that a film with a good cast never really becomes as good as it might. The idea of women working during the war in the war production plants was critical to the war effort, and the attempts at coping with an almost unbearable life situation with women workers sharing a house while their husbands are overseas was common enough to have true dramatic value; yet, this movie never seems to reach its high potential.

The reason seems to be in the incredibly poor script, not so much in terms of plot, but in relation to what seems to be substandard language. It's unfortunate that the actors are saddled with such lines as: "If I see you looking sideways at another girl, I'm going to hit you over the head with an axe handle," "It's okay, mom, he's going to marry me," "Why don't the mice pay their share of the rent," "You don't carry a mop length-wise...you carry it like a fishing pole," and "I'm going to beat those rugs until they sit up and yell 'Uncle'."


Drug store ice cream scooper and soda server Clara Bow (as Ruby Nolan) scams Pacific Coast sailors for gift clerk boss Harry Green (as Solomon Bimberg). When the men find out they're being strung along, they make tracks; and, Bow swears off sailors. But, the arrival of seaman Fredric March (as Mac "Bull's-Eye" McCoy) threatens to blow the wind out of her sails.

That Bow's earlier sound films were disappointing shows up in everyone trying very hard to adjust the diction levels. Mr. March provided better support in Bow's first sound appearance in "The Wild Party". Paramount promoted this film with Bow's appearance in the just released "Paramount on Parade". At the time, a certain way to prove one's talking picture prowess was to sing a song; so, Bow inappropriately bursts into a song, while home with apparent maid Louise Beavers! A soda clerk with a maid? Depression-era audiences should be so lucky.

In real life, Bow picked the handsomest of the sailors appearing in "True to the Navy", Rex Bell (as Eddie), to be her "wedded husband". Mr. Allen is the first sailor to appear, and he does very well in his supporting role; this film offers a unique opportunity to see the attractive Mr. and Mrs. Bell on screen together.

**** True to the Navy (5/25/30) Frank Tuttle ~ Clara Bow, Fredric March, Rex Bell


This movie is sooooo sloooooowwww. It's got occassional good moments, as when Ichi explains how she wound up in her fight or Isaburo running towards the riflemen through the vegetation, but the pacing is glacial and the story is somewhat interesting but not nearly interesting enough to support over two hours of movie.


Al Pacino stars as Bobby, a grungy heroin addict, who's living a seedy existence in NYC. Kitty Winn plays Bobby's girl, Helen. Helen becomes romantically involved with Bobby, and he initiates her into the sordid world of heroin use.

This film is shot to look like a documentary. As a result, the viewer can better envision the squalor of the characters, and their desperate quest to keep themselves supplied with enough heroin. Overall, the film is engrossing, and yet has a repulsive quality. The characters in this film, are very pitiful. They manage to invoke both sympathy, and contempt at the same time.

You may likely feel glad when the film is over, because you don't have to witness the wretched suffering of the addict characters anymore. Al Pacino is amazingly talented. His performance in this film, is the only reason to see this otherwise depressing movie.


The show first debuted with a fresh blend of comedy, action, a tad of romance, and a great set of characters, based off DC Comics' well known teen-age super-heroes. Unfortunately, it lost its spark in many ways... (Spoiler Alert) It all started when they decided to make Robin become obsessed with the big baddie of the show - Slade. It seemed too close to the formula of Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader of the "Star Wars" movies. But, Slade wasn't Robin's father, even though the series made slight hints at that. But this was obviously not true, since there were no more hints made after the first season. (PLOT HOLE!!) The second season, while having some good episodes, had some of the worst plot episodes invented. They introduced Terra, a girl who can't control her powers, and turned her into a spoiled brat who joins Slade for no apparent reason whatsoever. She said it was so she could learn how to harness her powers, but the other Titans could have helped her with that. Then, she tries to kill them all, and gets upset when they come back for revenge. The term, "You bought it!" comes to mind here. (Another PLOT HOLE!!) Then, they made a season all about Cyborg, which was one of the biggest bores in the entire show. He discovered (as he discovered in many other episodes) that he is still a human being. Then, they made him save the day in the cheesiest and lousiest way I think I've ever seen. His human spirit resists the mind control of the evil Brother Blood. Well, shouldn't the others' human spirits also be able to resist Brother Blood, since they're all human? (...except maybe Starfire and Raven.) (Yet another PLOT HOLE!!) Then, - speaking of Raven - the fourth season revolves all around her. But instead of keeping her in character, she becomes sappy and simpering, because she's destined to destroy the Earth. Then, why didn't she flee long ago, if she knew this was coming? Is she that thick? It seems unlike her to be so careless about something like that! (Well, well, looks like another PLOT HOLE!!) Then, the final season... the season I was hoping would be the best, turned out to be the worst. They went ahead and introduced all these new Titans, but hardly any of them had any screen time, because the show didn't have enough episodes to hold them all. Plus, they introduced Beast Boy's old team, the "Doom Patol", at the beginning, but they don't even help the Titans at the final battle. (Just some more of the PLOT HOLE virus.)

Plus, the side episodes were either all about: Cyborg realizing he's human for the 300th time; Robin and Starfire drama; Beast Boy messing everything up, then saving the day; or Raven (who had the least side episodes out of all the characters) not really doing much.

Still, it has some charms. But it's definitely not the best animated show out there. Then again, I don't think there are any animated shows worth comparing to it, so maybe I'm wrong.

4/10.


To put my thoughts in a nutshell: this show stinks to high heaven. Low production values, poor continuity, sloppy pacing, over-condensed plot, horrible characterization, sometimes manageable, sometimes horrible casting, and the fact that its actually only half-animated make up what's wrong with this show. If Directors Michael Chang, Ben Jones, Ciro Nieli, Alex Soto, and Matt Youngberg weren't even able to afford to make their animated show...animated! They probably shouldn't even have bothered! While several of the scenes are word for word from the comics, they are soullessly done. A story should have a "soul", if you will, and this show lacked anything of the sort. Which is a huge part of the problem with it. The original comics, on the other hand...well, they almost overflowed with the stuff. The authors, George Perez and Marv Wolfman, spent about twelve years of their lives writing them, using a typewriter. They seamlessly spun together a beautiful fabric of a story, using their craftsmanship, their devotion and their love for their work. This brought us "Teen Titans".

Michael Chang, Ben Jones, Ciro Nieli, Alex Soto, and Matt Youngberg merely took the materials they already had and just slapped them on screen with very little care.

After looking through the show, episode by episode, the two biggest mistakes that Michael Chang, Ben Jones, Ciro Nieli, Alex Soto, and Matt Youngber made are definitely evident.

Biggest Mistake #One: They tried to do it for too little budget, $8 million. What they were able to do with that little amount is impression, though, I will admit. On the other hand, being impression of such a small amount of money, and actually making something that actually is impression, in of itself, are two different things. They definitely needed about twice the budget that they had just to get the show fully animated, and even more than that if they wanted to add a little style to the animation.

Biggest Mistake #Two: They tried to fit the entirety of the first two comics (about 30 pages total, and in small print) into one half hour show. This forced drastic cuts all throughout it, especially in the "Second Generation" section, also at which point they'd run out budget for animation for the most part (filming at high contrast and using rotoscoping does not make animation). They were also forced to sacrifice personality and development for most of the characters.

All this led up to a sudden end, in which the narrator announced "to be continued". The show was not officially titled "Teen Titans-Part One", and nothing even hinted that this was merely a part of the story. It is merely titled "Teen Titans", which directly implies that the entire story should have been told in this show. They advertised it that way, and they've kept it that way. In another review, the reviewer who wrote up "Michael Chang, Ben Jones, Ciro Nieli, Alex Soto, and Matt Youngberg's Teen Titans, Part One: A Critique" on the "DC Comics Sarcasm Page" said, "I'm surprised there weren't any lawsuits." Film Rating: 3/10


Donald Duck is out by himself, skating on his pond having a good time when his three little kids come racing out onto the surface, ready to play hockey. Donald is arrogant and tells the kids they know nothing about the game, they he will have to show them. He takes them on: one and against three, and kills them. He hams it up so bad it's embarrassing - the ultimate showoff. He rubs it in afterward, too. The kids are not happy. Donald then offers to play the kids again, this time blindfolded.

That turns out to be a mistake as they beat him around like a hockey puck.

This animated short is really for little kids, and no one else. The humor might make them laugh a lot but I doubt older kids and adults wound find much funny. I know I didn't.


I don' know what movie you guys were watching, or alternately how to characterize the parallel branch of the Great Tree on which this trash comes out looking entertaining. You l i k e d the guy channeling a third-rate panto artiste doing his Captain Hook? If a ticking crocodile had emerged from subspace and taken a bite out of him - hey, let's be fair - out of everyone involved in this tax-scam fiasco - t h a t might have been entertaining. A little bit of Aliens (rendered in high-impact chipboard), a little bit of every maverick-takes-on-stiffnecked-brasshat -but-they-end-up-pals movie, a bunch of no-hope has-beens (rendered in high-impact chipboard). Hey, what's not to like - once the Lithium's kicked in


From the creators of APEX & just as bad... This film has an 18 certificate god knows why? The acting is very cardboard, the story predictable & boring, even the FX & design are poor, I've seen better on 'Thunderbirds'. Not even Meg Foster could stop this space ship from sinking, avoid at all cost, go see Starship Troopers instead.


STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

In the future, all is kept fine and dandy by a group of men and women called The United Federation of Planets. But when some dastardly fellows take over a space-ship to enforce a gold deal, some fellows called the Space Marines are called in to sort them out.

This is a far glossier presentation than Talaat Captan's earlier work such as Digital Man and A.P.E.X., but it's still glaringly low budget. It all basically just feels like Under Siege in outer space (even the spaceship is named the Missouri as in Under Siege!) In fact, there are weird scene references through-out to that particular film that left me with the impression that the writer had some special kind of liking towards it. Aside from that, it's just the usual collection of clichés that are typical of a straight-to-video work such as this. Not to mention some really bad acting, from the token black guy to the lead bad guy who seems to think he's in some production of Hamlet at the local rep as opposed to such a flimsy piece of work as this. Glossier and more violent, certainly, but definitely not as enjoyable as Captan's earlier work. **


To me it is a great mystery that movies such as Space Marinies actually get made. The plot is ridiculous and predictable, the acting one big joke. The only thing preventing me to rate this movie a plain zero is the unability to do so.


I've seen my fair share of B-films, bad acting, non-existent plot, so bad that they are funny. Unfortunately this film doesn't make it into the last category which may have redeemed it slightly. With the exception of Meg Foster, the characters are out acted by the Thunderbird puppets. The script (script? nothing this bad deserves the name of script) is banal, boring, riddled with inconsistencies and loaded with clichés. It was either written by someone who has never read SF in their life, or was hacked to pieces by the director so it could be filmed for $10.50.

It is not even worth seeing as shlock. I tried to give it away but found no takers. The film was a waste of time and effort to film, and is both a waste of time and an insult to the viewer.

It deserves a negative vote, I would even settle for a zero, but have had to give it a one under protest. The only worth in this film was in the DVD case.

Avoid like poison ivy. Watch a decent B-film like Attack of the Killer Tomatoes.


Chuck Jones's 'There They Go-Go-Go', the ninth Road Runner cartoon, is the inevitable moment when this excellent series finally hits a snag. Having managed to sustain genuine brilliance across the last four cartoons, 'There They Go-Go-Go' feels like a very tired entry into the series. Even the title seems to indicate a dearth of ideas. Many people, when they think of the Road Runner shorts imagine a repetitive and not especially funny set of predictable gags. If they wanted proof to back up this argument then 'There They Go-Go-Go' would be the ideal candidate. Set against the more stylised backgrounds introduced in the previous cartoon, 'Gee Whiz-z-z', 'There They Go-Go-Go' fails to offer enough funny gags to distract attention away from the less sumptuous scenery and the impression I am left with is that of an unattractive and unamusing cartoon. There's a couple of chuckles but that can be said of practically any Road Runner cartoon (bar the dire later ones). All in all, 'There They Go-Go-Go' is a disappointment but is easily excused as an inevitable hiccup in a series that managed to sustain the same premise for an astonishing amount of time.


Who else than B-movie deity Roger Corman would provide inexperienced but enthusiast directors with the necessary budget to create the umpteenth "Alien" rip-off in a span of barely a couple of years? The market was pretty much congested with space-terror movies during the early 80's and even other countries began making them, like the UK ("Inseminoid") and of course Italy ("Contamination"). Did anyone really need another clone of Ridley Scott's masterpiece? And yet it looks like another wise investment for master Corman, as "Galaxy of Terror" is still a guilty pleasure of many horror fans and it's frequently mentioned as one of the more tolerable "Alien"-imitations ever made. Personally I'm not such a big fan, but can see why so many others are! This movie has quite some gory bits, gratuitous sleaze, a fantastic cast and  most of all  it requires absolutely NO brain activities! "Galaxy of Terror" is unpretentious and relaxing entertainment, but still it could have been a lot better. The opening and closing minutes are incredibly dumb and the movie tends to be tedious whenever there aren't any hideous monsters on display. Luckily the gutsy killings and eerie set designs (by no less than Bill Paxton!) compensate for a lot! A nine-headed expedition is send (at hyper speed) to the unexplored regions of space to find out what happened to a previously vanished spaceship and its crew. Bad idea, of course, because unknown galaxies usually is where big slimy monsters live! And, in the good tradition of the aforementioned "Alien", there's a spy on board of the ship and the female crew-members severely risk to get impregnated by horny extraterrestrial rapists. Robert Englund is pretty great in a somewhat heroic role, a couple of years prior to the start of his successful villain-role of Freddy Krueger in "Nightmare on Elm Street". Zalman King and Erin Moran are good too, but veteran-actor Sig Haig's role should have been bigger.


I'm surprised to see so many positive reviews of this goofy movie, because I thought it was really lame. Incomprehensible, pretentious, shoddy and cheap are the descriptive words that sprang into my head while I was watching it. A spaceship is sent to follow the tracks of a previous mission that ended in disaster...the investigation reveals that something very mysterious was responsible for the death of all the crew - unfortunately, finding out the truth is an ordeal for both the characters in the movie and the for audience.

The acting is mostly terrible. Nobody (re)acts like a normal person. Dialogue is brief and meaningless for a lot of the film's running time. Erin Moran's poor attempt at dramatic acting proves that she should have stuck with TV sitcoms, she ruins all the dialogue she has by making 50% of it impossible to understand, and the other 50% hammed up to the extreme - seemingly thinking that delivering even the most innocuous line through gritted teeth with eyes staring wide would contribute an atmosphere of suspense, but failing miserably.

But she's not the only one. Zalman King does his usual wild-eyed, angry man job, again with half-baked lines of dialogue that neither illuminate or explain his character in any way. In fact the entire script is appalling, people continually deliver lines of dialogue that have no relation to anything previously said. Who wrote this rubbish? It has to be said that this film DOES rip of "Alien" and anyone claiming otherwise is just being kind. I mean, c'mon, those dark corridors with "industrial" vents and pipes at every angle? Exploring a giant otherworldly planet complete with gigantic organic looking structures? Almost every scene filled with loads of pitch blackness everywhere? Along the way, several of the characters die in grisly ways, well, they would be if the effects weren't so woeful. The "rape by giant worm" scene had me chuckling, and the scenes of bodies being ripped apart had really bad dummies that seemed to be completely hollow. The film's big "reveal" also makes a mockery of the deaths we witness - only about 2 or 3 of them could be attributed to the supposed cause - at least 4 of them were just typical alien tentacle/arms/claws,teeth pouncing from some vent or pipe, and grabbing/mauling/suckering the victim to death - YAWWNN!

Because it's so nonsensical, don't be surprised if you lose interest if you experience this for the first time, and as for the ending - you have got to be kidding me - 80 minutes of my time for THAT payoff? I'd rather watch the cheaper and dafter "Starcrash" anytime over this. A big thumbs down in all departments.


Galaxy of Terrors is basically now known as the "Girl gets Raped by a Worm" movie. And that certainly fits the bill. Because this movie is entirely forgettable. Well, the scene where a guy karate chops off his own arm is pretty cool, but besides that, get ready for a completely average scifi/horror flick.

Story revolves around a rescue mission going terribly wrong when people mysteriously start dying off. That's it.

The story or idea behind the flick ain't bad. But with such crap writing and such carefree characters, it's just a lot of waiting around for the next death scene to occur. Thankfully the death scenes are kinda cool. But death scenes can't carry a movie. Just ask the Final Destination series.

For myself, this was a huge disappointment. I was expecting some great 80s crap. But it turned out just to be kinda crappy. No laughs, the rape scene wasn't very rapish (truthfully I don't even know how she died), not enough use of Haig, awful characters, and it took itself too serious. Which you would think would deliver a couple cheese chuckles. Nope, the flick was just a mediocre flick that didn't do anything particularly right. Well, I don't wanna be too mean. The atmosphere was thick and effective, and the make-up effects were alright. There, that's it.

Check it out if you enjoy bad SciFi/Horror, cause there is a following for this flick. But damn, those people must be easily entertained cause this flick was a stinkin bore.


It is hard to rate a movie that is so bad, but still can be very amusing. The plot itself is a maimed rip-off of many sci-fi movies, but so badly scripted that you can't empathize with ANY of the characters. The atmosphere is so 80s - with all the bad special effects and technology of old, but with all the lack of interest for the quality of movies of new - that it makes one want to puke. The actors are celebrities in their own right, having seen them in so many (average and bad) movies, but their acting is simply horrible. Even the music is standard horror flick. There is nothing in the movie that is good, including the famous worm rape scene, which is the only tentacle rape scene in US movies that I've seen, but which was so clumsily made that it stirred nothing.

Conclusion: get really wasted and watch this, you might get into the whole psychedelic mood that the actors and director must have been when shooting the movie. You will laugh your ass off, as well :)


"Galaxy of Terror" is a movie that I saw for the first time almost 20 years ago and my reaction to this movie back then was "OH THIS MOVIE IS DISGUSTING!!!" I just saw it again recently, and my reaction was pretty much the same as it was the first time. "Galaxy of Terror" is a gory, disgusting low budget sci-fi/horror flick that's nothing more than a third-rate ripoff of Ridley Scott's far superior 1979 classic "Alien". You want to know the funniest thing about this movie? It's hard to believe that James Cameron was the production designer of "Galaxy of Terror". Yes! This is the same James Cameron who went on to direct big box-office smash hits such as the first "Alien" sequel "Aliens, the two "Terminator" pictures, "The Abyss", "True Lies", and the current #1 box-office blockbuster of all time, the Oscar-winning "Titanic". Of course the big excuse for Cameron's presence here is that he was very much unknown when he worked on "Galaxy of Terror". I'm sure today that this movie is one project that he never mentions. And well he shouldn't. Another funny thing about "Galaxy of Terror" is the cast. What long time veteran character actor Ray Walston is doing in this movie is an enigma. Robert Englund is also featured here, a few years before taking on his most famous role, that of Freddy Krueger in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies. And Erin Moran of TV's "Happy Days" should be ashamed of herself for agreeing to appear in this (she also gets the unfortunate task of having the most gruesome sendoff in the film, a moment that still makes me cringe big time). "Galaxy of Terror" was produced by low-budget meister Roger Corman. Low budget indeed. This film is so poorly made that you never get a good look at the monsters featured on screen. The special effects are cheesy; the screenplay appears to had been written in 2 days; and the acting is pathetic. But what keeps "Galaxy of Terror" from being one of the very worst movies ever made is that it's over in 81 minutes, and it's quite fast-paced. So it ends fast. Plus there are a couple of entertaining moments that were kind of exciting. But overall, it's really not worth anybody's time. Unless you want to watch some truly sickening moments, then tune in. If you dare.

*1/2 (out of four)


I have no clue as to what the people are thinking that call this the best Alien rip off. First off, it is similar to Alien in atmosphere but it is really closer to Forbidden Planet in plot although nowhere near as good.

I remember seeing in the theater as a 13 old around 1981-82 whenever it came out. The only memory I had of the movie was the poster for it in a the theater and the fact is had Jonie (Erin Moran) from Happy Days in it.

I saw the movie last week for the first time in theaters and I see why I have no memory of it. There is nothing worth remembering. I expect a Roger Corman movie to be cheesy and suspension of disbelief is a requirement. However this movies sets where so cheap and the plot line was so bad that you honestly will have trouble remembering what happened in the movie the next day after seeing it.

I have seen many comments about the rape scene and I personally don't find maggot rape to be a form on entertainment but that scene that was shown in the R-rated cut was cheesy and not going to disturb anyone.

The movie had more violence than I remembered and tried to be mean spirited but really amounted to not much of anything. The movie just ends in a hurry with not much of an explanation.

I would suggest searching for another creature feature if you are in the mood for B-Movie entertainment. The cast for this B flick looks pretty good on paper but it is executed horribly. This movie was obviously made in a hurry with no money for reshooting scenes.

Avoid at all costs.


Galaxy of Terror should have been a good film. It basically is one of those dark, Alien-like space monster movies filled with pop-out scares. I found the character's behavior to be unbelievable given their situation - but that's not all that unusual. In the end I gave it only a "3" rating because the movie falls flat. It seems like the production just got away from the director and actors and came out unconvincing. The movie gives a feeling as though it were done to show off a few gross-out special effects, and not much more, but the special effects didn't come out that good and they didn't have enough money to re-shoot.


I won't completely dissect this movie. It isn't worth the time, and you can get basic plot details from other reviews. Suffice to say it's exceedingly stupid. I gave it two stars largely because at times it's shot well. Some scenes look better than a movie with this budget and this much aggressive incompetence behind it should. I'll just comment on a couple of things beyond that.

The Code Conspiracy uses a lot of technical jargon, mostly in the form of cryptographic and technological talk, to try and lend some weight to its (weightless) religious message. Like pretty much everything else in the movie, it fails to do this and succeeds only in annoying and boring the audience.

Vast, brainless sections of this movie make no sense whatsoever. There's no reasonable explanation for what happens late in the movie on the beach. What goes on as people are getting on the plane, and why it does, are muddled at best. I get the sense that huge portions of the film that would have helped things to make sense were excised. But the rest of the movie is so badly paced--filled to overflow with pointless scenes and long, lingering shots we don't need--that it's hard to buy that as an excuse.

Pacing is the movie's worst failure. Any stupid flick, even a pretentious one, is more forgivable when it's short. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of awful movies, and I'm not exaggerating when I say that probably 90-95% of them clock in within ten minutes of the ninety minute mark. How on earth this movie thought it could get away with a hundred and ten mind-numbing minutes is a mystery more compelling than any Bible Code.

This movie's pretty good for laughs, though. MST3K fans may recognize David Warner from Quest of the Delta Knights. Again, though, it's paced very slowly. There will be some boring spots, but keep in mind there will be something completely ridiculous just around the bend. I especially love the awful, awful songs.

Lastly, I want you to consider all the positive user comments this movie has received here. All of them were posted in the first half of 2005, and almost every one of them--no matter what the country of origin (and there are lots of those)--misuses commas in the exact same bizarre way. Every single one of them also either has commented on no other movies, or has commented only on other movies that starred Jim Fitzpatrick. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that's not a coincidence. Thirteen reviews. Bogus. Every other review besides those? Resoundingly negative. The score this movie has is clearly equally bogus. Or maybe it's... dun Dun DUN! A conspiracy!


This movie is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin.

First, the basic premises are preposterous. The so-called "keyless encryption" is a nonsense - How do you determine who is authorized to decrypt some ciphertext? Second, the explanation given to Rachel is something embodied in lots of security protocol (e.g. SSH and SSL) and "keyless encryption" is neither necessary nor desired. Third, the way the developers at the encryption company (I forget its name) are portrayed is hilarious in its inaccuracy. Fourth, the "God's code" stuff is something clearly inspired in the Bible code nonsense, something that has been debunked as lot of silly mumbo-jumbo long ago. Fifth, the plot starts focusing on the "keyless encryption," only to be ditched halfway through. Sixth, with the exception of David Warner's, the acting is stilted and amateurish. Seventh, Ms. Alonso clearly shows that she is a "has-been" big time. Eighth, it is not good even for laughs.

This is all a shame, because it starts off fine. All in all, this movie is thoroughly deserving of the relative anonymity in which it lives. A complete waste of time.


I like the idea behind the plot, but the execution is terrible! To give an example: The main character hurts his foot badly in one scene at the beach -- and right afterwards he runs energetically up the stairs. The script is flawed and non-engaging... The "bad guys" are awful actors, especially the boss. You never get to see him but you can hear his mean evil voice, like this was some kind of Batman movie.

=SPOILER= And what about this code? All you hear is some old rabbi mumbling about how important it is, you never get to actually see any of it. Ridiculous. And this secret agency never thought of the idea that the CD may have been copied and distributed? Enough said.


You may like the movie or not, it's an obvious matter of taste and individual sensibility. Better said, you may like so much the message conveyed that you give it a ten. I gave this movie a five. In my opinion, to give a ten, cinema art qualities should be taken into account, like camera work, or robustness of plot, which allows for ellipses, or smartness of the screenplay. All this is missing in this movie. If a character runs for his life let him run till the viewer also is breathing heavily. The message itself is vague, no technical details (in such a technological subject) to give it substance. A horror film may have a ten if it is perfectly done, and possibly teaches the viewer a better understanding of the human behavior. Ideals and spirituality are harder to convey. Somebody did it, a good job indeed, with very plain examples.


This movie is bad. I don't know how it got a 7.3. The vast majority of what I saw - my friend and I turned it off about half way through - was talk. And not very interesting talk. Just blather, going over the same ground again and again. David Warner, a good actor, phoned in his performance, got his check and split. Gotta pay the rent.

Stage requires a lot of talk because of the limitations its nature imposes. But when they have the power of the camera's eye which allows them to use angles, editing, etc. to create a sense of mystery and drama, why do directors just set it up and let it run while the actors talk? Don't get me wrong, there are movies out there that have a great deal of dialog and they are riveting - GLEN GARRY GLENROSS and NETWORK are two good examples. But if your movie is going to be heavy on dialog it's got to be sharp, witty, lean, in short, interesting. There's a basic rule in any creative endeavor - whenever possible, show, don't tell. Well, in this movie the characters tell you everything and show you very little. And I won't even get into how pretentious this film is.


Very disappointed with editing,accuracy of technology and continuity of film.Premise was good but somewhere along the line the story turned into a love story and main plot fell apart. It's a shame that the story went away.The acting was fair to poor. Marie Conchita Alonzo as a Massad agent with a Spanish accent is ridiculous.What's with the cutting of fish,meat,conch and coffee making.Have big problems with scientific facts which are inaccurate. When making a scientific movie at least get a consultant who can correct the errors in the script.How did one disc turn into two,was one hidden in the cave and what happened to the existence of God.


This is one of the WORST movies I've ever seen. Why? Where to start, where to start?

How about dialogue? At one point in the movie, our hero John realizes that they are being watched by government agents. DOH! They followed them openly right to the house Why the look of shock? So, what does he do?

1 - Interrupts a conversation that sounds as normal as any in this movie

2 - Writes "Keep talking normal" on a newspaper on the table

3 - Puts his index finger to his mouth with the universal "shhh" sign (how does one "shhh" while talking normally?)

4 - Next, a looong 15 second pause in conversation

5 - Then this REALLY subtle line - "I'll be right back. Follow me. Keep an eye out" in a monotone voice; end of conversation.

Other really bad parts include the trimmed border and visible hinges around the "secret" trap door and, my favorite, a hidden CD picked up in a different location than where it was hidden in an earlier scene. Since both places had flags, I guess I wasn't supposed to notice. I could list more, but it hurts my brain to think about how bad this movie was.

So, the screenplay is bad. Cinematography is bad. DVD production is bad (what's with the Apache helicopters on the main menu graphics and not in the movie?). The acting is bad, but with this script, even Maria Conchita Alonzo and David Warner can't help it. The concept of the story is great, but the execution is simply horrible, the suspense is transparent (the sunglasses thing was SOOO obvious), and there is a lot of extraneous dialogue (keyless encryption). It wasn't a failure to suspend disbelief, it was a failure to get in the same universe with disbelief.

Maybe someone will take the works of Dan Brown and do something similar to this movie and do it right.


Hmm...where to start? Well, start by reading shayhugi's review of the movie. When you are done reading it you get this sense of confusion, like you should have understood it, but you just didn't. So you are tempted to read it again to see what you must have missed, however, you don't, because you come to your senses and don't want to waste your time. That's exactly the feeling you'll get while watching this movie. Try chugging a beer each time someone in the movie stiffly says "keyless encryption," and you'll feel much better. The acting is so poor the script reaches the level of self-parody, which is tough to do by mistake. However, writer/director/exec. producer Hank Whetstone has no problem. (See his other credits...oh, umm, there are none. This will remain his greatest achievement.) Yes, the cover has Apache helicopters, although none appear in the movie. Yes, ending the movie in the Bahamas was just an excuse to take the crew on vacation. Yes, when a plane gets blown up by a rocket, the entire sequence takes place off camera, saving the FX dept their whole budget. But it's the script that brings the real laughs. If I was running from someone w/a gun, would I run to an empty beach? What on earth went on with that beach scene? All of a sudden there are two-discs? Am I missing something? Ahh, someone just said "keyless encryption." Another cold one downed. I was tempted to rewind it, but came to my senses.

Upon reading some of the newer high praise for this movie, it have recognized that: A. Almost all were written in the first few months of 2005, many in March. B. Almost all have overseas cities listed. C. Almost all of the glowing reviews look they were written by dweebs on shrooms.

From this I can only gather either that: 1. This movie has authentically reached cult-status for its poor quality. Or 2. A bunch of nerds got together and watched the movie on the TV in the back of one of their mom's garage, and the one girl invited there who was not half good looking but the rest wanted to make out with in the back of their '97 Neon anyway said something remotely positive about the movie and they wanted to impress her with incoherent dribble posted online. We can only be so lucky as to read their endless wretched blogs. But no amount of intercontinental praise will improve this waste of film.


Oh I wish that Joel, Crowe and Tom were still in business.

The repeating shots of food being prepared (slice the deer, slice the chicken, slice the fish, slice the vegetables) would make excellent MSTie fodder

This movie is disjointed, filled with ham fisted acting and was an absolute waste of 90 minutes of my life. Thank the gods that I only paid $0.95 for it (The rental store was cleaning out their tape collection).

It ranks down there with the "Manos, Hands of Fate". *barf*

In short, unless this howler of a movie has been MST'ied, avoid this dog at all costs.

If you get this tape as a gift, send it immediately to your local HazMat handling unit.


The idea was not so bad...but the script was. Too much theories, too much dialogues for nothing. And when i say nothing i perfectly describe the end of the film. NOTHING. An hour and a half of runing away, from Florida to Bahamas, to end on a "I hope this will save our world" on a magnificent ocean sunset. The hole film is about a stupid disk on wich an old man says he found the key to predict the futur and wich is also the proof that god exists. Come on... And what is that key and How does it work? Is it really on the disk? All questions left without answers. All that with a really bad photography, bad acting and no sens scenes that would be best put in the "Deleted scenes".

I do not recommend this film.


This movie could be the worst movie ever. I rented it because the cover had Apachi helicopters, and army guys running away from an explosion. After watching the movie I was disappointed because there were no Apachi helicopters, no army guys, and no explosions. Not only is this the worst movie ever, it also has the most misleading cover ever.

The main character in the movie who we are supposed to like is a horrible person. He hates his wife, cheats on her, and uses every opportunity to run away and hide behind his wife in the face of danger.

Despite the horribleness of this movie I would recommend others to rent or even buy this movie. Watch it with friends and laugh at the crappiness of it. It would be impossible for anyone to ever make a movie that made less sense than this movie. Watch this movie and take pride in the fact that you and your friends could make a better movie in less then twenty minutes.


I also received this movie in the mail as a kid and did like it. I came to this site to prove a point to people because these kids in my home town recently decided to start their own "gang" call "The Butter Creamers" i almost died laughing when i heard this. They think its cool and I tried to explain to them how that name is already taken by a hallmark film from my childhood so here i am.

My favorite scene was when the old woman fell down and needed help. It reminded me on the "Help I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up!" Life Alert commercials.

Enjoy the film!


I saw the Buttercream gang when I was sixteen,my brothers and I popped it in our VHS Player and sat back to watch it.We ended up making snide comments the whole time.I'm a Christain and love good quality movies,but this thing was so cheesy and happy sappy I think I got a cavity from watching it.They try to overdramatise the serious parts. The Buttercream Gang is so perfectly good it makes you sick. The town is so small they preacher plays triple duty. Even the bad kid isn't that bad he shoplifts a couple of sodas (I think) the bullies aren't that scary,I mean what's so bad about riding your bike around the nerdy girl granted she'd get dizzy ,but still. The boys had a treehouse they're supposed to be 12 or 14 whatever way too old for a treehouse .I'm not sure I quite the moral of the story unless it was Don't move to big cities like Chicago or New York or you'll turn into a gang member and not the good kind either . The one good thing about the movie was the song that played toward the end and the credits other than it was horrible .


I don't know what the other people who've rated this movie are thinking... but this movie is horrible... it was given to us as a gift, for Christmas. We got 15 or 20 minutes into it and turned it off. The acting was lame, the story line cheesy - a kid from a "good" small town (which seems to be stuck in some sort of weird time warp between the 50's and 80's) goes to the "bad" big city and becomes corrupted - casting a bad light on all big cities. The icing on the cake was the scene where the perfect, angelic kids, in their perfectly clean clothes and perfect hair-dos (soooo unrealistic) help the poor fallen widow by climbing through her 2nd story window... what about all the windows on the ground floor? Even before that, they ride for what seems like kms on their bikes, past numerous adults, not once asking for help - and has anyone there heard of 911?? We turned it off shortly after this and explained to our kids that if anyone they know is ever hurt or in trouble, they are to dial 911 immediately or ask an adult for help. We decided, as a family, to not finish watching the movie. This film... from the 15-20 min that I saw of it, is so cheesy and unrealistic I would never buy one! The copy we have will go into our infamous "garage sale" give away bin. I would much rather have my kids watch something they know is not real and not intended to be real, such as a good fantasy movie that may have some questionable content, than encourage them to watch something crappy and misleading, masquerading as "real" and "good".


Oh God where to begin, You ever hear about one of those movies/books/shows/etc. that is so nice and cuddly that people cant stand it ? This is one of them. This is, w/o a doubt, one of the worst movies i have had the undignified honor of viewing, and boy, it was a piece of...well..s#!t doesn't even give you an idea. it starts with main characters, who are so repulsively nice (to the point where it will make you question the sanity of the person who directed this abomination) that they made a gang (4 people = a gang ?) that does nice things. And all with Christian undertones that are as subtle as a blue whale being dropped on your house. One of the 4 leaves and goes to Chicago, becomes bad, comes back, wrong crowd stuff...wait...i get it this is supposed to convey a point, and NOT make the people watching it vomit. Look, I'll put it bluntly, its like an after school special that tells you what 45 % of the other ones do, be nice, hang out with the right crowd, blah blah blah, its not different, its not "cool", its not nice and happy but serious, its like the town they live in is perfect, thats it. Only 3 or 4 real "trouble-makers" (probably just egged a house, or stayed up past curfew) it has no meaning, and when i saw it, i was part of its target group, that was 2.5 years ago, thats how bad the suckiness of this movie stuck in my head. If your a die-hard Christian, even this is to much for you and your kids will be traumatized by the sickeningly overjoyed atmosphere of this tiny town which also evidently doesn't have any sort of Police Department, just the gang itself.

1 out of 10 AVOID AT ALL COSTS, DO NOT LET ANYONE TALK YOU INTO SEEING THIS IT'S JUST TO BAD, TO UNLIKELY, AND MOST OF WHATS THERE WANTS TO BE LIKE REAL LIFE, BUT ISN'T


"The ButterCream Gang" is not only a horrible movie, it is quite fascist as well. Everyone in the film has blonde hair, except the bad guy who has brown hair. There are no Hispanics, Afro-Americans, Asians (except for a brief mention of Mahatma Gandhi, but I don't think that counts), Native Americans, or homosexuals in the film. In fact, when Pete (the bad guy) joins the bad gang, he changes his last name to a Mexican name for no apparent reason. There's also many misogynist images, such as the woman in the pink dress sweeping the porch.

It's also quite lame. The ButterCream Gang (the good gang) mowe people's lawns for no money, save "the Widow Jenkins" (not Mrs. Jenkins, Widow Jenkins; they have to remind her that her husband is dead every time they say her name) when she falls down, and, of course, attend regular church services. About one quater of the movie is father-son pep talks about how to deal with the bad gang, one of which mentions Gandhi, and I know if Gandhi lived to see his name mentioned in this chauvanist film, he would cry with shame. The bad gang do not do anything horrendous, merely break bottles a nd spraypaint sad faces on the sides of buildings. I'm sure racists love this movie.


Wow, I think this movie had to have been made by the JesusFreak Coalition and the Moronic Majority. this movie does nothing but teach a bunch of stereotypes and false truths to our children.

All kids in the city are in gangs?

Nothing bad happens to good people?

Stuff like that. If you find this movie, cover the dub lock and tape something worthwhile over it.

-the gizzle


This film, in spite of having a very decent cast, goes nowhere in trying to tie in handguns to the intertwined lives of several different people. I found the film weird, but not in an intellectually good way; it's as if the writer/director just wanted to creep us out a little bit, but instead of succeeding at this, just made one boring dud. The script is poor; characters pause too long to deliver lines (probably scripted and not the actor's fault), or say rather pointless, uninteresting things. Nowhere in the movie does it delve into why Americans want handguns. Only a few handguns appear in the movie, and they seem more of a prop in order to give the pointless "climax" more punch, I guess. I thought I was going to watch a film where the power of owning a handgun would transform people's personalities, and have them do crazy things, but the film wasn't that deep. The characters were already rather despicable and unrealistic, so you just don't even care about them. Josh Brolin's character is especially awkward and unrealistic. The only highlight of the movie was Gary Sinise's very strange Bill Gates type geek/mogul character, which was oddly amusing. Handguns were just a prop, and the device of intertwining a bunch of disparate lives together (a la Short Cuts or Crash-much better films) is just annoying here.