This is one of those crappy soap opera/T.V. movies from a television director, Brad Silberling, who hasn't quite figured out what a feature film is -- or should be. It's distinguished by trivial, cliched, daytime serial dialogue, a nauseatingly trite, maudlin story, unlikable, unattractive lead characters, an inconclusive, unsatisfying ending and a score lifted directly from "American Beauty."

It also features constantly ringing rotary phones that no one decides to answer for at least four to five rings (is this to tell us the story is set in another decade, and if so, why?) But worst of all, the film suffers from "name-calling syndrome," that is, characters who know each other constantly and annoyingly use each other's names in normal conversation --just to make sure we don't ever confuse any of this with reality. Here's an example:

Ben: "So, what do you think, Joe?" Joe: "I'm not really sure, Ben."

That type of crap. Straight out of a soap opera, or a stage play. Just for a little variety, sometimes the names come at the beginning of a line, like this:

JoJo: "Oh, Ben, stop acting like that!" Ben: "Jo, what are you talking about?"

Maybe the idea is to keep reminding the audience who's who, to make sure we never forget their names (God knows we wouldn't be able to follow the story without that crucial information). But all this technique really does, of course, is keep telling the audience, over and over again, "it's only a movie, it isn't real."

Because in real life, people who know each other almost never use each other's names -- not unless they're calling out to get each other's attention, or want to kill each other, or both.

This film doesn't rival the top offenders in this category, thank God -- the worst being "American Buffalo" (which made me run screaming from the theater after about fifteen minutes) and "Wonder Boys," both of which achieved a false, theatrical quality strictly because of this annoying tendency. "American Buffalo" is based on a play, so one can see how it suffered from not being properly adapted, but "Wonder Boys," taken from a novel, has absolutely no excuse.

Neither does this p*** poor film. Sorry, Brad. Maybe it's time to go back to T.V.


There might be some spoilers herein... so beware.

Well, I am watching the end of this movie on DVD. I am thrilled that I did not pay to see this film. The DVD was free, thank God. As I sit here and count the minutes until the end of this wretched film, I had to comment on how disappointing this film was. Indeed, an all-star cast does little to give hope to this less than mediocre story.

First of all, I have to say it, I really do not like Dustin Hoffman. I don't know what it is, but I just do not find him entertaining. I just do not enjoy his performance. He seems to lack articulation or something that just flat out turns me off.

Anyways, Susan Sarandon is a waste in this film. Normally, I thoroughly enjoy most of her movies, but this is just boring. Her character is too odd and unaffected to draw any sympathy and without that, I could care less about her.

Holly Hunter is horribly miscast in this film. The movie is set in the 1970s, right? What decade is she supposed to be in? The hard-ass D.A. portrayal falls flat.

Jake Gyllenhaal's character is pathetic. I don't care if they broke it off before the fiancée died, you would be more upset about the senseless murder of your "great friend," as he labeled her. Also, could he not wait a short while before he decided to get together with the strange postal worker girl? He is living with his dead fiancée's parents, sneaking out at night like a teenager. I don't know if the filmmakers tried to portray some kind of struggle in that he found someone he did want to be with, but they failed miserably. The wide-eyed puppy look doesn't come even remotely close to a decent performance. I honestly can say that I found him more interesting in the Day After Tomorrow than in this film.

The parents hate each other, joined together only to get through this, even though they fight terribly. There is no cohesion in this film, no purpose.

And the scene in the courtroom when he 'confesses' because Diana would want him to be honest. COME ON!!!!!! Worthless. I'm sorry but the whole secret of them breaking it off was not that dramatic, or at least it was not conveyed well enough to make the movie worth watching.

The music is better than average, but not enough to save the picture.

In short, this was a waste of my time. I am glad that I watched it at 2am on Saturday night while I did other things. It did not command my attention. It did not capture my interest.

If you are bored one night, I guess you could leave it on while you do something else. Otherwise, don't waste your time.

1 out of 4 stars


Although it's been a long time since i actually saw this movie, i have not forgotten the "plot." The movie had a bad storyline to begin with, and the only thing that could've helped it is if they destroyed all evidence that it was made in the first place. I appreciated the whole "guy broods over his lover's murder/death/disappearance" sort of thing (think Josh Hartnett in "Wicker Park") up until i saw this movie. What was with the trial? the death penalty thing? i don't even think that anything really happened in this movie. My vision of Jake Gyllenhall has been completely skewed because of this movie. Now it just seems like all his characters are the same: dark, brooding, mysterious. (and what was with him still living with his girl's parents? can someone say loser?) Whatever. Going to movies will never be the same.


Really really bad movie .... I'll restrict my comments to two areas...... the movie begins with the death of a 20 year old girl, fiance of Joe (Jake G), and the daughter of Ben (Justin Hoffman) and Jo Jo (Susan Sarandon) (line from the movie.... Jo Jo says to Joe "Isn't it the t*ts that we have the same name."), and ..... and they act as if they've just returned from the supermarket .... and this persists for as long as I was able to take the movie .... "ok, our daughter is gone, so, uh, what's on TV tonite?".......The other thing in Jake G ..... this guy has one expression, and it's like "Where are my shoes?" .... regardless of the situation he looks lost and confused... either he really is an idiot or he simply cannot act, take your pick. I had to bail after about 30 minutes, this thing is a terrible assault on ones sensibilities.


One of the really bad films of the year. It would be tempting to blame it on writer/director Brad Silberling, but no one in this film acquits him or herself admirably. Susan Sarandon struggles to bring her usual fiery passion to a

dully-written part, Dustin Hoffman looks great but is otherwise a bore, and

Jake Gyllenhaal comes across as an annoying Tobey Maguire clone, but

even more annoying than Tobey.

The nadir? Possibly this line from Sarandon: "You've given us all a big

truth enema." Yeah, there's eloquence for you! Gyllenhaal whines his way

through an unbelievably bad courtroom scene that provokes a desire to

smack him one, and Holly Hunter looks embarrassed as a district attorney.

A low mark for all concerned.


While this review is generally negative, I want to make a positive point first. Another poster here noted that 'Moonlight Mile' is so much better than, for example, the trite cartoons of Quentin Tarantino. I agree. This film attempts to deal honestly with the human condition.

But the film doesn't work. To see why, I suggest comparing it with 'In the Bedroom' or 'Summer of 42' or 'Passion Fish' which all deal more or less with similar subject matter. 'Moonlight Mile' attempts to be a Robert Mulligan movie but without Robert Mulligan. In a similar vein, the story is set in Massachusetts but in actual fact, the characters are from Hollywood.

I don't regret having rented it. The mostly B-side, late 1960s, early 1970s music is omnipresent, and I was always waiting for the next tune to come along. The movie is slow, usually serious but sometimes funny. It held my interest, but there were too many false notes.


This movie has a good concept, but it is ruined by Sarandon's horrible performance. She is forever latched into playing herself, a foul mouthed, small minded individual to whom the world must constantly adapt and cater to. Just like her other meager performances, and something to avoid, unless you like discarding two hours of your life frivolously.


I went to this movie hoping to see some good acting by the like of Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon and Holly Hunter. What I got was a waste of $7.25 and a waste of my time. This moving had nothing going for it. I had no feelings for any character except, possibly, Bertie. Hoffman's Ben was too blind to what was going on, Sarandan's JoJo was too angry at everyone and Gyllenhaal's Joe was too much of a coward. This was an extremely disappointing movie.


This movie is so bad that you feel embarrassed for the actors as they fidget uncomfortably through film-school-quality schmaltzy writing.

The shallow, poor performances turned in by Susan Sarandon and Dustin Hoffman only prove that great acting is not a gift, it's a craft, and it takes work and a competent director to put a scene together. This movie is so carelessly acted that all you can think as you watch is, "I hope they got a good paycheck", because there's certainly no commitment to the material shown by any of the performers.

The filmmakers might have gotten away with this unctuous family underreacting (by miles) to their daughter's tragic death if they'd left it at that, but they simultaneously try to squeeze every drop of sentimentality from the situation that can be managed. The result is actually offensive. It's a movie that presumes that its characters are likable because they know how to use chopsticks and don't want God mentioned at the funeral. They're cosmopolitan, and that trumps, it seems, even death.


Ben (Hoffman) and Jojo (Sarandon) have lost their daughter in a random act of violence. They have living with them at their house, their daughter's fiance Joe, (Gyllenhaal). The movie shows how the family is dealing with the griefing, and with each other, as they are waiting for the trial for the man who shot the daughter. The movie appeared to be set in the early 70's but, the time period didn't really have a great significance to the story. The story is rather depressing and dark, and the events of the movie didn't strike me as a very realistic. I think I should have skipped this one.

** spoilers follow **

I found it difficult to imagine that after the death of his fiance, Joe, would continue to live with his fiance's parents. There didn't seem to be any real reason for it. In fact when another character in the movie asks him why he does live there, he doesn't answer. I was curious myself. Joe meets another girl in town, Bertie (Pompeo, who looks like Rene Zellweger's younger sister) and at first she is funny, and charming, but as soon as they start to fall in love with each other she becomes dark and depressed. There is a ridiculous scene where the two love birds meet secretly and both looked depressed. For most of the movie they were depressed when they were together, dispite apprently liking one another. In this town Joe seems to be the only available man, and has the attention of many other young attractive women. When Bertie asks him "why me?" There isn't an answer. I was curious myself what the attraction was between the two. The mother Jojo, is critical of everyone, doesn't like people that express their sympathy over her loss, and doesn't like people that don't. The father Ben, seemed anxious to include Joe in his business, despite the fact Joe was obviously not interested. He even gives Joe an important job of trying to see if the bar where Bertie works would be interested in selling. However, Joe betrays the trust of the man he is working with, living with, and was engaged to the daughter of, and instead just goes over to the bar to visit Bertie. Not very realistic. But even more unrealistic, Ben doesn't seem terribly upset when he finds out. Finally we get to the trial, where Ben goes on the stand to get sympathy for the victim, his former fiance. But, of course he blows the entire scenereo having a little break down of sorts on the stand and creating more sympathy for the killer than the victim. Not very realistic. But, what a shock, the parents of the murdered girl seem to like Joe much better after he weakend the case, it was almost like, they really appreciated seeing the case weakend, not very realistic.


Now, I make it a point to see bad movies, and stick with them right to the end. I've only turned off one film EVER - "Miracles" with Jackie Chan. But now I have to add this to that list.

This movie was horrendous. Absolutely terrible. The dialogue was unbearable, the accents unconvincing, special effects were laughable and the plot was almost non-existent. It also had a look like it was filmed exclusively using security cameras, which gave them an extra bit of annoyance as one moment you can't really see what's going on because you're too far, and then the next not seeing it because the camera is shaking like mad.

The movie follows a scientist who, while trying to cure HIV, actually is making a virus that creates vampires. The amazing thing about these new vampires apparently is their skill at making kevlar clothing and the fact that they have absolutely no physical weaknesses - invincible to everything (sunlight, bullets, knives, garlic, etc.) - except being complete idiots who like to wear leather outfits and get beaten up as an excuse to move the "plot" forward. The main character tries to get back at the people who made him what he is, and I really don't care if he actually succeeded. I assume he does, but I wish he didn't because then there wouldn't be even the possibility of this movie getting a sequel.

Watching this film, I got the feeling that the filmmakers are goths who wanted to make a movie to show how much they liked vampires and how cool they looked in black clothing and shades in daylight. And sadly, it definitely does not have a so-bad-it's-good quality like so many Troma films because the filmmakers take this seriously, which gives it a completely unwatchable film.


Yes, it's the hate-child of Matrix and Blade. Yes, the acting, plot, dialog, directing, action sequences, etc., etc. are ALL bad. It's all true.

Like another reviewer mentioned, I simply refuse to stop watching a video I've rented. I have NEVER quit, no matter how bad the film is. Before this, the crappy 'Legion of the Dead' (a 'From Dusk Till Dawn' wannabe) was at the top of my worst movie list. Now it shares that spot with 'Reign in Darkness'.

The only thing good about this movie is the very occasional good squib hit or interesting gunshot.

A few other points not yet brought up... I knew immediately upon seeing this that it was produced on video. The young filmmakers simply do not know how to create depth of field on video. It shows, giving the entire 'film' a very cheap look. Watch 'Starship Troopers 2' or '28 Days Later' for good looking digital photography. It can be done, just not by Rapidfire Productions.

Graffiti. It's all over the place, and it sucks. It's not interesting New York graffiti. I went to art college briefly with a NY graffiti artist. His stuff was really cool. The crap scrawled in the backgrounds of the scenes in this movie is BAD. But, considering everything else, what's to be expected from this film.

Swords. Oh dear GOD! SOMEONE teach these folks how to do convincing on-screen sword fights. I've seen much better stuff on Atomfilm by 13-year-olds. One of the guys is using a fantasy sword, like you get out of cheesy catalogs.

Yes, I sat through the whole movie. No, it doesn't get any better. I had to stop it 2/3 of the way through to control my anger. These young movie makers don't know how to build character in the movie. They don't know how to move plot forward. I have told others in the past that I sometimes wish I could remove the memory of watching a bad movie, and simply replace it with a little note saying 'This movie stunk, memory reclaimed'. This is not the fun bad that 'Evil Dead' is. This is not the entertaining bad of 'Toxic Avenger'. This is just irredeemably bad. That anyone gave this a positive review shows that someone somewhere will like a film you make, no matter how horrible.


How this junk ever got onto rental shelves I will probably never know. Reign In Darkness is not just horrid, it's REALLY BAD! We are talking bad direction, bad lighting, poor acting, et cetera. I cannot think of one positive trait for this flick. I am going to give my 7-year old Nephew a camcorder and see if he can make a better effort. It could not be any worse.


OK, first things first, let me get a little rant out of the way: IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EX-SPECIAL FORCES BOUNTY HUNTER IN YOUR MOVIE MAKE SURE HE OR SHE CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK IN THE DIALECT YOU WANT THEM TO! The Aussie trying to talk like an Alabama native was, quite possibly, the dumbest idea in cinema history. Except for casting Judge Reinhold as a Black Ops officer in "Project: Human Weapon".

The cinematography wasn't all that bad (except the part where I could actually see the rig they used to lift people off the ground) and it showed what the future of Independent Film will look like (sharp, clear, and almost as good as the studios) but the people behind the camera must've blown their camera budget on that awful looking Kevlar vest thing because instead of buying a red lens filter to simulate night time they just turned the contrast on the camera WAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY down. Awful. So, yeah, it looked OK despite having a couple of glaring mistakes but that simply wasn't enough to save a horribly written, shoddily directed, badly acted piece of Australian crap.


The only halfway decent thing about this movie is the cover art. It's easy to see why the principals have no other movie credits - they're just that bad. The only glimmer of on screen talent is from David No, with a real director and a real script he might hope to turn in a creditable performance.

Kel Dolen's lisping narration is a boring attempt to provide some sort of continuity and story line that would otherwise be totally absent from this lame excuse for a movie.

There is one shocker connected to this movie; according to the 'Official' website, they are making a sequel!


I know that cosmic forces conspire against me and this movie is further proof of that fact. You see, were it not so, then this blight of a film, this cancer, this celluloid diarrhea that crept into my eyes and ears and then sat and festered upon my brain, forever burned into my memory, would never have happened.

Now, surely you must think "Fortey, what could be so bad? Why was the movie horrible? Didn't the end clinch it at least?"

Well, allow me to give you a guided tour of the special sphere of Hades that was this film.

To begin, this movie was filmed with a Sony Handycam. Possibly something older than a handycam made by Hitachi, from the mid 80's, I can't be sure. Some viewers appreciated the gritty look it provided. I was distracted by the "Uncle Carl's home movies" look it provided.

Describing the actors as wooden would insult furniture everywhere. Describing the dialogue as horrendous would be accurate and perhaps a little soft. But hey, I'm a tolerant guy. I like Ed Wood movies sometimes, it's hard to make my brain hurt with poor dialogue. But not impossible.

The producers of this film apparently saw the Matrix and a handful of vampire films (though I believe this shlock actually predates Underworld) and thought to themselves "Hey guys...let's take these ideas and then throw them in a blender with feces, slap it in front of a camera and see what happens." And so they did.

The ending though...ahh, the ending. What can I say about that except... I never saw it. I thought a sandwich would be more fulfilling than watching the rest of this film so I turned it off never to watch it again. And I forgot to make my sandwich. C'est la vie.

For those who liked this movie, I recommend Beaches featuring a young Mayim Bialik as well as tasty lead paint chips. It's the treat that can't be beat.


I LOVE to watch people make a good faith effort to make a film that other people will want to watch. I truly enjoy seeing the efforts of independent movie makers, people like Jon Keeyes or "The B Movie Master himself", Ed Wood, working hard to provide something that is entertaining, or informative, or challenging, or maybe even a combination of those. The only thing challenging about this movie was forcing myself to watch it all.

This movie seemed to me to be nothing more than an ego-trip by a couple of guys with access to a camcorder and wanted nothing more than to be able to call themselves "movie stars", or "directors", or "producers". I don't know who backed this thing (note that I didn't even call it an "effort" because that would imply some sort of love for the project and not just your own image on a screen), but my suspicion is that the writers/producers/directors/stars either had more money than talent or are salesmen (in person certainly, because I didn't buy anything that was happening on the screen) on the scale of the infamous Ponzy.

*********Here there be Spoilers***********

OK, I don't want to beat the same dead horse that the other reviews have thoroughly killed, but I have to ask some questions: 1) Why should we care about a dead wife we never see? 2) Why is the first time that we even know this guy has a home life is when we are in his wrecked home where he wants to get his sword? 3) Why does he want the sword? 4) Why does his "lair" appear to be a desk in the back room of a storage building? 5) When did he get a lair? 6) Why did he need a lair in the first place? 7) Is he a true vampire like the Dracula character was in the book and free to walk about in the daylight? If so, that would have been nice to establish at some point. 8) Who or what is "The Council" and why should we care about them? 9) Why did I waste $5.50 at the store buying this movie? [Ok, I guess that one is on me.] 10) Didn't anyone hold auditions to try to find someone who had at least met a former American Marine? 11) or at least someone from the Southern US? 12) Why would someone who was supposed to be an obviously stereotypical redneck ride ANYTHING other than a Harley Davidson? 13) Why is everyone such an incredibly poor shot except the lab geek? 14) Did the lab geek take Kendo and firearms lessons after organic chemistry and before theoretical mathematics? 15) Why was this movie made? 16) What value does it have other than as autoerotic stimulation for its primaries?

I have watched this movie over and over again (usually in small blocks until my eyes and ears feel as if they are about to bleed) trying to find its redeeming message or worth. I have finally come to the conclusion that there just isn't any.


First i need to say that i took this movie out without watching it all.....but i would bet good money it didn't get any better! There are so many things wrong with this movie that i felt like taking notes just to keep track of them. I mean, what is going on here!? Why is he walking around in daylight? Did i miss something? Why are they injecting homeless people? Why is everybody talking like that and what is the deal with the guy with the southern accent? Maybe they wrap it all up at the end....like i said i took it out so who knows. Don't waste your money renting this. The acting would be laughable if it weren't actually painful to watch. I read somewhere that this movie had a million dollar budget, the largest percentage of which seemed to me to have been spent renting the bmws in the chase scene. They're convertibles, and our "hero" is driving one with the top down in broad daylight. That's where i turned it off!!


I picked this film up because I thought the cover looked ok and the write-up on the back sounded okish. Luckily it was a free rental with a top twenty rental. Otherwise I would have been very disappointed at having to shell out a few quid on this turkey!

As already said by others, it's hard to know where to begin criticising a film that fails so badly. The acting is poor, the dialogue is poor, the storyline is disjointed and poor. The main fault is that you have no concept of time throughout this movie. Did it take place over days? Weeks? Or an afternoon? Who knows, because there are no clues and nobody else on the streets apart from the actors and frankly, who cares?

Read the rest of this review if you want, but take my advice, don't rent or watch this film. If a friend has rented it and invites you over to see it, make an excuse up so you don't have to waste 90 minutes on this! You'll regret those lost 90 minutes later on in life!

They try and spice it up with a car chase, some explosions, some sword fighting, some martial arts, and lots of gunfire, black leather/Kevlar outfits and vampires. Unfortunately it fails miserably and my girlfriend stopped watching it after about 5 minutes. Stupidly I have this strange personality trait where I will watch something I have paid for until the bitter end!

(Possibly Spoilers, although you probably won't get this far in the film if you have any sense)

- The acting. Apart from the lead actor, who could possibly pass as an actor with a few more lessons (Although it's not hard to play a monosyllabic goth wandering around dressed in black Kevlar and leather.) the acting in this movie is by far the worst I have seen. They should have decided on accents at the start and stuck with them. Why try to do fake American accents and fail so badly! I had no idea which planet some of these people were from when they opened their mouth. One guy, an illegal arms dealer, does about 3 different accents in one sentence. I think he starts off as a cockney, then lapses into an American accent and finishes off as an aussie! The ex-marine changes his accent every scene. At first he starts off as an aussie and ends up as a Texan who occasionally lapses into aussie! The two oriental guys who 'try' to mop up the problem at the start are hilarious in their lack of acting prowess. Possibly a reason to watch the film! Well, for 5 minutes anyway! :)

- The car chase is perhaps the lamest you will ever see. Two BMW Z3's on an otherwise empty road. Racing at about 10mph and set to a soundtrack, which would have been at home on a low budget porn movie. It ends with one of them driving into a wall. No real injuries except those sustained from hitting his head of the wheel. Where was the airbag? Maybe they should sue BMW, or maybe BMW should sue them for inferring their cars are unsafe in sub 10mph head-on collisions!

- Explosions. Two sets of explosions where he blows up 2 large buildings. The first one you see absolutely nothing, not even a reflected flash in the car window that he is stood right next to! The second explosion you do see something, but it's off-centre and it lasts all of a second. Probably spent all the money on the script...yeah right!!

- Sword-fighting...why was this even in the movie? I guess one of the 13 year olds who wrote it thought it would be "way cool" or something. Probably thought they could rival Blade if they put sword fighting in too!

- Martial Arts.. A couple of pointless sequences where the guy playing the meathead ex-marine flips a few knives around and later one where he and the other pointless character, Gage, show off to each other!! Maybe they should have saved the money spent on these scenes and bought some fireworks for the explosions.

- Timing!!! The meathead ex-marine is shot in the knee. Next minute he is riding a motorbike and walking!! We are given no idea of the timescale here. The main character mourns his wife, but we never saw her alive or get a clue when whe died. One minute the main character is sat at a table with his rucksack on it. Then he explains he has decided to make a Kevlar breastplate to protect his heart and the next minute it's in his hands! The storyline jumps from scene to scene and the viewer has no idea how much time has elapsed in between. It's as if they decided on the scenes they wanted to film and tried to fudge a movie around it!!

- The main character walks around in a long black Kevlar coat and wears those ridiculously massive boots you see goths wearing with all the little mirrored metal bits on the side of the 4-inch sole. Why? I've seen people trying to walk in them and if I were a semi-vampire trying to stealth around a city I certainly wouldn't pick some cast off boots from Kiss or Marilyn Manson! This film was definitely written by a couple of teenagers who should spend more time outside in daylight hours!

- Gratuitous sex scene...strangely enough there isn't one in this film, which is odd as they certainly seemed to throw every other clichéd scene into it to try and make a 90 minute blockbuster! Come to think of it though...there are no women in the entire film. Well, no women who actually get on screen for more than 10 seconds and actually speak recognisable dialogue. Possibly none of them had girlfriends to put in it, or maybe their girlfriends could act and refused. We'll never know.

If you heed my warning you will steer clear of this garbage!


I don't know if it was the hand-held video feel to the movie or it's pointless droning on, but this was horrible.

******************SPOILERS*********************(If you care.)**********

Watch out people because as we speak, the K-17 virus may actually exist...

this is the knowledge they start you off with so you'll feel like the plot could be possible... riiiight. What's with the Aussies and the synthesizers? This film was made in 2002 and yet it contains an almost porno soundtrack. I think they actually spent the whole budget on the title sequence, where everybody's credit came before the title. Too many thoughts to organize them properly, but here goes: humans have developed an immunity to vampire bites so they can't reproduce, in fact just breathing our air may kill them, which is why the few remaining vampires have a 4-stage air filtration system in their lair. Scary. These vampires also don't want their food source (humans, apparently they never thought of raising pigs, or cows) dying off from aids. So they get Michael Dorn, don't forget the name because they say it like 5000 times during the movie, to create a vaccine to cure HIV, but it also turns the subject into a vampire?? It makes just as much sense as an airline pilot being afraid of heights. Throw in an unresolved sub-plot featuring a renegade vampire killing humans, a guy trying to be a crazy Texan, an unresolved issue with Michael Dorn's sword(?), his dead wife, his amazing tactile skills, (apparently he can come up with an idea and then just make it)some badly casted parts, a 5 minute speech to cure insomnia and you've got yourself a blockbuster... in Melbourne, Australia.


This is the first time I've ever turned of the movie before the ending. I already started getting worried when I saw the first images.. the movie was recorder with a simple dvcam (or even worse).. The acting is real bad, the camera-work is also very boring and the 'action' is mostly plain stupid...

It's OK for an amateur-movie for the friends of the actors/crew, but it's an awful production for someone who has to pay for it. I expected at least a C-movie.

I'm sorry but I can't be positive about it, and I can't forgive the dutch publisher who put this trash on DVD (I'm glad it was part of a 4-movie DVD which only cost 3 euro's)..


god where to begin, i can't think of a single positive thing to say about this movie. I watched it while sick, and it just lay there, so i thought, "why not?" I thought wrong I somehow kept expecting someone to straighten up, and shout "JUST KIDDING!" or Darth Vader leaping in and start killing things with his light-saber, god that would own, but no. It was nearly halfway this crap-fest that i realized that not only are they COMPLETELY serious, they actually manage to say all this stuff with a straight face, no matter how retarded the dialog gets.

I tried, i seriously did, but i can't recount any part of the plot without curdling into a corner while crying, as my brain tries to exit my skull by digging it's way desperately through the back of my head, writing the script down on paper would summon chtulu, dropping the script in holy water would cause the water to boil, it is seriously THAT bad.

*possible spoilers start here*

So yes, the dialog sucks, marines are apparently trained to wield two nunchucks at the same time, the scientist had both a gun and a sword, and apparently the skill to use both. The redneck marine kept changing the way he limped every three steps. The vampires at the end where not only completely lame, but also ancient beings still dress in long flowing capes. And the armor the main character made, seriously, what the hell, at what point in bio-engineering does a scientist learn how to create kevlar armor?

*spoilers end here*

so yes, everything said and done, this crime against humanity and intelligence should NEVER be watched, you will never regain the time you spent watching it, and at the end i see that the only possible purpose of this movie, to absorb and destroy small slices of life.


I collect vampire movies....All of them. The good, the bad, the ugly of them. Everything from Underworld to the original Dracula featuring the one and only Bela...So when I found this in a bin for only $5.50, I thought SWEET!!! A new vampire movie for about the same price as a rental.

Now.....all I can say is that I want my $5.50 back with INTEREST. I would have given the movie a ZERO instead of a one, but there wasn't that option. Don't waste your time or your money...Even if you have the flu and can't get out of the house and it is the only thing you can find on some obscure cable program....Don't do it. You'll CRY when you watch it because you can actually feel your brain cells dying and shriveling up.


I just saw this "movie" today. I'm still recovering. My stomach actually hurt laughing. This is THE best comedy EVER!!! Vampires in sunlight?! BRILLIANT!!! But seriously folks, this movie was so incredibly bad it has to be put away in shelters and be ignored forever. Unless you like laughing at lame "horror"-films... in that case this is THE film...

Where to start? Well... the actors all sucked. David No tries to save the stuff, and utterly fails. Mainly because he has dumb dialog and he has "Lance" to act against. And everybody is cool compared to Lance. Lance was one of the reasons this film is so funny. His accent is bloody horrible and his "acting" is even worse. If you get Old Yeller's acting... and compare it to Lance... Old Yeller gets the Academy Award... Mr. Michael Dorn was a terrible character, given some unnecessary "feelings" including a dead wife. Michael is supposed te be sympathetic... but you just don't give a rat's bum if he dies or not... Why he HAS to wear long black clothing when he becomes a vampire will always be a riddle to me, like the JFK-assassination.

But hey the acting was that bad, we can go on forever.

The cinematography... I mean... the security cameras and the "oh hello five-year-old, can you film this?"-camera-style all add up in a gigantic pile of dung which can best be described idiotic as well as annoying.

Oh but if you want to have the laugh of your LIFE, you have to see the end.

>>>>>>>SPOILER ALERT!!!<<<<<<<< (like you care)

There's an actual 6 minute(!) long monologue about how the old vampires cannot breath the toxic air that exists today(?), and how they are bloody angry about not being able to drink the blood of people with HIV, cause it will make them sick. This is why Mr. Dorn has to develop the HIV-antidote and is (obviously) the one meant to do this!! wowzers! that's a LOT of crap to deal with... uh not... and it has Mr. Dorn standing around, being angry, and doing nothing whatsoever, besides standing and looking "cool" and stuff, without a thing to say, off course. Because this will destroy the plot!! Oh, nope, they already did that...

anyhow... see this film... you'll still have a laugh or 20.


This is by far the worst movie i ever seen. I would have given it a score of 2 if it was a parody because it actually made me laugh at some points.

How can a movie of such low quality be released in the year of 2003?

Avoid at all costs!


One of the most appallingly bad vampire movies ever. Without any ability to act or communicate a story visually, the writers/directors/actors resort to an almost constant narrative voice-over. It's really bad. Run away. Very, very fast.


If you've seen the entire movie then you have a better constitution than everybody gives you credit for. The acting was, simply put, the worst I've ever seen and even the synchro was bad, well, for the ten minutes I really saw of it. Now, I could bore you with countless comment on how this movie blows but let's just simply ignore this one and move on with our life, it's better this way. And who the hell names a character Michael Dorn???


Anyone who tries to make a movie for little or no money deserves a little credit, but at the end of the day, I still expect to see an enjoyable film. This film does not meet that criteria. The acting is poor, to say the least. The story lacks any interest at all. At first I found some of the weak points to be frustrating, but then the whole thing quickly became laughable. Somehow I sat through it, and I have no idea how I did it.

I've always been a fan of the idea of vampires movies, but at this point I'm starting to hate them. This could be the nail in the coffin. I give the film two stars, though I'm not sure it deserves it.


Bad acting. Bad storyline. Bad special effects. This movie was a disaster. I love vampire and zombie just as much as the next guy, but this movie sucks. The thing that i hated most was the stupid voice over. Some guy trying to push the boundary on how low his voice can go while recording it on a phone. I also hated that the acting was about as convincing as the acting done in my ninth grade drama class. This low budget film is the lamest attempt of a vampire movie I've ever seen. if u wanna watch a vampire movie watch blade. The guys that made this shouldn't quit their day job. I think rapid fire production (the people that made this) should really think if this is their true calling.


This movie. . . is one of the movies I will never sell. To watch this entire movie is a feat indeed. The acting is horrible, the camera shots are just as bad. . . but I always have a good time watching it, because it is just so fun to notice everything that is wrong in this film. As a marine I do get a little sick when I hear the big red neck guy use his chucks and scream out "thats the Marine corps boy!" The best way to describe this movie, is a student film with a rich father budget. You get a real good kick when the "villains" chase down there targets in . . .PT Cruisers, than after they throw there prey to the ground, they simultaneously, and inexplicably turn there backs and look at a wall for no reason. Watch this movie with friends and have a good time. If you have a sense of humor, you'll have a good time.


If only low-budget film makers would think before making their movie. A well-shot film, likely on digital, that purported to be in a league with BLADE. It is not.

****SPOILER****

An AIDS researcher is infected with his own work, becoming a creature of the night. Finding himself hungering for blood, he seeks revenge on a shadowy group that is ultimately responsible. On the way, he has to deal with a powerful vampire and a human mercenary.

The action sequences, if that is indeed what they can be called, are plodding, poorly thought out and mostly non-existent. It is a very poor script with terrible dialogue and lamentable acting. While some of the camera work was good, it could not make up for the many other technical short-comings. The one thing it had going for it was that it finally came to an end.


In his review of this film in "Stracult", Italian film critic Marco Giusti claimed that Franco Nero's performance was undoubtedly the worst he ever gave. Ridiculously decked out as he is in a long blonde mane and hippy garb, he can't be too far wrong I guess...

Anyway, Nero plays a bitter loner who, having lost his wife and kid in a traffic accident, voluntarily enlists for dangerous missions for an unspecified organization but then, unceremoniously, quits his job and relocates to a Carribbean island whose seas harbor the carcass of a sunken plane with a fortune locked away in its safe. The problem is that the site is infested with sharks but, of course, Nero has a penchant for killing sharks with his bare hands a' la Johnny Weissmuller. Those sequences depicting Nero's particular skills reach an unheralded level of silliness when he sky dives into the water onto a moving shark and slits its torso open without batting an eyelid! And what about his dragging a shark onto his motor boat after having previously pursued it on foot?!

I don't really know why I should go on writing in detail about such trash (especially since most of you probably won't ever have the chance to see this for yourselves) but, then again, why not? Anyway, there's a love scene early on between our Franco and a native girl, a couple of fistfights with the local bully (featuring a running gag of Nero sticking a piece of chewing gum onto his opponent's forehead), an alliance with a buffoonish salvage expert, a member of the organization is hot on his heels, as is the ubiquitous Edoardo Fajardo who is obviously interested in claiming the fortune for himself and, in the climax, an all-out shark attack replete with fake floating limbs.

Director Casterallari (who frequently appears in his own films a' la Hitchcock...yeah, right!) has a fairly large part here as a killer pursuing the man from the Organization! He was still fixated on sharks a couple of years later when he made THE LAST SHARK (1981), a film which was partly shot in Malta and featured such second-tier American actors as James Franciscus and Vic Morrow. For his pains, Castellari was even taken to court by Steven Spielberg and Universal Studios for plagiarising JAWS (1975)...although, if one is to believe Castellari's own statements at the 61st Venice Film Festival, Spielberg and Co. were merely envious that THE LAST SHARK had been more profitable (in the expenditure/profit ratio) than JAWS itself...!!


I had the dubious honor of being a part of my high school's production of HELLO DOLLY a zillion years ago, so there was a time when I was intimately familiar with both the play and the film. It's been a long time and truthfully, I had my reservations about the show even then. Watching the film again this past Saturday on Reel 13, I was reminded how lame the show really is and the film version, as directed by Gene Kelly, is even worse.

I suspect the popularity of Jerry Herman's original production during the 60's had more to do with the Carol Channing persona than the story. If that's true, then the film was handicapped before it even began by bypassing Channing in favor of a very young Barbra Streisand, playing a character fifteen or twenty years older than she actually was. This is not to say that Streisand is bad in the role. Her strongest assets  her voice and her comic timing  are on prime display here and she imbues the character with an engaging energy and vitality. She puts forth extraordinary effort, but one has a hard time believing that a) she is a widowed matchmaker and has been out of the public scene for a decade and b) she would be a good match for Walter Matthau's Horace Vandergelder character. This is the primary plot of the film and the film suffers because it never once seems plausible. Gosh  Streisand seems even younger than the ingénue Irene Malloy character (Marianne McAndrew).

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast, who were at least age-appropriate, were horribly off-the-mark in their performances. On the whole, I blame Kelly, who seems to have directed all of them (except maybe Streisand and Matthau) to be ridiculously over-the-top. This includes a baby-faced Michael Crawford as Cornelius Hackl and a I-don't-believe-he's-straight-for-a-second Tommy Tune, both of which went on to have wonderful stage careers. On film, they come off as silly and cartoonish. What's interesting to me is that as an actor, Kelly was always so smooth, sincere and understated. I'm bewildered as to why he wasn't able to bring that style to the table when he's behind the camera. It could have done wonders for the plot. It's hard enough to believe that all these people fall in love (there are four couples in the film) within a twenty-four hour period. The wide-eyed, loud and juvenile performance styles make it impossible, but I wonder what it would have been like if the characters had the opportunity to establish real connections with each other  make us care and root for them to get together. It could have made for an entirely different experience.

(For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


Gene Kelly directed the 1969 film version of HELLO DOLLY!, the musical version of the Thornton Wilder play "The Matchmaker" featuring music by Jerry Herman (MAME; LA CAGE AUX FOLLES). This big but empty film version is the story of a widowed matchmaker named Dolly Gallgher Levi, who has arranged a potential mate for a wealthy Yonkers businessman but then decides that she wants him for herself. Barbra Streisand is miscast as Dolly Levi. Barbra, who was 26 at the time, taking on a role meant for an actress in her 50's. I don't blame Streisand entirely; some blame must rest with director Kelly, as Streisand's characterization is all over the place...it's part Mae West, part Yente the Matchmake and part Barbra. Walter Matthau's casting as Yonkers businessman Horace Vandegelder looks good on paper, but he and Streisand have absolutely no on screen chemistry at all. It's been well-documented over the years that Streisand and Matthau did not get along at all during the making of this film and this tension does show on screen. There have been minor changes to Herman's score, including one song written especially for Barbra called "Love is only Love" that brings the film to a screeching halt. The film doesn't really come alive until the Waiter's Ballet, imaginatively choreographed by Michael Kidd and Barbra's dynamite rendition of "So Long, Dearie" but these two highlights happen about two hours into the film and it's a long wait getting to them. A classic Broadway musical makes a limp transition to the big screen, thanks primarily to overblown and unfocused direction from MGM icon Gene Kelly.


movie is a waste of film. lots of ugly naked people, thanks, Thats just what I wanna see...

The jokes weren't funny either. How this film got made is a wonder to me. This is the sorry pimple on the butt of the soft porn industry.

A pox on any who think this is worth while viewing material.


If you were to cut an hour of this movie you might have something a little bit entertaining, although even then I don't think you'd have anything memorable. But at its full, seemingly endless length this movie just meanders on endlessly.

The movie aims to be a sort of great myth history, but it never manages to feel like more than a slight tale blown up too big. It is full of extraneous detail that makes sense in terms of creating a mythology but not in terms of making an interesting movie. And the characters are just plain uninteresting, and for the most part difficult to distinguish from one another.

Some of the transformations are entertaining, but even then the movie rarely rises above the ordinary.


I rented this movie in the video store for my six year old daughter. It carried the Disney label and had some cute raccoons on the front. The movie started out with a narrator talking in a dry, boring, documentary style about developers destroying raccoon habitat in the 1960s to expand Tokyo. Then the raccoons form two armies and square off against each other. Suddenly they transform into Ninja, Sumo, and Samarai raccoons - male raccoons drawn anatomically correct and without pants. Violence and mayhem ensued and I hit the stop button as soon as I got over the shock of the visual assault on my six year old.

The Disney label used to mean something. I thought I could count on a Disney movie being suitable for the whole family, but not anymore. I'm sure the violence in this move will appeal to boys between the ages of 10 and 12, but I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone else.


By far one of the most boring horror movies in history. Two parapsychologists move into a haunted house. They cant have sex because the guy keeps getting attacked by a ghost. Dwell on this for 90 minutes. Throw in one of the most predictable plot twists in history and show the key moment in the film on the back of the box. Stir with bad acting and you have Knocking on Death's Door! I can honestly say there is absolutely nothing original in this movie. The fact that this movie is rated 3.9 absolutely astounds me. A boring waste of time. I paid 2 bucks for this movie at a going out of business sale. I can imagine the store's clerk broke into riotous laughter after he unloaded this bomb.


Hasn't this been done a hundred times? You'd think after Margaret Thatcher this wouldn't be such a shocking premise. I found the whole thing silly and irritating.

I dislike prejudice in any form so it offends me to hear statements like, "Women are better at politics because they can admit when they've made a mistake." I don't think work has a gender, I don't think women are better at politics any more than men are better at engineering. I also dislike seeing women treat their husbands like children and their children like adults.

This might make a nice "follow your dream" film for school girls except for the fact that the film teaches that self-esteem is a more useful career preparation than education or experience.


This is one of the least realistic,and most annoying, things I have ever seen. The plot is nonsense, the central character smug, the acting second rate,and the setting totally unrealistic. Most infuriating of all, it projects a Britain that is entirely white and middle class. Not only are all the main actors ,and apparently therefore candidates in Mrs Pritchard's party, white , but even the extras seem to have come from old Tory central (casting) office ! The only non white faces seem to be in the background at the hospital-although not,of course, doctors. If this is what television believes the world if like,and what people would vote for, then you wonder why David Cameron is bothering about image change.


Horrific acting, except from all supporting actors and the baby.

Richard E. Grant is just too hard to watch, not hideously bad, just hard to watch. His kitschy and formulaic approach to the character is somewhat embarrassing (and his haircut is beyond awful--where was the make-up dept anyway!!?? 1995 or not, it was hideous). Samantha Mathis definitely shouldn't be sharing any scenes with the likes of Judi Dench, Eileen Atkins, or Ian McKellan. Mathis is incredibly hard to watch as it is, then when she shares scenes with all of the above it just makes her look BEYOND FOOLISH. It was almost like watching a "scene study" exercise in acting class, where you feel incredibly sorry for the girl in the scene because she just isn't believable and is truly hard to watch. Mathis is beyond lucky to be acting opposite Dench, Atkins and McKellan. Almost as though someone pulled some "favor" to get her into this film. There are so many thousands of other talented American actresses who would have made this character so much more brilliant! What a total disaster, and tragedy of wasted celluloid. The only reason to watch this movie is for the supporting cast. For that matter, it seems that the supporting cast members were the only reason this movie could have been produced in the first place. With a terribly weak script, BAD BAD BAD lead actors, and trite resolution to the story who would sink money into this without the assurance of some real acting talent.

It's truly amazing what a McKellan, Dench, and Atkins can make possible. Leave the real acting to the real actors next time! Please!


John Landis's skill for being able to mix horror and comedy is absolutely unmatched in the genre. 1981's An American Werewolf in London was a great macabre gallows humor, the kind which the Nightmare on Elm Street series frequently reached for and almost always failed at. 1992's Innocent Blood was full of hilarious visual gags and character mash-ups. With this kind of talent behind the camera, and with the formulaic and uninteresting stories most of the Masters of Horror entries had been delivering as the series first debuted on Showtime, Deer Woman was the "episode" I was dying to see the most. Especially since whoever was in charge of editing trailers for each of the entries was making them look like "Must See" events. Deer Woman probably had the best trailer of the series. With amusing caps on all their humorous conceits, but also making the title woman look mysterious and creepy, and looking like it had a lot of dark scenes. This one seemed to have "winner" written all over it. Then, I watched it. And I have to say- talk about disappointment.

Though this entry still keeps the levels of visual style and production quality very high, the writing and characterization are so shallow and bland, it was pitiful. It's not as boring as Landis's Season 2 entry, Family, but it's not nearly as well-written. Everything here is just a set up for an awful joke or one-liner. The characters are not funny or interesting. And many scenes are stretched out, in the hope of cashing in on the new "quirky humor" of any number of current TV shows. Sort of like the lost episode of Dream On. It even has a fantasy scene, like Dream On. And it's truly the only good sequence in the movie. A trucker and some random girl he met go into his truck in three separate scenarios, all ending with some kind of bizarre (and admittedly very funny) deer-related attack. The best of which being the one where of them are actually hurt in any way. She hears a noise from outside, they both look out the window to investigate, and scream in terror... as they see a deer blink its' eyes. The main character (the still stunning and drop-dead gorgeous Brian Benben) comments- "retarded." NO, John! That's funny!

Other routines that attempt to be funny and sink like the Titanic include: Benben questioning a bartender about the mysterious woman and asks him a question where he gets confused by the answer and makes the man say the "F" word (hugely shocking and outrageous in 2005 - I'm being sarcastic). A string of crime scene investigations where a bumbling detective starts a back and forth chain of insults (none of them the slightest bit clever). A drunk trucker who gets mad and shouts loud in a bar. A scene where a heart-broken pet owner whose cherished friend has been killed being verbally bashed and lashed out upon by a woman whose dog she thinks was traumatized by it (as a pet owner myself, animal cruelty and death is never funny- ever! ...expect maybe in 1989's UHF). At least two scenes where the title woman goes topless (why not get a cheap shot in?). And completely inexplicable and head-scratching moment where Benben's character is stopped by a stranger (played by another gorgeously schlubby actor, Andy Thompson) who insists they know each other from somewhere.

Apparently, John Landis has just been away from the horror genre for so long that he's very rusty. And none of the horror projects he's tried so far this decade have done anything to restore his good name. Deer Woman takes an interesting myth and some good mystery story ties and wastes them on lead-ups to crime scenes with one-foot-hopping detectives and morgue discussions about severed penises. Why does the monster do that? Why is the monster stalking and killing the men? Even if the comedy was dumb, I liked the concept. It could have been a much better piece if they had at least given some kind of creepy clues as to why a succubus creature is luring men away (one of them the smoking-hot Steve Archer as a business man, keep an eye out for him!). All Landis seems to have is some kind of "God works in mysterious ways" mumbo-jumbo. A native-American character later on says, "why does everything always have to have a Why with you people?" Why do I want to know? Because I have to have something to distract me from the terrible humor. Anything at all would be preferable.

There are so many things that could have been done to capitalize on the intrigue and mystery of this old folklore legend. Even some of the dialogue lends itself to making this mystery terrifying and dark. But Landis only seems to see the sexual motivation or result of the situation and focuses in on that. Since if you're completely immature, you could sit around for hours and come up with a ton of jokes about genital mutilation and women messing around with animals. It seems like John's son, Max Landis, did exactly that. The Masters of Horror just do not have the best track record with mysterious women. Argento's Jenifer (who was never really a mystery) was great. And I'm starting to get the impression that Mick Garris and John Landis got the idea to do their entries based on what they thought Argento would focus on. Sure, all the women show their tits. But Jenifer was the only one who did something with her animalistic sexuality. Deer Woman just flashes and runs back into the forest. I'm not really into watching women flash... but if I were, wouldn't I want a better storyline and jokes to warrant the tease?


The first 15 minutes were pretty cool, but then the next 20 minutes were deadly boring. I thought too many characters brought the pacing down. There was no need for the other 2 cops. There was no need for a back story about Dwight Faraday. I would have found it more interesting had the character been dating the girl in morgue. This episode could have been awesome had it not been so packed for time. I think another 20 minutes, and a couple of sex scenes would have made this a keeper. Why not show more of the Deer Woman, and what she does to her victims? Why not show a sex scene? We already know it's a Deer Woman because of the title. Out of the 8 or so episodes I've watched I'd consider it the worst. Hopefully they release a full length version in the future. Actually I doubt that would even help it.


I was lying, this film is pretty awful even though a scene in a doctors waiting room is quite freaky. What it with your girl/boy friend and you will end up cuddling all night otherwise leave well alone!

(This is where I would normally put some manic laughing, but with 'Dr Giggles' I won`t bother)


The best thing about this whole movie is the guys wicked laugh, but beyond that there is pretty much nothing. The whole plot is pretty unrealistic. Several things that happen in the movie are impossible and don't make sense. Anywayz this movie is good to watch if you want to hear a freaky laugh, but other than that don't waste your time.


The problem that I had with this movie is that the doctor laughed like a little girl. It was just as the title suggested and it made the movie more of a bad comedy than a horror movie. I couldn't stand the way he giggled. It was so cheesy but what did I expect? Then he makes all of these doctor jokes such as: "Is there a doctor in the house?" I think that I have heard jokes like this before and they were snowman jokes in Jack Frost. Freddy Kruger also makes jokes like that so they were nothing new. This is a bad movie that was meant to be a horror movie but just turned into a comedy. It isn't even that great of a comedy. If I were flipping by and saw this again, I would just keep on going. Giggle. Giggle. Giggle.


DR. GIGGLES should have been a lean, mean, gritty, surreal little horror movie. It is enjoyable, is never boring, but is a Kitchen Sink Movie, meaning there's everything in it but. Sometimes less really is more and a bit less would have been advised here. The primary influence on the film appears to have been Sam Raimi (star Larry Drake -- who is excellent -- was hot off the success of DARKMAN) and Tim Burton (who's BATMAN had just ushered in the era of 1990s overkill event films), neither of whom are known for their restraint.

DR. GIGGLES is actually so busy and cluttered that it's story becomes overwhelmed in a cacophony of arty camera angles, dark cartoonish neon lighting, plot twists, secondary characters, background development sketches, musical segues, billowing clouds of steam, leering closeup faces, hysterical supporting players, over-choreographed shock sequences, jam-packed picture frames that never sit still, excessive cutting for continuity, obscure character motivations, disposable unuseful dialog, people banging doors & breaking glass, and a self-conscious ongoing effort to never allow Attention Deficit Disorder plagued viewers from ever getting bored. Here is a movie who's use of graffiti on set walls is even obnoxious, self-aware and -- in the eyes of the filmmakers -- as equally worthy of the viewer's attention as what the main characters have to say.

It's a great concept for a film: Nutzo sick maniac doctor escapes from the local sanatorium and promptly sets up a home practice & starts killing people in various inventive ways. The problem is that some of those ways are a bit too inventive. Doctors are scary by nature, with their face masks, drab clothing, bags of sinister instruments that are supposed to cure ailments, and a seeming joy of delivering the worst news possible to their patients. Want to watch your family physician freak out? Do some sit-ups right before he takes your blood pressure, or maybe walk up a flight of stairs to their office. We're supposed to be getting more exercise but you show an elevated heart rate and the son of a bitch will have you on some medication that puts you to sleep & call that progress. Amazing.

So the idea of having a doctor in a horror movie become a creepy, sinister juggernaut of evil isn't that far off the track of everyday reality. The problem with Dr. Giggles is that he is never allowed to just be scary. Check out a movie from about the same time, 1989's THE DEAD PIT for another sinister psychotic physician who actually is frightening, and whose creators were happy just to let him lurk around the bowels of a condemned sanatorium carving people's brains out. But being chased around by some giggling, squeaky voiced loon with a giant tongue suppressor isn't my idea of scary. It's weird, and the shame with this film is that it confuses weird with scary. It's sort of an overblown surrealist melange of sight, sound, fury, noise, color and obnoxiously arty camera angles.

The movie is so busy and cluttered I have no idea what the story really was about even after two viewings, and that might be telling. Here is a film who's story isn't really important but instead consists as a tightly edited & flamboyantly produced series of set-pieces about a surrealist, over the top insane doctor. It passes the time well enough and fans of late 80s/early 90's teen horror will be well served, but after wards the one thing you will probably want more than anything are a couple of aspirins and a nice quiet well-lit room to sit in for a few minutes so you can catch your breath. Ahh, that's better.

4/10: Not without its merits, but less would have been more.


This movie starts out as an over the top slapstick effort, but then bails out on that and gets surprisingly serious. It's the start of yet another straight-forward slasher, which is pretty unwelcome. Stalk and slash, boring dialogue, more stalk and slash. There isn't much excitement in the plot, but I appreciate the variation in weapons though, that kept the mood lively. The ending isn't too bad either. But throughout I was just wondering who the hell makes a slasher in '92. I don't think people ever cared less. A re-write wouldn't have hurt, perhaps bring in more comedy because this is not really working out. I'm not saying this movie totally blows, there are some cool scenes, but it's so incredibly redundant it can vanish into thin air every second.


This movie is of course about a crazed doctor. He was in a mental hospital, but he escapes and he goes off to do some surgery. He finds a girl who suffers from some sort of heart ailment and this reminds him of his mother so he wants to help her. Along the way you get to see him kill people in rather stupid ways to get their hearts. Had potential, but ultimately this one gets to goofy at times for its own good. Some scenes though are rather gory such as the flashback scene where they show how the kid managed to escape, but in the end these scenes are too few and far between. If you see it you may want to watch it just to say you saw it if you are a fan of horror, but nothing to really search hard for.


Extremely unpleasant slasher film seems like a relic of another era - of the early 80's, to be exact, when all the "Friday The 13th" ripoffs were made. The only difference is that most of the characters here are normal, not stupid kids, which makes their graphic murders MUCH more repulsive. The director builds some good suspense towards the end, but the film is almost destroyed by the killer's utterly LAME puns ("I'd get a second opinion if I were you") that make you wonder if the screenwriter was a seven-year-old.


Loaded with clichés and "can see it coming a mile away" blood and guts, Dr. Giggles is a complete waste of time.

Sure, the creators may have wanted to do "a genre piece", but this is the same rehashed garbage, a date movie for the stereotypical guy who laughs at the violence on screen and the girl who squeals and clings to her boyfriend. That's an insult.

One of the worst things about the horror genre, seemingly coming out of the hack-and-slice 80s, is the lack of story and intelligence. Instead, sophomoric humor and one bloody situation after another seems to string us all along to the end credits.

Avoid this, watch some respectful and dramatic horror that truly frightens through wit, wisdom and a compelling story.


there are not too many good things about this horror movie.one good thing is the performance of Larry drake as the psycho.he really puts his heart into the performance.you can tell he really has fun with the role.the only other good thing is that in the last 25 minutes or so,the movie starts to get good.the last 15 minutes in particular are really good,and there is one scene near the end which is priceless.unfortunately the first 70+ minutes are pretty lame.there really aren't enough positives are enough to make the movie worth watching.that's my opinion. anyway,this movie is part of the Twisted Terror Collection also sold in a box set also entitled The Twisted Terror Collection.there are 5 other horror movies contained in the set.as for this movie itself,i'm afraid it's terminal and the prognosis is not good. 2/10


I let myself get talked into seeing this instead of The Last of The Mohicans.....I should have stood my ground. With free movies passes all the way around, we *way* overpaid.

I'm surprised to see this listed under "Horror", but not "Comedy" - although it's neither funny, nor scary. It tries to be a spoof....but doesn't succeed. I didn't connect with any of the characters, and left bored.

Don't waste your time.


Started off really gay, with shots of children playing and families having a good old time in the neighborhood. Then there's this crazy guy. Another family moment, the girls follow their dad outside. Crazy guy goes off on little girl for being on his property. Dad says don't talk that way to my girl. Crazy guy, in a rage, goes back into his house and returns with a rifle. Shoots the dad. Okay I liked this part. It was shot in a very matter-of-fact way and thus the movie's gayness started to subside. But not for long. It becomes a gay action movie, then a gay horror movie, with a classic, is he behind the curtain?.....Nope. Then it gets even more dragged out, lots of sob moments for the ones shot, then some gay music at the end to wrap it all up.

So overall very gay, I was honestly hoping that after the gay beginning it would start to redeem itself, and it did... but then it came back with heaps of gay that just plain ruined it.


I not only saw the film,but worked on it as well and had a small role in it,JHS39 is correct in his review.

From day one of filming one knew how horrible this film would turn out to be.

Not only is it a waste of funds,but talent such as Scott Glenn,Raymond Cruz and Constance Marie.

I will not go into details,but let's just say Scott was one really mad actor,and I cannot blame him do to the unprofessional style of work Mike Kirton the director displayed throughout the month of filming.

Waste of $1mil!


Some interesting characters and decent acting ,but the starting romance between Scott Glen and the chick is kinda silly and unbelievable. The main bad guys are cool but the Lisa Boyle in her bikini was the highlight of the movie.


I rented this movie because I had a coupon for a free rental. I am glad that I did not have to pay because it is not worth paying for. The acting was very stiff and the editing was bad. The story could have been handled much better and when I read the back of the box I expected a sort of Miami Vice like movie but as it turned out Miami Vice had much better acting and much better dialog. If the four letter words were removed from the script this would have been a silent movie!


Apparently a "direct to video" release, only those in absolute desperation at the local Blockbuster will rent this (count me in this group). Expect to experience almost immediate regret (less than one minute after the credits end). These is one redeeming scene in this film, and it lasts less than 2 minutes. The rest of the film incorporates every major action/loner/rogue hero film cliche imaginable.

A definite "1." Avoid at all costs.


This movie was a major disappointment, but with a fantastic cast. I didn't know what to expect when I saw this movie, but I wanted to throw it out the window when I came across the first scene of the dead animals. It was Unnecessary to see Bobby (Sean Penn) running over an animal. Was that needed? Grace (Jennifer Lopez) got on my nerves, didn't like her at all, the performance from Jennifer Lopez weren't all that great either. This movie all in all, was boring. What was good about it? Only one thing, Toby (Joaquin Phoenix) and Jenny (Claire Danes). The only form of entertainment of this Movie. Joaquin surprised me with his small, but outstanding performance. Joaquin and Claire - YOU MADE THE MOVIE! Only with 3 scenes Unfortunately. Otherwise this movie made me sick. It was degrading. I gave it a 3. That goes to Joaquin and Claire!


The cast of this film is amazing, along with a great director, so how did this film turn out to be so unwatchable? None of the blame lies on the actors, although you do wonder why they would sign up for something with such a bad screenplay!

Loathsome characters, dire setting, badly edited and way too drawn out. The soundtrack doesn't help much either, creating a horrible atmosphere. I believe this is Oliver Stones attempt at a Quentin Tarantino move, but fails on so many levels. It's actually depressing to think about, knowing that I wasted two hours of my life watching it. I would love to meet Oliver Stone and beat him over the head with the DVD I wasted £3.99 on.


Unsympathetic characters, dragged-out ending, predictable...If you got to watch it, watch it for the supporting characters(Voight,Danes,Phoenix, and especially, Billy Bob Thorton). Other than that, avoid at all costs!


This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Sean Penn is stranded in a strange city where everybody seems to realize his problems and his struggle, and insist on being particularly mean to him, just for the sake of being mean.

It is a lot like Chevy Chase in National Lampoon's Vacation or Griffin Dunne in After Hours, in the sense that we watch an incredibly hapless main character go through an incredibly terrible day and we're supposed to call that entertainment. Except that instead of a comedy this one is a mean and boring excuse for a thriller where everybody is weird and bad-ass, so the whole thing reeks of Tarantino or any of those awful El Mariachi sequels.

There are indeed several twists in the plot, but all of them are predictable and absolutely unable to make the film a little interesting. The end doesn't even try to make up for the rest of the experience. It's just as dull and silly.

The only good thing I can say about this film is that the cast is very good. There are lots of good acting, but the story and the overall atmosphere is so brain dead that I couldn't really enjoy the acting.

I always found that Oliver Stone's movies were excessively long-winded and pretentious. Now I read here at IMDb that he "wanted to make a small film that he would enjoy seeing as a teenager". So he is definitely a major idiot, and I will never see any of his movies again.

I give it 3 stars, for the acting. Maybe the actors deserved more for the acting, but they also deserve a penalty for signing up such a bad script.


A sad and pathetic overture in the life and times of Oliver Stone. Sadly, after making so many great films to this point, Stone was forced to rebuild his career after creating this crummy film. Having enjoyed Sean Penn's movies in the past, this seemed a real departure for him. There is very little to say about this film, except it help Stone wise up and create Any Given Sunday.


Four college students rent rooms at an old, creepy looking sea side house, run by an elderly woman and her rather reclusive son. Unbeknownst to them a mysterious stalker hiding somewhere in the house quietly watches and preys upon them one by one in typical slasher fashion.

This movie would have been plenty creepy if there was some payoff every so often, but unfortunately it just keeps building up and building up to a climax that is neither particularly scary or surprising. It does have a few good moments here and there, such as a close-up of the unseen killer peering through a vent, or secretly breaking into the cobweb ridden crawlspace, but these moment are ultimately swallowed up by the relentlessly tedious pace. The cast does it's best with the material but there's simply nothing for them to work with. Balding, who shows plenty of charisma in her next film "The Boogens", is completely wasted in a thankless role that gives her little more to do other than stand around looking cute in spite of ridiculous looking clothes.

4 out of 10, despite otherwise creepy direction this film is just too long, tedious and uneventful to hold you interest.


Pretty dull. Some somewhat Argentoesque aspects, like the opening, which seems like a flashback (it's not) and a long tracking shot. Psycho hangs over this film more obviously, though, with a sinister mother character, a wimpy young man, voyeurism - and a psychoesque murder, as well as music clearly stolen from Psycho's shower scene.

Some memorable images, but an unmemorable film unworthy of a second viewing.

My reasoning for seeing it was a bit odd. I recall having seen in the late 1970s or early 1980s an advertisement/public service announcement, promo, or trailer of some kind on TV. This would almost certainly have been network TV, since we didn't have cable. Camera was zooming in going up a narrow white staircase, I believe there was a heartbeat on the soundtrack, and the camera might have zoomed in on a vent on one of the walls in the staircase. I believe there was a voice-over saying something about a "silent scream." Visually, that's all it was - camera zooming up a staircase.

I thought it was possible, and it was also suggested to me on either IMDb's I Need to Know or Horror message boards, that this was a trailer for Silent Scream (1980). However, there was not a staircase like that in the movie, and unfortunately no trailer was included on the video. For some reason, I also wonder if it could have been a fire safety promo, or an antiabortion ad.

So, even though I'm not keen to watch the movie again, I would like to see the TV trailers for it!


I went to see Boogeyman with my buddy and thought it was the worst movie ever (1 person dies). Until he put on Silent Scream (VHS)when we got back. After 17 minutes into the movie the guy in the peach pant I was able to count out the change in his pocket. He had .53 cents in his right pocket. That was the point of argument that he actually had .55 cents which he had 2 quarts and 1 nickle. His pant were so tight that he could squeeze 2 dimes and a nickle out of a quarter. But I recommend this movie to your buddies whom you don't like. I mean that the person that you really want to waist 2 hrs of his/her time. This movie sucked so bad that I had nightmares only on the guy with peach paints.


Lucia, played by veteran actress and foreign film diva Cecilia Roth, is your typical rite-of-passage character. Through the events surrounding the disappearance of her husband, Lucia discovers a new side of herself she hasn't felt due to the freedom of being unmarried and unrestricted. Is it her womaness, her sexuality, her independence she finds? Bingo! You guessed right. The movie wouldn't be so bad if it actually showed her character development from a more personal-inner perspective ... but the journey is clouded through the integration of two men in her life and a weak plot that just seems to drag on and on and on ... at least that's how you feel when the so called "mystery" is solved. It's like you sat through the whole movie for no reason at all ... Roth's acting is good ... although bit overkill on the crying scenes ... the actor who plays Felix is a bit distracting ... facial expressions and lines are given unnaturally, and the other man, her young-love toy, is nothing more than slight eye-candy to hormonal admirers.

In short, the plot is fairly original, but not well executed, circular camera shots confuse the audience, the comedy is a bit dry and weak, the drama is a bit heavy, and the acting is moderate. This movie gets four stars (****) ... had Cecilia Roth not been in it, it would have received (**) ... she is the only redeeming value of this flick.

-Daine-


I'd heard a lot about this film, 99% of it good. So I picked the film up to take a gander, and was terribly disappointed. It took me two tries to even finish the film! Michael Angelis was actually quite good in the main role, and Elvis Costello was amusing in his cameo appearance as a daft magician. But the good ended there. The jokes were dated, the sound was horrid, the plot was garbled and *much* too long. Was only 1 hour 40 but felt like more than two hours... There were some very funny moments (including the band, which was hilarious, and an attempted mugging of a blind man, the results of which also had me laughing) but most of the humour was lost in the drag of this plodding film. And when the end came it was a horrid finish! I'd give it a 1/10 if I hadn't actually enjoyed any part of it, but as it stands I can rate it no higher than a three. 3/10.


I am sick of everyone saying that rocky V sucked as well. the movie itself wasn't such a bad movie. it was ,however, extremely disappointing because after all those years of grueling training montages and hard work, Rocko loses all of his money because of Paulie's ridiculous gambling habits. its just sad to see the rock go out broke, he didn't deserve to leave cinema as a bum who let his family and friends take advantage of him. it was great tho because when he gets back from Russia later that ,probably year, his son is 5 years older. the poor kid gets picked on for being rich ,so, naturally Paulie teaches him how to fight? despite all the holes and questions seeing Rocko in street-fighter mode is just great, and seeing him kick the crap out of a well trained 25 year old is awesome.


Rocky v has become somewhat of a curiosity to me. I read highly negative reviews for the film and expected a lame rehash of the first. I was very polarized by the moral messages it has. The film was far from perfect, and fell flat with the glum ending, so naturally, i was highly disappointed.

Rocky loses his money and his boy begins to resent him. He moves back to the streets of Philly with Paulie and Adrian and begins to train a new fighter, Tommy Gunn. Tommy is bombarded by the press and agrees to fight professionally. He betrays Rocky and hurts Paulie. Thankfully Rocky kicks his ass.

What i didn't like at all was the fact that rocky ended up where he started, with nothing to show for what he had achieved in the past. The film is astonishingly wrong headed

This movie is different to the others, it has a different message, but its still the worst of the series.


Spoiler Alert I have to say that when I first saw the movies Rocky 1-3, I was in bliss. The story's were brill. Something that made you never want to see the end of it, went away wishing the film had another half hour left or so. Rocky 4 was 50/50. Stallone wanted to make a movie about change, hardly see any change apart from the gloryhunter fans at the end going from Drago's to Rocky's! Dunno why they had to kill Apollo off, could've just sidelined him with injury or something, but in my view the pace and energy of the fight made up for it, and one more thing, no mention of Mickey??? Apart from the flashback sequence. And then, Rocky V. Another Rocky is always a pleasure in my view, but the movie could've been better! Stallone stated that originally Rocky was supposed to die in his last fight with tommy gunn, but changed weeks prior to production, claiming the film is about recovering from a disaster, which is a great plot to go by, but why did he have to have a street fight? I like the idea of the sadness that he ignored his son by paying loads of attention to Tommy, then tommy went awol with george duke, but at least he could have had Apollo or Creed's manager(I forget the name) train him for one last fight in the ring, and then beats tommy gunn, wins the title, and wins back his fortune. Or even he died in the ring after he beat him, and had millions cheer him on or mourn him as he went.

Rocky VI???? nnnnnnoooooo! sly's too old, fat, slow and lost his talent in writing. 5 is enough. His career's going down the crap shoot, he should just relive his past glory and call it day.

Oh yeah, the actor who plays Gunn should've been the one who really retired! haha.


Being a kid in the 90s, the Rocky films have a special place in my heart. I remember in 1996, Rocky 1-4 were shown on consecutive days on TV. I was not aware that Rocky 5 existed until I bought the box set in 2002.

I watched Rocky (9/10), Rocky 2 (9/10), Rocky 3 (8/10) and Rocky 4 (9/10) back to back and with great anticipation I placed the Rocky 5 disc into the DVD player.

When the movie finished, I thought to myself: "what the hell was that?" I expected it to follow the formula of the previous rocky films (the montage, big fight at the end etc) and thought that that was the problem. I watched it the next day and had that same feeling again.

Rocky 5 has the "dodgy sequel effect" on the previous films in that their quality is diminished by the fact that Rocky, our hero whom we look up to and admire for his iron chin and unbreakable spirit has been reduced to a broken down man who trains some punk kid and ignores his own kids in turn.

This is not the Rocky we know and love, this is a derivative piece of junk that is detested by fans (both hardcore and casual). It is a waste of a film. The only reason that this has a 2/10 and not a 1/10 is that the fight at the end is pretty well choreographed.

However. You lucky people who have not seen any Rocky films and are considering purchasing the Rocky box set have the option of not watching this and instead watching the vastly superior Rocky Balboa instead.

Note to Stallone, Still waiting for the following films from you: Rocky 7, another Rambo and Copland 2. Oh, and give my regards to your mom.


A lot of Rocky buffs expect viewers to suspend all disbelief, with each passing installation. You can only keep pummeling a series so much, however, without revolt. Most Rocky fans are not children anymore and can not be expected to play along as such.

The emergence of Tommy Gunn was kind of fun, but the premise of the plot is so fabled, as to be impossible. There is no fixing this kind of disappointment.

The only positive thing that can be said about this film is the quasi-inspiration, though prototypical, premise of sticking together and weathering the storm. The father and son dynamic is rather good in this one, making this film an installation with some merit.

But it is all undermined by the ridiculous and highly unlikely plot points.

Kudos for trying, I guess.


Rocky Five is terrible beyond belief. You may think that I am being hard on it but no. It is quite possibly the worst movie ever made and is an embarrassment to be in with the rest of the series, all of which were great movies. But this one, no.

After having defeated Drago, Rocky starts experiencing physical problems, mainly shaking beyond belief. After returning home he meets up with his son who seems to have grown by more than five years of age since the last time they saw him. Rocky holds a press conference to announce his retirement but is quickly offered an opportunity to box against a young boxer named Union Caine by a man named George Washington. Rocky says no and returns home. This is where things start to go crazy.

Soon it is found out that Paulie gave some guy a blank check signed by Rocky or something and that they lost all their money. So they are forced to move back to Philadelphia. Further issues show up when it is revealed that Rocky has suffered head trauma and further boxing can seriously injure him (watching this movie could also give you head trauma).

However Rocky re opens the old boxing gym since Mickey willed it over to Rocky Jr. Now living in the old neighborhood Rocky Jr. begins school and is immediately beaten up by bullies. Rocky meanwhile meets up with a young boxer named Tommy Gunn whom wants Rocky to manage him but Rocky decides he is not a good enough listener. He latter changes his mind and agrees to train Tommy Gunn and begins to spend more time with Tommy than his own son and dissension soon forms between father and son.

TOmmy Gunn moves up the ranks. George Washington meanwhile tries to lure Gunn away from Rocky by lavishing wealth and women upon him. Rocky Jr. beats up the bullies that bugged him. Gunn leaves Rocky and immediately battles Union Caine for the heavyweight champion title and wins it. Rocky and Jr. talk and patch things up. After winning the title Gunn is hassled by reporters who argue that him winning the belt is meaningless since he never beat Rocky to obtain it and because Caine was a paper champion.

Gunn finds Rocky at a local Bar and challenges him but Rocky says no. Paulie then taunts Gunn but gets beaten up. Rocky then agrees to fight Gunn in the streets. Getting some support from the Spirit of Mickey, Rocky beats Gunn up.

The whole concept of Rocky losing everything he got and starting off again where he started from is pretty stupid. Also the way he lost all of his money is really ignorant. And since Paulie is supposedly the reason for them losing so much they STILL LET HIM LIVE WITH THEM!!!! Tommy Gunn is a pretty lame character. ALso a Rocky Movie with no big fight in the ring at the end is a bad idea. Rocky fighting Gunn in the ring at the end would have made this movie a little better, not much, but I guess that idea was not good.

If you are a fan of the Rocky movies stay away from this one. I got the box set of Rocky from my sister for Christmas one year but I never watch this one. FOr me Rocky five never happened.


i watched this movie on TV on thursday night and I couldn't believe what i saw. this movie made me cry but for all the wrong reasons! Every 2 seconds I was saying, "What the crap?!" because i just couldn't believe that all those bad things could happen to Rocky so fast. I mean he just got back from Russia and he finds out that his idiot friend, Paulie, signed some paper, which made the Balboa family bankrupt! they lost their estate and all their money, and ended up living back in the area they were living in for Rocky I. I also could not believe how Rocky's son from Rocky IV looked about 8 years old when Rocky left to fight Drago, and then when he gets back, his son in Rocky V, (who is Sylvester Stallone's real-life son) looked about 13 & dorky! It seems that all Sylvester tried to do in the last 2 Rocky movies is somehow get his family involved in the movie, which is not right. Though Rocky's son in Rocky V does look more Italian, it was just not the same. I will never watch this movie again because the plot made me so angry. If they do make a Rocky VI, which i highly doubt since Sylvester Stallone is 60 now i think, i will watch it just to see how it is.


I count this as the worst sequel ever in one of the best series ever.Previous rocky movies dealt with a lot of hardship but had a great overall positive and motivating feeling.Then this farce of a film comes along.Its the worst start ever for a movie.Hey Rocky you're brain damaged and oh yeah you lost ALL your money.Somehow.There's no decent fight in the whole movie that scrap at the end is nothing better than the one at the chipper last night..How long does it take to fly to Russia?? At least ten years apparently thats how much his son has aged by the time he gets back from the drago fight.There's NO MONTAGE!!!!! No epic training music! 2 stars just for the Micky scene.


If you decide to watch the movie, count how many times Terry Farrell's character makes a dumb decision. Get this: AFter she finds out that a serial killer is on her plane hunting her and her family, she keeps LEAVING HER DEFENSELESS SON ALL ALONE at every opportunity! Also, I've never seen a more nosy wife. Also, if you were an FBI agent hunting a serial killer, would you really bring your wife and son to Austarlia with you to interview the serial killer? Dumb, dumb, dumb.


I decided to see this after reading a review stating that "it was a great movie". IT WAS NOT! Nothing about it was worth seeing. I lost 85 minutes of my life. Bad acting, bad story, bad script, bad everything. Whooa a serial killer on an aeroplane; what an original and new twist - NOT!


Almost every minute of the film is predictable and the stupid behaviors of the FBI agent and his wife make it worse.

Agent Novack tells captain to keep it quiet after finding the body but he acts just opposite, running like crazy all the time and screaming at people. He also questions suspects in a way not really fits an FBI agent. He looks for the guy while on the phone but doesn't notice that our killer is not there(he was a suspect too) and goes on.

His wife Michelle Novack is more dumb than him as she leaves her son alone and goes up and down all the time just because of curiosity. So it was obvious that their son was going to be kidnapped. That behavior was really annoying of hers i kept myself saying "Go back to your kid woman!". One more thing about her is that when the killer wants her to come down he goes directly without telling to her husband. Killer wouldn't know about it.

This film lacks acting, script, and logic which make it completely waste of time.


This film is so stupid, so predictable and just so over the top it is quite entertaining to laugh at. The FBI guy is a complete and utter idiot; he should be keeping matters cool and calm on the aeroplane but instead he runs around like a madman throwing innocent passengers aside. He is a complete nut case; he shouts at staff and is aggressive to everyone he comes in contact with. Constantly seems to stare at people so much the twist at the end should have been that he was the killer himself.

His wife is annoying for reasons posted by previous viewers and the main villain is so obvious I wonder how films like this get the greenlight.

Bad, really bad.


I am a JAG & David James Elliott fan but his acting in this one was horrible. His behavior as an FBI agent was unbelievable. And his & Terry Farrell's parenting on the plane were criminal. Very bad movie. Don't waste your time on this one.


To begin with I did not give this title a three because i don't like foreign films i love them. Especially Asian ones. This however is a sad excuse for a film. Do not be fooled by the cover art or summary which screams violence because there is none. Even if you do not enjoy violence there are still many problems with this title. The story well there isn't much of one. Juzo who was picked on in his child hood, well more than picked on.. tortured in a way, by a classmate named Akai is the main character. Juzo is now of course traumatized and has split personalities. Juzo gets a job and moves into a new apartment guess whos in the room right above him and his new boss, thats right Akai. I wont say much else concerning the plot. There were a few twists very few however which helped but not enough at all. There is no musical score what so ever to heighten suspense instead we have long drawn out scenes which do nothing but bore the viewer.. All in all this movie is a waste of your time. Do not waste any of your precious time on it as I did you will regret it. two out of ten


If you are expecting horror, forget it. If you are expecting "psychological thriller," forget that too. In fact, if you are expecting anything halfway moving, gripping, or attention-grabbing in the least, FORGET ALL ABOUT IT.

The film has a decent premise but unfortunately displays the absolute worst traits of a certain strain of Japanese horror films which, as another reviewer mentions, owe a lot to Miike's more exasperatingly BORING experiments, such as that "Ichii" crap.

The problem here is that this movie move's at a snail's pace. That would have been alright had there been some kind of payoff, but there is not. Characters stare at each other for MINUTES ON END inexplicably in the middle of a @#$# conversation, children see dead, bloodied bodies and simply stand there aloof like scarecrows before casually walking away--countless reactions are completely fake and unrealistic. The film was a great idea but any kind of dramatic effect is robbed from it by the stupid SILENCE and stilted dialogue which plagues the entire film.

If you think boring crap such as "964 Pinocchio" and the "All Night Long" series were "disturbing," you'll probably like this film too. If you're looking for a REAL MOVIE, you'll wish you hadn't given it the chance in the first place, especially considering it's nearly two hours long. (If they had had haflway normal dialog and half-way HUMAN reactions among characters, the film would've been an hour and a half).

If you're looking for good Asian horror/revenge/drama, see the Korean "Oldboy." As far as "Rinjin 13-gô" goes: AVOID.


Classic Warner Bros. cartoons directed by Friz Freleng are mercilessly cut and spliced into a "movie" format and mixed with framing sequences animated in 1980-81. The latter-day sequences are a too-obvious distraction from the classics, and the classics deserve to be seen in their entirety. The final sequence ("the Oswald Awards") makes the most sense, but overall this was just a bad idea. If you can, watch the complete shorts instead.


Who ever messed with these classics should have a stick of Acme Mfg. Co. Dyno-mite stuck up their er um, you know what I mean. They actually messed with the violent nature of this film by putting in politically correct unviolent scenes!! Bugs shoots a tin can full of "corks"? In the original he shoots Sam in the face! Corks?

Don't waste your time!


This is a parody to me.

Most dialogues are so bad you don't take it seriously.

It's still a very interesting movie though, I'd rate it a lot higher then this if dialogues and acting was better.

[* * * * - - - - - -] 4 / 10


I really wanted to give it a perfect score because this film made me laugh harder and louder than any "intended comedy" ever has, but the film-loving being inside of me is screaming for the single star. Everything about this film is poorly done, where the, and I hesitate to even use the word in the same context, acting is by far the worst part. Some comments:

Camera - Awful Screenplay - Awful "Acting" - Horrific example Sound - Poor Script - Typical of a budget action/thriller film (though I believe this movie falls into a genre of its own)

Junk-o-Rama, in other words.

It's really difficult to be constructive when criticizing this feature, since it doesn't really give a serious impression.


Neither the slick production values, half-decent creature-effects nor the presence of the great Jeffrey Combs (as H.P. Lovecraft) are enough to overcome a basically dull plot, or should I say plots as there are four short stories rolled into one here and all of them are quite forgettable. Plenty of slimy beasts and a few scantily-clad lovelies amount to little more than an uninspired movie that would have been better left unmade.


*A few spoilers, perhaps.* The first two stories were all right. Especially, for being stories within stories (Lovecraft's trademark). Richard Lynch was brilliant, as the sea captain who goes temporarily insane with grief. And, David Warner was absolutely convincing as the true-love-starved immortal, ultimately betrayed by his over-possessive housekeeper. The third one, though? YECHH! The only thing truly Lovecraftian about it was the small touch of Negrophobia in it. *Sad but true; HPL was a closet racist. Just read "Call of Cthulu!"* I guess the nicest touch was the subtle homage to a similar anthology: the British b/w classic "Dead of Night." The wrap-around segment, and its conclusion, strongly reminded me of the former! I guess, in all fairness, that my final score for this movie boils down to: 2.7 stars.