Didn't get past the first 60 seconds of the film. How disgusting to depict the mindless murder of a kitten in a major film! Why can a film studio do this when others would be charged with the crime that this is if they filmed it? Doesn't matter that it "isn't real", it is still depiction of animal abuse/torture. Worse yet, it displays yet another method of animal torture to the soul-less cowards who do this already. I'll be loud and clear to anyone who'll listen what I think of it, and that it should be banned. So, so disappointed in Diane Lane--the only reason I was interested in seeing it in the first place. Won't make that mistake again.


Dreadful-- abosolutley dreadful. That describes "Untraceable," a serial killer film starring Diane Lane as the FBI agent out to catch a murderer. It's an interesting premise-- a killer who uses the Internet to torture and kill his victims-- but aside from that this movie is not worth anyone's while. There are moments where the acting is so histrionic and melodramatic you can't help but laugh. Some of the characters are underdeveloped, inclduing, in my opinion, the main character, and the script wasn't exactly up to snuff.

But the kiss of death for "Untraceable" is its predictability. Assuming you're a half-smart person, you can tell who the victims will be, where the killer will not be, etc. The movie also ends somewhat abruptly, and the closing shot is utterly stupid and does not fit in with the scene.

Say this for the methods of torture-- they are creative. But watching this movie is much like getting tortured within itself.


I don't understand how this movie could acquire so many positive reviews. The fact is this movie is utterly predictable from the very first opening scene to the ending credits. Storyline, acting, and the music all serving up a feeling of I have seen and heard this many times before.

The film portrays the internet as a place where surfers only enjoy seeing other people suffer. I guess to anyone not familiar or has used the internet would watch this movie and then happily advocate internet controls which would basically be a system controlled by government. Of course this is something to be resisted because the Internet has become the last bastion of free speech.

I couldn't wait for this movie to end simply because I knew exactly how it was going to and indeed did pan out. I must also say that it wouldn't have mattered which character bought the farm in this movie because I couldn't care less about any of them.

The message in this movie is that we have become a society with zero morals (which could in fact be correct)but the sickest of all are the internet users where the only joy they will get is to watch humans suffering live on TV or the internet. I believe this is an extremely cynical point of view and what this movie actually promotes is what it portrays to be against.

The only thing this movie will do is simply add to the frenzy of calls to have the internet controlled by government who will duly oblige given the chance. Well they are already trying to get it done by spreading fear of identity theft and in general the gullible masses are now beginning to believe that the moment they input their credit card details in to a computer their immediately a victim of identity theft. But as well all know, or at least all of us who use the internet for many reasons including and what I consider to be the most important of all and that is to seek out the truth when it comes to news the internet is in fact the last bastion of free speech, well in Europe it most definitely is.

My negative review isn't because I fear this movie is shocking enough to have governments reaching for the control switch. In fact the movie isn't shocking at all. Its just a plain bad movie from start to finish. If you like predictable poorly written scripts and movies with no character depth and sanitised death scenes you will like this. To me it stank to high heaven of a made for TV movie


This movie is about a killer who shows the torture that ends in death life on the internet: the more people watch, the harder the victims are tortured.

Of course, millions of people log on and watch.

That concept isn't too bad, however, where this movie goes horribly wrong is that each torture is displayed and filmed in detail. You get to see it almost like the people in the movie that watch it over the net. So, WHAT THE F? People giving the movie a good rating are as SICK as people who log on to this site in the movie.

Movies like this should not be made. To make a clear statement, please do NOT watch this movie - but vote on it: give it a one. We have to stop this kind of sick movie making as soon as possible.


The most terrifying part of Untraceable is not the scenes of suspense or gruesome torture; but the image this film left me withthis could be the next step in societies demand for "reality" entertainment.

Jennifer Marsh (played by Diane Lane) is a cybercrime FBI agent who fights online criminals most of who are stealing credit card numbers to buy a watch off eBay or downloading music illegally. She receives an anonymous tip about a new website that streams live features of victims being brutally tortured to death as the more people visit the site. Her job suddenly intensifies, and a heightened beat-the-clock investigation begins as the body count rises. Even with all the FBI computers, there is one small problemthe killer is (hint it's in the title)untraceable.

I will admit it, I was engrossed. Director Gregory Hoblit (Fallen, Fracture) knows how to build suspense with a quiet, taut pacing, but unfortunately he lets it quickly spiral out of control as it shows every torture in gruesome detail, similar to the Saw and Hostel movies.

A big disappointment is that there is no "twist" as you see who the killer is fairly early on, and the motivation for the killer's actions is rather weak. Even as I write this review there are a myriad of "how did?"s, "why did?"s, and "that is not possible!"s Another aspect that bothered me, was the fact that this story felt hypocritical. It seemed almost to be a message of how horrible our ravenous appetite for "torture porn" is. Yet, its' portrayal of the general public who logged on to this site, as no better than the killer committing this inhuman crime, was pointless as you witness everything they did, making you feel no different than them.

I was sad Diane Lane was wasted on this film as she delivers a strong, intelligent performance despite the mediocre material, and Billy Burke (playing a detective on the case with her) holds his own well with her as their scenes are laced with attraction.

Untraceable shocks you with people's pitiless, inhumane reactions to the vile torture of another human being and leaves you feeling dirty, appalled, disgusted, and no better than the people who logged on.


Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) is cyberspecialist working for the FBI countering hackers and other cyberscum. Typically low-key stuff like cornering geeks trying to steal bank details or closing down kiddie porn sites. But this time around it's a whole different shenanigan - a brilliant hacker sets up a website, where he kills people and the website popularity determines how quickly the victim dies. Stuff gets bloody, while Jennifer has no clue how to intercept or capture the perpetrator. Meanwhile the death-toll rises and the clicks skyrocket...

My main gist with the movie is that it tries so hard to be tech savvy and to some extent it is (most of the tech lingo and solutions are perfectly fine and most of the iffy parts are passable for pure cinematic purposes). But after letting us know how brilliant the FBI team is we quickly find out how incompetent they really are. For example it is quickly discovered that the hacker has his DNS server in Russia. Given this isn't the middle of the Cold War and that a person is being killed online I would think that the Russian authorities would be normal enough to close down such a site at the FBI's request... c'mon! Add to that various extremely stupid character behaviours topped off with our hero falling for a trap that is so obvious, that only a senile mental facility patient could fall for...

Other weaknesses - I didn't really feel any build-up and the online killing theme seems underused for dramatic purposes (millions of people watching and we get no feedback as to how the general public is reacting to it).

That and I hate torture porn. Why did I watch the movie? Guess I decided to torture myself with a crap picture on a Saturday evening...


Angry serial killer kidnaps people and subjects them to horrific torture until they die, all broadcasted live through the internet. The catch is that the more people log in to watch, the faster the person goes, which is supposed to show how cruel the common people are - since when you are dying under excruciating pain, you want it to last longer.

The FBI special internet crimes division is on the job, but they are not only incapable of shutting down the site or blocking the access, but even of recording the transmission so that they can investigate closer - probably an attack on the Bush tax cuts.

Still, not entirely devoid of excitement if you are really into the must-catch-a-serial-killer-fast-before-more-people-die genre. Beats "The Bone Collector".


Think "Silence of the Lambs" meets "Strangeland" with just about every cliché you can possibly include to make THE most typical psychological thriller ever. "Untraceable" is another slick suspense yarn, once again, pitting some determined FBI agents against a methodical, overly intelligent, and ultra-crafty serial killer who inexplicably prolongs his victims suffering over the World Wide Web. This, of course, catches the attention of a some FBI internet specialists who realize the mass publicity is actually causing the captive's deaths. The victims are hooked up to various apparatuses - one guy is pumped full of blood thinner until he bleeds to death, another is scorched with heat-lamps - all hooked up to the web with the equipment increasing with the view toll... As one can only expect from internet users, 'the snuff show' sees a lot of hits. So, without spoiling too much, the killer is some computer nerd whose dad committed suicide and he's severely irked about it. Somehow, he is able to kidnap several FBI agents, stream his vids live over the interweb and possibly rank as one of THE most uninteresting and flat-out DULLEST villains I have seen in a while. The death scenes are much too elaborate - (almost like a "Saw" movie), every suspense sequence is clouded by an intolerable amount of implausibility, and the conclusion is one of the most dissatisfying 'climaxes' I can recall... Avoid "Untraceable"...


This movie is a propaganda piece against net neutrality. Diane Lane is (or rather was) a favorite actor of mine, and I am disappointed that she would participate in a piece of garbage like this. Beside the fact that "Untraceable" is a shameless hit piece against net neutrality, it is also tasteless in its display of extreme cruelty, the kind which makes one wonder about the screenwriter's mental health. Shocking scenes notwithstanding, the movie is filled with clichés and archetypal characters, played by actors who outclass the hackneyed script. Was it necessary to utilize Diane Lane and Colin Hanks when the latest Playboy centerfold-turned-actress, and, I don't know, maybe Chuck Norris or Steven Seagal could have easily fit the bill?


This movie is simply implausible and convoluted.

What hits you early on is that it seems like a SAW wannabe with all the elaborate and gory executions. It's hard to believe someone is so prolific at building complex execution staging without leaving a trail of evidence. They should simply be caught when the law traces where unusual quantities and specialized items have been purchased.

The FBI seems lethargic and terribly ineffectual from start to finish. I find it hard to believe that NSA could not be tapped, in confidence, to help put and end to something so heinous on the Internet.

Other goofy stuff includes hiding one FBI agent in a seedy motel for security, an insanely fast web hit counter, and an FBI agent dumb enough to climb back into a car that's obviously rigged.

The only entertaining scene was seeing the psychopath get it good in the end. Other than that it is mostly "Why the F*** did they do that?!"


Obviously inspired by the Saw series, and referencing the phenomenon of video watching (like YouTube), for negative purposes of course, this looked like an interesting horror thriller, from director Gregory Hoblit (Frequency). Basically FBI agent Jennifer Marsh (Diane Lane) works in the Cybercrime division, and one day she comes across a suspicious website called KillWithMe.com, where an innocent kitten is to be killed by some torture devise, and basically the more people watch, the faster it dies. It becomes much more serious when the next victim is obviously human, and in a much more deadly trap, and they are trying to access anything that will lead them to the creator and killer, but it is "untraceable". We the audience obviously see the killer, Owen Reilly (Joseph Cross), and takes a while for them to realise it is him, but when they do, after about one or two more victims, including Jennifer's good friend Griffin Dowd (Colin Hanks, Tom's son), Jennifer finds herself the next, and eventually last victim of the deadly traps. Also starring Billy Burke as Detective Eric Box, Mary Beth Hurt as Stella Marsh, Peter Lewis as Richard Brooks, Tyrone Giordano as Tim Wilks and Perla Haney-Jardine as Annie Haskins. The gore is as good as you can get in the Saws, Lane is a good leading actress, and even if the story does have the tiniest glitches, it is worth a look. Okay!


The fixed and penetrating gaze of the posturing-while-frequently-motionless Mr. McManus was too too much much. I kept watching because I really wanted to find out what happened to Pablo Bryant's character, about whom I cared tremendously, but not enough to rank the movie as better than awful. I will look for Mr. Bryant's work elsewhere.


My reason for seeing this dung was simple: I liked the title, as well as actors Tom Sizemore, Steven Seagal, and Dennis Hopper. Nothing could prepare me for how awful this film truly is. This is the definition of a cheap straight to video movie. TERRIBLE action; AWFUL acting; EVERYTHING just sucks about this film. Take my word for it, don't waste your time or money watching this film.

The actors obviously only did this film for a paycheck. Shame on them -- they lost a little of my respect.


This movie leaves us the impression that the actors have been hired to appear at a rich kid's party instead of playing a part in a movie. Barring a great deal of respect for Dennis Hopper, Steven Seagal and the others, this movie looks like "a day at the office appearance" for most of them.

Point your finger at the director because he is responsible for this low-level picture.


Ticker is a strange movie. It starts out promising, with a good cast, nice story and lots of action. Especially after watching "Out for a kill" which I did 2 weeks ago, this one seems to be much better. And in fact, it is better, especially the acting. Tom Sizemore does a good job, Dennis Hopper is adequate as the bad guy and Joe Spano in a small roll is good too.

So what's wrong? First of all, Steven Seagall obviously gained a lot of weight. He just sits there, at his desk or in his car, except for the last 15 minutes or so when finally he decides to kick some ass. However: it is painfully clear that for the action scenes, a stand-in is used. I replayed these scenes in slow motion to verify this, and it is very obvious. Shame on Steven for this.

A lot of scenes are really dark, which makes it very hard to see what's happening. Also some of the scenes are too chaotic with good and bad guys running around looking the same. "Out for a kill" had the same problem.

Right at the start of the movie, the scene where Seagal's troops jump out of the helicopter by ropes, it is clear that the rope is hanging in a studio. Besides, I have no idea why these bomb experts would land on the roof while they know there's a bomb in the basement.

The blue screen car scene with Dennis Hopper and Jaime Pressly has been mentioned a few times already. It is good for a few unintended laughs. The same goes for Hoppers part-time Irish accent, the old police cars with wrong plates and the police choppers without even the word "police" on them.

Later on, Jaime blows up the BMW convertible with Hopper in it. It is painfully obvious that the car that's blown up is another model, a much older 4 doors saloon instead of the 2 doors convertible. There's even another car visible blowing up right next to the BMW. I don't know where it came from. Even the surrounding buildings are different before and during the explosion. I suspect this explosion was taken from another movie.

The final scenes take place in city hall, where a bal masqué is going on. The room where this takes place looks like a discotheque. Now really, what city hall would look like that? Not surprisingly, this scene too is taken from another movie.

Near the end, Steven walks up the stairs towards the roof of city hall to dismantle the bomb on the roof. However, several men with machine guns are sitting there. When they start shooting, Steven decides to walk back. Walk, not run or jump, even when men firing their guns come after him, he takes his time to get some cover. My grandfather walks faster than that.

Finally two bombs have to be dismantled. One is in the basement, and Sizemore has to take care of this one, following instructions by Seagall. This is the right time for Seagal to preach some Zen before telling Sizemore how to deal with the bomb. When the bomb in the basement is secured, Seagal takes care of the other one. This is really easy. He just cuts some wires, the timer stops and that's the end of the movie. No suspense, no final fight, no good feelings.

My rating: 4/10. One point because this one's better than "Out for a kill", one for Tom Sizemore, one for... I don't know. And one for Steven Seagall, for old times sake.

Better rent The Glimmerman or one of the other old style Seagl flicks.


Disclaimer: I like Albert Pyun's films. But "Ticker" is awful. I don't know how it could have happened. OK, I suppose I do know how it happened. It was, after all, pretty easy to spot the doubles used for the actors in over half the film, as well as the bad looping accompanying it. The opening stock footage sequence and endless shots of the bomb-disarming (or is that 'device-treating'?) robot in action didn't help the picture any either. This was a low budget effort, only it was a low budget effort made in a terrain unfamiliar to Pyun  Los Angeles. Even in a "bad" Pyun film (Omega Doom, Blast, Nemesis 4), there is that familiar Pyun style that makes the experience palatable. But in this case, if it weren't for the appearance of various Pyun players (Weisser, Malcon, Halsey, and a lunchbreak cameo by Ice-T), I would have never been able to tell that "Ticker" was directed by Pyun. There was no thought put into this one whatsoever, it seems. I'm more apt to believe what was implied on the director's commentary, that over-the-hill-and-then-some action guru Steven Seagal had more to do with the production of this movie than Pyun did. Yes, I did listen to the commentary. And if I didn't feel like an hour and a half were stolen from my life beforehand, I felt twice the impact after viewing it with the audio track. My advice to others: if you feel the masochistic desire to see the DVD, and have any interest at all in the commentary, just watch it with the commentary the first time and get it done with. You won't miss a thing from the movie, as minutes  nay, entire chapters  go by without either of the guys saying a word. I'm not sure why they even bothered with a commentary; it's fairly obvious how this movie was "made".


Despite it going straight to video, you might be thinking, "Well, it has Steven Seagal, so it at least must have a good amount of action." Think again. Seagal doesn't do anything until near the end, and his martial arts sequences are so rapidly-edited and close-up with the camera, someone with no martial arts sequences could have taken his place and had the same effect. In fact, most of the movie shows Seagal sitting down and/or shot from the chest up (probably to mask his weight gain in recent years.) He hardly does a thing! And there's hardly any other action in the rest of the movie - this is one BORING movie, and I couldn't wait for it to end.

If you do rent the DVD, you might find it interesting to hear the director/producer commentary (despite minutes on end going by without a comment). Not only did it confirm my suspicion that A LOT of stock footage was used, but that it was shot in a short time - just twelve days! Seagal was only used for six days, and Hopper did all his scenes in just one day!


i just cant imagine why anyone would release such a trash. i can only assume that the director wanted to make fun of the audience. i love steven s. and dennis hopper, but this time they have outdone themselves. especially the car-blackbox scene with hopper. unbelievable. for me one of the worst movies ever. congrats.


Tom Sizemore is the tormented cop with something to prove. Steven Seagal is the "Zen Master" (yet again) of the bomb squad. Dennis Hopper is the mad bomber who looks like he dropped straight in from filming "Speed". Jaime Pressly is the eye candy. This movie has many illogical and ridiculous gaffes that, if you bother to take 2 seconds to think about, will leave you stunned and wondering "What the *..*?" There is no rhyme or reason to this non sequitur. However, with a beer or two, a light-hearted attitude, and a few irreverent buddies to yuk it up, you could actually enjoy laughing at. I know I laughed at this movie from beginning to end, even without the beer. But trust me, you'll want the beer.


No words can describe the pain I went through watching only part of this film!!! I love Steven but this really takes the mick!! How is Dennis Hopper in it? How has his acting skills left in such a hurry? Did the director have eyes? Ears? Any of our valuable five senses? This film is a very weak attempt at a thriller, with no tension or character development we are left to wonder who are these people? There is a fight scene at some point and its awful! Badly lit so you can't really see, one by one anonymous "bad guys" approach Steven and (ofcourse) he takes them all out. I don't know how or why a film of this depressing quality was ever put out, it makes me want to cry.


When I saw the box for Ticker at at the local video store back in 2001,I was genuinely surprised.I had not seen this in theaters?Surely A seasoned actor like Tom Sizemore off great parts like In Saving Private Ryan,Black Hawk Down,and many others get the DTV treatment?

Even more eerie is Steven Seagal fresh off his return to box office glory with Exit Wounds hit DTV so soon?It was bound to happen anyway.

Throw in acting legend Dennis Hopper slumming it.How could this go DTV? Simple:its a bad movie.A 3rd-rate speed/Blown away Knock off.Sizemore and Seagal are the cop and Bombsquad master on the trail of Maddog Hopper.It seems like a normal B flick.B for boring.It starts slow and stays that way.Never rising to above mute.

Is this the same Steven we saw 6 months earlier from Exit Wounds?The Raspy voice.Sudden Weight gain.There is not even a decent fight scene in the whole movie?I did not buy the Zen style he talked up.I suspect it is not all his fault here though.

Sizemore looks bored.But can act in his sleep.He gives a little depth to his role.Fault cannot really lay with him either.

Dennis Hopper shows up as the "Irish" terrorist.He is kinda hamming it up here.He is amusing to watch.No fault here either.

Peter Greene,Ice-T,Jamie Pressly,Nas,and Hill ST blues alum Joe Spano pop up for either bits or extended cameos.The sad fact is they could have been in the movie longer.Or a better movie altogether.I cannot blame them.

Albert Pyun.The name ring a bell anyone?Nuff Said.Bad director.But even he can rise to the occasion sometimes.I think its simple: Nu Image-bad movie makers.Its their fault.

This could have been something.I suspect there was a decent movie in the script.But the finished results leave a lot to be desired.Maybe this is what drove Tom Sizemore to drugs?Seagal to even worse movies.


This film was so bad that it was worth watching just to see how bad it could get! Seemed like it was going to be alright until Nas a.k.a. Det Fuzzy Rice dies, i thought maybe he was deliberately making his acting horrendous in order to trick Steven Segals character into thinking he was about to dye, BUT then he died!!! His last words i believe were "i'm so cold, cough cough, don't let your daemons defeat you! errrrrrrrrrk!".

The "Don't let your daemons defeat you" line comes up a few times in the film but not much is done explain what these daemons are, why Steven Segal has them, or to push the fact that he is supposed to be a man suffering emotionally. It's all just mentioned in passing, so the lines just seem over-dramatic! I cant really remember what goes on in the rest of the film because the story line is muddled and i lost interest.

What saves this film is the state of the art cutting edge special effects. ha ha no not really the effects are absolutely chronic too!! I especially like the bit when the car brakes and the blue screen background stops instantly, that was a corker, look out for that bit!!

The director was terrible, the action wasn't worth remembering and the script was pants. The only reason it didn't get a 1 is because it was so bad it was comical! Think Segal should go back to big budget movies like Exit wounds and if he's getting to old or out of shape to fight as much, add a sidekick who can to his films to increase the action.


Shame shame shame. I'm convinced that Dennis hopper and Steven Segal and other actors in this so called "movie" want to forgot all about this as soon as possible!

The acting was poor .... and not a little bit as well. Dennis and Segal we're just a couple of flat actors that only try to lift this movie up with their names and not by their performance.

*spoiler (somewhat)* The movie started out nicely with a blown up house etc etc, but it really took a drastic turn down when Romany Malco tried a death scene which was ..... everything from a death scene. No blood ... not even sweat was coming out, he tried to cough a little bit but my 3yr old nephew does a better imitation cough then that!

After this "death" scene I already gave up on the movie and started to irritate myself more and more about small things that went wrong. I saw the movie till the end (god knows why) but even the end was .... flat.

Glad Segal did better movies after this one .... hence all the actors did lol.


This movie is so so so so bad! I love watching movies, and I love most steven segal movies, and I mean most as I would have said all up to I saw this movie.

This movie is rubbish

Anyway, no use going over the plot because most of you people out there want to know whether the big man has any good fights. The answer is NO! You only get a few fight scenes at the end where the camera is so close you can't see any moves other than a flash of the hands or the feet.

In fact, if you had never seen a steven segal movie before you would very much question whether he is doing any fighting in it as you couldn't tell whether it was really him fighting....oh what a sad day.

I gave this movie 1 out of 10.

btw; the dvd region 2 I saw was only pro logic just to add to the insult!


People, don't ever bother buying, renting, or even watch this movie. I was extremely stupid to buy the DVD of this movie (believe it or not, because it cost only around US$ 3). Boy oh boy, I regret it soooo much! The moviemakers of this movie was trying to make the worst work in their lives or something. Nas' acting was horrid in this movie, luckily it only lasted for few minutes. The flaws of this movie are too much to talk about. I nominate this movie as the worst movie of 2001, maybe even for the whole history of filmmaking!


An interesting cast: - Tom Sizemore - Interesting character actor Dennis Hopper - Malevolant screen genius Steven Seagal - Entertaining grim reaper with ponytail

And this is how they were cast: - Sizemore - Undercover cop, troubled alchoholic with(out) dead family. Avenging partner who looked like he had been a cop for all of two minutes, but was still able to offer cryptic life-affirming advice to Tom (who looked twice his age). Hopper - Northern Island terrorist with a part time accent. Seagal - Hint of Jamaican, with pony tail.

The film editing leaves you thinking you fell asleep during large periods of plot development (blink and you'll miss it, or sometimes they just won't show it).

The three main characters drift in and out of scenes, they start talking to each other somewhere in the middle of the film. Seagal looks tired and wants to be put out of his misery for turning up on set. Hopper is unstoppable, no amount of bad script stands between him and his pay cheque. Sizemore is steered through each scene.

I fell asleep the end and was only disturbed from my slumber by a lot of banging going on (guns or bombs, or guns and bombs).

If only Hopper had killed Sizemore and his partner at the beginning, then this film would have been a lot shorter.


i should have known this one would be below average. it had loser

written all over it.

Direct to video

steven seagal (back in pony tailed fat mode)

this was very cheap looking. Dennis Hopper was over the top (what did you expect!) c'mon tom sizemore deserves better movies than this.

:-( *1/2 out of ****


Oh my god-what a terrible movie! I always try to see the good things in movies and I never give a harsh criticism like other ppl-up until now. This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It was bad on so many levels that I don't know where to begin,so forgive me if my comment is a bit messy...

The plot was terribly weak and completely unoriginal-a madman(Hooper)bombing places(deja vu of "speed",but "speed" is 100 times better), 2 cops(one with a personal agenda-his partner was killed)trying to stop him.

The dialogue was awful,full of cliches and sometimes so stupid I couldn't bare it so I put the tv on mute. Like in the end with Seagal's "smart" words-"love is forever and forever is eternity"-or some sh*t like that,really can't remember cause couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry.

The acting was plain horrible. I saw school plays which were better acted. Took me half an hour into the movie to realize Hooper's character is Irish,cause his accent was on and off. And Seagal looked like he was bored with the whole thing,and just wanted to be paid so he could go home.

The special effects weren't special at all. A few standard explosions which I could live with,but that scene where Hooper and Pressly are driving in the car...was there anyone who didn't notice the use of a blue screen?It couldn't get more obvious than that...

So,okay-the plot,dialogue,acting,special effects-they all stink,so what about some typical Steven Seagal fighting scenes to save the day? After all,that's why we usually watch his movies,right? Well,not this time! Can you believe there were none?! Only one stupid scene where we only see Seagal's face and then a shot from the back when his double(probably)is fighting(if you can call it that)for him.Meaning,we never actually see Seagal fighting.

To sum up,this is truly an awful movie,and it was better if the money spent on making it had been donated for charity. A waste of money. Avoid.


(sigh) Another bad film from Albert Pyun... I've seen "Blast" , "Mean Guns" , "Nemesis 3" , "Crazy Six" and "Post Mortem" before "Ticker" and I have to say that all of them are bad. It's shame to see Tom Sizemore and Dennis Hopper in this junk...

The plot is awful and the budget must have been small, because the police station looks incredibly small. Well... this movie is bad and I hope that it doesn't ruin Sizemore's and Hopper's career. Steven Seagal is lame as always, but I can't decide which is worser "The Patriot" or "Ticker". I'm glad that I didn't rent this...I watched it from Satellite channel.

* star out of *****


Decent enough cast squandered by stupid plot, inept script, direction, editing.

Dont expect any martial arts action either, the only fights are so badly cut and lit that anyone could have done them.

Best moment: realising that Dennis Hopper's character is actually supposed to be Irish.

Worst moment: realising that it isn't going to get any better than the opening scene.


Well, I have myself to blame. I should have read about the movie and should NOT have rented it. But I did. :-(

I like Steven Seagal. He is usually in entertaining movies with very good fight scenes. Be advised ! This is no ordinary Seagal movie. The little fighting he does is in the end of the movie and it is so bad that you wonder if he has gained so much weight that he can't move anymore.

Well. What more can you say: This is a REALLY bad movie. The copy I rented had DTS sound. For what ? So that the explosions can sound good ? The other parts of the movie has really bad sound.

SPOILERS: And the clock. What about it ? Was it some kind of trigger or what ? Not to mention the car that explodes without the ground even turning black. And ... ... Well actually there were so many bad things in this movie I could go on and on and on ...


This is a bad bad MOVIE. If you plan on watching a good action flick watch anything other than this, yes I said anything, comedies have better action. There is one good side to this movie however and that is it can be used in video classes at universities to show an example of what not to do when making a movie of any kind, for example, don't even make a movie that is so boring people can tell by looking at the actors faces.2 : spend the extra money and get a wardrobe so the actors can change clothes 3: don't use archive footage and if you absolutely must use archive footage don't get footage that doesn't make sense, like a single car exploding next to a body of water doesn't make sense when matched with an explosion or accident of two cars in a land locked area. These are some of the many examples of things that go wrong in this movie (did anyone else see the amazing jerky blue-screen?). So once again I would like to commend the director and editor on making a great instructional video on what not to do when making a movie.


Ticker has so much wrong with it, I am at a loss at where to begin. Really, this film has it all: bad acting, everyone from extras to lead actors seems to be in a daze as they offer up their lines. Bad accents, even Dennis Hopper's. It comes and goes as if half of the movie was filmed before they decided that his character should have an Irish (?) accent. Poor production, including but not limited to, sacrificial police vehicles, at least a decade and a half old and dressed up just enough to appear as a working car before being blown up. Several rent-a-helicopters that don't even get a generic "Police Department" sticker slapped on the side. Or, how about a hand grenade that, when detonated, erupts as a fireball instead of a shower of fragmented metal. My personal favorite though, is the late model BMW convertible that, just before exploding, turns into a not so late model BMW 4-door sedan. Also, are we really expected to believe that after so many police officers and civilians have been killed, and so many buildings in the city have been blown up, that the only person making any decisions as to how the whole situation is handled, is Joe Spano's beleaguered captain. I ended up giving this film a "2" for two reasons. The first being that after a while, it was almost entertaining watching for the next goof. Secondly, I gave it a "2" because, no matter how unlikely it seems, there is probably at least one movie that is worse, and I'll need to have the "1" available for that.


Why did i bother to even watch the film? God works in mysterious ways. DO NOT watch this movie unless the TV is already on showing the film and you 're tied tight in a chair with your eyes open and the tv control hidden and you suffer heavily from insomnia. If you do so otherwise you have no excuse.


Almost no martial arts and what there was, appeared to be simulated by camera. All the fight scenes took place in the dark making it difficult to see the action and the camera angles suggested that someone else was doing Mr. Seagal's fighting for him. Why would one view a Steven Seagal movie other than for the martial arts? In this film, it sure wasn't for plot, special effects, or acting. All of the tension was derived from digital timers. I'd pass on this one.


It is the worst movie that I saw in the last years! Disgusting! After Exit Wounds - in my opinion the best in Steven Seagals's career - it is not acceptable. In fact, the movie is a big joke, but with bad humor!


I remember when I first heard about this movie; Seagal, Hopper, and Sizemore in a movie together; it sounded like a fantastic movie! I mean with good actors like that, how could you possibly screw up such a movie?

Albert Pyun knows the way.

The way this film is put together, it feels like a reject from film school shot and edited this piece. Hmmm, how many times does Seagal walk down the same hall? Or drive up in his pickup truck? Why are half of his lines spoken when he's off camera? What's up with the sound editing when Sizemore is interrogating Pressly? Pyun even managed to screw up the action sequences. Seagal doesn't throw a punch until near the end of this movie, and when he does get some action, the camera is so close in on him, you don't really see the moves.

Save yourself the rental fee. If you want to see a decent Seagal action flick, your money is better spent on Exit Wounds.


I decided to watch a good movie with some figths and action. so i took ticker because the casts sounds good. the result was very funny. i didnt realize why the police detect the terrorist. why the captain of one police department have to catch a terrorist ? isnt it a job for the fbi. the storyline was confusion, the scences where mixed up very bad and i thougth there where some explosions of some other movies in there.

dont waste your money !


The good points - beautiful scenery, and some viewers might appreciate the insight into mountain climbing in the 1930's.

Bad points - the flashbacks are tedious, the ending obvious (to this viewer anyway)and - apart from Connery, who plays himself, as always - the acting uninvolving. And personally I don't care much about mountaineering in the 1930's, and this film didn't do anything to quicken my interest.

There are some surprises, but I feel the movie really lacks from characters whom one can care about: in particular Betsy Brantley, who plays Kate, seems desperately out of her depth here.

I found it to be pretentious and glacially slow. I'd rather have that ninety minutes of my life back.


It is ironic that director Fred Zinnemann once directed High Noon, arguably the most perfectly-paced film ever made. For with Five Days One Summer, 74 year old Zinnemann has made a film in which the pacing is so interminable that many viewers will surely lose patience and find themselves reaching for the "OFF" switch.

 Middle-aged married doctor Douglas (Sean Connery) arrives in 1930s Switzerland with his niece/mistress for an alpine climbing holiday. Seems that Dr. Douglas has been having an affair with his niece Kate (Betsy Brantley) for some time, but the pair of them can never openly reveal their relationship as it would cast shame on the family. Douglas begins to realise that there is no future in the relationship, but he selfishly tries to cling onto his young lover regardless. Complications arise when handsome young mountain guide Johann (Lambert Wilson) appears on the scene, and Kate is immediately smitten....

 Five Days One Summer is very nice to look at (full marks to cinematographer Giuseppe Rotunno) and Sean Connery gives one of the most multi-layered performances of his career in a very complex role. But the film's good points end there. Betsy Brantley is completely underwhelming as Kate - perhaps intimidated by Connery's performance, or perhaps not quite up to the demands of so challenging a role. But it's the pace, as mentioned, that really kills the film. You'll look long and hard for a film as slow-moving and utterly dull as this one.


I actually rented this for my cousin, who's a huge fan of the American Girl line. Having thoroughly loved "Samantha", "Felicity" and to some degree "Molly" it was with great anticipation that we all sat down to enjoy "Kit". About twenty minutes in I saw some rolling eyes and yawns. It's not that this movie was bad, but for a theatrical release it's rather pallid. There isn't a lot of movement and the story isn't all that interesting. It feels rather like Saturday morning cartoons to me. I'm not the target audience here, but my cousin and her friends are, they were rather bored. Sorry to say.

Abigail Breslin did a splendid job at Kit, no complaints there, she was charming, smart and strong. The supporting players were good, though the always terrific Jane Krakowski didn't get enough to do, her amorous dancer deserved more screen time. Kit's friends were okay, a bit generic. This seemed cut from the same cloth as the misbegotten "Nancy Drew" with Emma Roberts. No fault of Emma, but that movie, though having an excellent story, suffered from a poor approach that turned a plucky heroine into an nerd! Kit's no nerd, but she's stuck in a nerds movie.

This was a real shame because the American Girl series provides young women with good role models and strong moral messages. That doesn't mean the movie had to be so dull!! Originally "Kristen" was set for the big screen and perhaps her pioneer story would have played better. "Kit" is just not that memorable.


Kit Kittredge is a 10 year old aspiring journalist who lives in an upper middle-class suburb of Cincinnati in 1934. Through a family connection, she boldly calls upon the publisher of a major Cincinnati newspaper and asks him to publish an article she's written. Somehow I was thinking that it might have been more interesting if the plot had gone in a different direction from the beginning. Instead of being turned down and not getting her article published until the movie is just about over (and that's the way the plot actually plays out), it might have been more interesting if somehow Kit enlists an adult to get herself published and then her articles become a sensation. Kit becomes a young "Cyrano" with her adult friend (perhaps the 19 year old gopher who Kit was put in contact with by her brother at the beginning of the film) attempts to keep the ruse going, with the publisher and the co-workers at the newspaper in the dark until the film's climax. In my 'alternative' scenario, Kit is found out at the end and 'exposed'; she falls from grace but is redeemed after her final article exposes a team of con men who have been preying upon the good members of the community.

As it turns out, The Kittredge 'First Act' is replete with politically correct, anachronistic ideas. The 'hobos' are nothing more than a stand-in for today's immigrants while the kids whose families are lucky enough to escape the ravages of the Depression, mouth platitudes in school about the hobos not working and getting "government handouts". The rich kids are equated with the conservative, right-wing Republicans of today.

The film's second act begins when Kit's father loses his car dealership (it's interesting that he was still able to have a thriving business as late as 1934!). The father decides to pack his bags and go to Chicago to find new employment. Kit's mother is forced to take in boarders much to Kit's chagrin. Here's where the film really starts dragging. Instead of introducing the antagonist, the plot focuses on introducing us to the collection of oddball characters who inhabit the boarding house. The machinations of these characters are supposed to be amusing but they are merely foolish (there are one too many scenes with Miss Bond, the mobile librarian, crashing her truck in the front yard along with the undeveloped character Miss Dooley who happens to be a dancer of sorts). Then there's Mr. Berk, played by Stanley Tucci, who wows the kids with his magic tricks (another scene that did not have to go on as long as it did).

In addition to the boarders, Kit meets two Hobo children, Will and Countee and decides to investigate the Hobo 'way of life'. Implausibly, Kit's mother allows her to go to a hobo camp to do some 'research' for one of her articles, but wouldn't you know it the hobos are a bunch of wonderful people (despite police reports of many robberies committed by various members of their group). Much too late in the story, the Hobo children are accused of stealing all the boarders' valuables which Kit's mother had placed in what she believed to be a 'safe place'.

By Act III, we've finally discovered that Mr. Berk, the magician, his associate and Miss Bond are a bunch of con artists who have been victimizing poor boarding house denizens all over the city. Since they are a bunch of clumsy fools (buffoons), Kit easily figures out (with the assistance of her young buddies) that they're the one's who framed poor Will; he's soon exonerated and the police now arrest the magician and his buddy after they are exposed by Kit and company.

The denouement is unsatisfying as well. Kit's father returns from Chicago and inexplicably hasn't been able to find one job there. So he reassures Kit that he intends to remain in Cincinnati (despite the fact that there is still no work for him there). Finally, the newspaper publisher arrives and announces that he's published Kit's first article. Instead of becoming an exciting muckraker from the beginning, Kit's new found fame comes a little too late in the storyline.

Unfortunately, little Abigail Breslin is once again used by adults for nefarious purposes. In the insufferable "Little Miss Sunshine", she ends up dancing in a sexually suggestive way at the end of the movie (it's supposed to be "cute" but in reality is a cynical attempt by the films' scenarists to promote an elitist agendamodern day beatniks trumping beauty pageant snobs). Here little Abigail is also used to promote another modern-day form of elitism: the victims of today's economic woes get their shots in at today's fat cats (no doubt Corporate Executive types who get big bonuses). At least here the 'anything goes' philosophy of 'Little Miss Sunshine' is no longer operative but little Abigail once again comes off as overly pushy and aggressive(and certainly not 'cute').

In the end, 'Kittredge' patronizes both adults and children alike. The film's scenarists were afraid to expose children to a dose of reality. The Depression here is reduced to a Hallmark Greeting Card with villains who are buffoons and heroes who can do no wrong. What it needed to be was another 'Wizard of Oz' with a wicked witch antagonist who is actually scary and evil and protagonists (such as Dorothy and her buddies) who have real-life, honest-to-goodness, human foibles.


You can't help but think about how disastrous the current situation in Hollywood is when the umpteenth representative of the infamous category "cliché ridden, sugar coated American cute movies" arrives, and you've got to go see it because your niece is crying about itsince the first announcement. I didn't think Kitt Kittredge: An American Girl could've been an exception to the rule, but I was hoping it kind of would because I thought the atypical scenario, different era and diverse cast could have delivered a rather unique movie. It didn't happen, sadly. Kitt Kittredge is about a little girl in Cincinnati trying to become a great journalist during the Depression, while her parents and the US are struggling to get out of the tragic events that were occurring at that time. Is this movie bad? In short, yes. It's got a talented cast, but their lines and performances are mediocre at best. You can't blame the actors for everything that's wrong in this movie, anyway, because the script certainly didn't help. A really big number of clichés already seen in a thousands other movies, ridiculous gags that make you smile for how bad they are, characterizations that are so stereotyped and dull you won't believe it. This movie pushes itself even further, though, when it kicks the cheap cry pedal. There are a lot of scenes in which you're supposed to cry, but delivery is so phoned and trite you're left wondering how could anyone more than six years old would fall into these cheap Hollywood tricks in which they make you automatically cry via a mix of pompous music, ruffian camera angles and redundant lines. This is how Hollywood typically does it, but it doesn't work here. I'll keep it short: if you want to teach your sons about how the Depression was, read 'em a book, even the American Doll ones will do. Do not waste your time with this really, really cheap product which might very well be the biggest cliché fest Hollywood had produced in years. Avoid it.


Theodore Tugboat is a show based on a bunch of tugboats that work in a harbor. I don't know about you, but that never seemed to entertain me for a half hour (then again, when you have no cable and you live off of video tapes as a little kid in the 90s, what can you do?) and really, i have no idea what it was doing on CBC for 7 years.

OK, the Episode starts out with the harbor master, usually doing something and running into a problem. he then tells a story, hoping to solve his problem, and at the end of the episode, always solves his problem.

His stories are all about the tugboats having their own problems and solving them. but the problems are so simple, it's pretty lame to say the least. on one episode, Theodore's engine screwed up and he could only go backwards, until he went to go get fixed. parallel to the problem, the harbor master cut himself while playing the tuba (how can you cut yourself playing a tuba?) and the solution? a band-aid. how many kids who are 3 know that they can go get a band-aid if they're cut? probably 19 out of 20 kids know that. aside from that, the theme song was also quickly slapped together, many of the lyrics were much like many children's shows, not rhyming, but sugar-coated and sweet.

Even if you are a kid, this show will get boring within a few minutes. it's not on anymore that i know of, so you shouldn't have to worry about it.


There is only one good thing about this "Dorian Gray": Helmut Berger's ideal casting in the title role. Impossibly handsome, he is credible both in his innocence (early on) and his corruption (later on). That is the only thing this movie does right, however; nothing else. The choppy continuity (Dorian falls in love in the first three minutes...he "changes" after twenty minutes...and so on) renders the story shallow and meaningless. The film obviously wants to "suggest" a lot (including belt-whippings, lesbianism and oral sex), but is so tame and timid in doing it that it could possibly get by with a "PG" rating today. By the time Berger drops the soap in his shower and a straight-faced Herbert Lom picks it up, the whole thing has become a farce. I haven't seen the more famous 1945 version, but it has GOT to be better than this one! (*1/2)


Oscar Wilde's classic is updated to the 1970s with disastrous results. Dorian Gray (Helmut Berger) has his picture painted and, through some circumstances, finds his portrait aging while he stays young and beautiful. It leads him into a decadent life style which is basically sleeping around with any woman he can find. As the years go by his immoral behavior continues while his portrait horribly ages.

Caught this on video years ago. Why they tried to turn out a virtually porno version of Wilde's story I'll never know. It's badly directed with stilted dialogue. Berger is very handsome but kind of a blank--he says all his lines in a monotone. I can't totally blame him--English isn't his first language. Herbert Lom (obviously desperate for work) plays a gay man who lusts after Dorian. Lom said in an interview many years ago that he never saw the movie after reading the reviews when it came out. Marie Lijedahl as Sylvia isn't half bad and spends a considerable amount of time nude.

All in all, this is a movie made for guys who want to look at nude women. For some reason Berger is never shown fully nude. In one particularly awkward shot he is naked but his hands are covering his best parts. If you want a good adaptation of Wilde's tale stick to the 1940s version--avoid this.

I give it a 2 only for Berger--visually he was a good choice for the role.


I used to watch this show at my grandma and grandpa's house when I was a child. I used to believe it was "real" but when I was older I realized it was not. It tackled some controversial topics, however, and I would like to view some of these episodes again. Here are the episodes I can remember.

* An episode that dealt with two boys who had played blood brothers and one had HIV/AIDS.

* An episode where a young man took the courtroom hostage and the judge talked him down explaining that he knew what it felt like to be shot, in a war I believe. If memory serves, the young man turned the gun on himself, but never went through with the act.

* An episode involving a child supposedly bearing the mark of the beast.

I am sorry I can not remember more.

If you happen to come across this small gem, check it out. It's not top notch by any standards, but the topics discussed were pretty deep, especially for 1980's daytime TV. Peace.


A very run-of-the-mill picture but not without charm. An odd-couple movie with the concept twist of high office this film sits somewhere in the orbit of Driving Miss Daisy and The Bodyguard. Nicholas Cage's Doug Chesnic is aghast to discover that his stint of personal duty towards the former first Lady is being extended indefinitely. Shirley Maclaine can see that this is a thin idea and really works the slow-burn heart of the film only softening her stubborn, lonely widower by increments. There is no attempt made to really work the issue of duty vs individual need - of statutory vs sentimental guardianship - but the film makes its point elegantly enough. 4/10


It seemed like a surefire idea for a comedic star-vehicle: Shirley MacLaine as an infuriatingly stubborn former First Lady whose love-hate relationship with Secret Service Agent Nicolas Cage is tested when she's apparently kidnapped. Director High Wilson, who also co-wrote the screenplay, doesn't just have a sitcom sense of priorities--he formulates each scene into a situation as well ("The golfing scene", "The supermarket scene", etc.). Until tragedy brings everyone together, the characters are fairly exasperating--and, since the characters also function as gags, the "comedy" is rather mean-spirited. MacLaine probably felt a little persnickety jabbering would goose the proceedings, yet there's far too much bickering back and forth between she and Cage, and both fall back on their proved shtick (MacLaine certainly on her Aurora Greenway from "Terms of Endearment"). Wilson has a tough time getting this one started, and it does manage to improve after a strenuous first half-hour, but the film's underlying emotion is just as fraudulent as the witticisms. *1/2 from ****


I am more than disappointed with this movie to say the least. I remember being first in line at my local movie theater at the opening day for this one. After months of previews the day had finally arrived. My anticipation level was even higher than for The Crying Game 2 (which still has yet to be produced). So I get my box of raisinettes (which are wonderful mixed with popcorn I must say. I know its a strange combination, but it really works. Whats strange is that I have tried this at home and its never as good. I think it must be the "butter flavored topping" that only a movie theater can provide. Im sorry Orville, but you have a ways to go. I was thinking of possibly purchasing my own popcorn popping machine, just as they have at my local movie theater, but I cannot afford that at this time. I was saving up money to spend on this online auction of Pauly Shore memorabilia. The flip-flops he wore in Encino Man are up to $476! wow! Maybe next year.) and I sit down in the theater. 2 hours later I walk out very disappointed. There were no love scenes what so ever! The trailers were totally alluding to 9 1/2 Weeks type sex scenes with the two stars. Instead it turned out to be this hokey comedy. To be honest, I was expecting full frontal nudity and everything. If I wanted to see a comedy, I would have gone to see Too Wong Fu or something.

So yeah. Don't watch this pile of dung!


I am still uncertain about how I feel about this movie. It is pretty good, except that watching it sometimes gets very annoying. Some of the dialogues aren't as much funny as painful to watch. I feel for Cage's character while wishing the movie would just end. So, after watching it all the way through once, I have decided not to watch it more than 5 times. I have time to spend on other movies than one that just is annoying to watch.


Interesting premises for a screwball comedy based around the nagging wants of a former First Lady and her relationship with the tired and frustrated Secret Service man. The performances by the two leads are perfect and certain situations are clever. But the third act ends on a ridiculous serious note that killed the film as a whole. And the music is way over the top.


I just got a copy of this one and popped it int the DVD player. I right away got the definite impression that I might very well be watching a deliberate comedy, a definite send-up of scifi from the fifties. (But then it couldn't be, since it was made in 1953 and precedes most of the films I would think it satirizes by several years.) The movie is relentless in the number of stereotypical, one dimensional characters it introduces (and usually disposes of just as quickly), as well as the amount of pseudo-scientific technobabble its chief characters spout at every turn. The scientific howlers come fast and furious - example; radioactivity and magnetism have virtually nothing to do with each other but this movie insists on linking them in a very ham-fisted and unsophisticated way. Then there's the matter of the radiation measuring devices they wave around reading the rather trivial level of only about 2 mr/hr or less (it plainly says so in the on-screen close up) while the scientists act as if this were a deadly amount. I admit initially I thought the movie bore a distinct resemblance to an episode of the original "Outer Limits" (where a high energy physics experiment goes awry and spews out living radioactive material) and might have been inspiration for the later TV show. Especially since that OL episode also has the same level of scientific misinformation and technobabble. But that impression wore off quickly and I was left just wondering why I was yet again subjecting myself to a flat, breathless Richard Carlson performance. In the end, my problem is not so much this unremarkable movie (it varies little from several other movies of the 40s and 50s about the dangers of radioactivity) but about where the people who reviewed this movie as "scientifically accurate" are getting their information. Granted, scifi usually has to take some liberties with known scientific fact but there is a difference between dramatic license and just talking sheer rubbish.


To repeat, Someone got a hold of many of the special effect earthquake sequences from the film "Dantes PeaK" and splotched them into this overly long, odd, hybrid Three Mile Island/ Chernobyle rip off disaster movie. Not only are the sequences of freeway collapses and car crashes from "Peak", but many of the disintegrating brick and plaster buildings shown cracking and crashing about sure look like buildings from the town of Dantes Peak used in the film "Peak". I thought is mighty odd, but using my DVD unit to view these scenes frame by frame, one reads English on the signs plunging into the street, not Russian as they should, because this film is supposed to be set in a Russian government town in Siberia! At the end of this film the credits don't clarify anything. The film is Canadian made, and some of the shots of the Russian town looked to be filmed say, in Romania or maybe Poland. Somewhere in the old Soviet Union at least due to the Stalinist buildings and foreign auto plates. This film might have rated higher, say a 5 or a 6, if it had not been at and least 30 minutes shorter. Much can be said for brevity with a hackneyed plot line like this. You see, a new nuclear plant is ready to go online in Russia's Siberia ...... 100% power up. Gee, there is a large earth tremor....An American scientist is in charge of bringing the plant up to capacity.The scientist is a woman, with her two teenage kids in a school for foreign English speaking teenagers in the Company town in Siberia run by the Russians with American know how and technology. The Companies scientific headquarters are back in the states. The man who built this particular reactor is called upon to investigate cost overruns and is sent to the Russian town Oh I didn't tell you that the female American scientist and the guy who designed the reactor were separated and close to divorce? Gee there is another earth tremor..... Once disaster strikes this American family in Russia bad things start to happen. The mom and dad are both nuclear engineers or programmers or physicists, or some such. The high school kids are classic, The boy, a school cut up around 17, wants a motor bike and the girl, 15 and a goth, just wants away from her mom and her American School. GEE there is a BIG earthquake and the reactor looks like it is going into the China Syndrome and it's a race to unite the family and stop a nuclear disaster unparalleled in history. YAWN, YAWN AGAIN. It takes soooooo long for this to happen, you don't care about anything except, is this thing ever going to end? Pretty boring and what's with the jacked scenes from Dantes Peak?

Not recommended


I was surprised to note that the film was released in 2004; it has a very "1960's" European feel in look and soundtrack. None of the supposedly US characters looks or sounds American; the hairstyles and clothes, again, are very retro and much of the dialog appears to have been looped--without the appropriate background noise! None of this would matter if the conflicts or characters were involving--but the action is very formulaic and the acting poor.It certainly is difficult to come up with new approaches to disaster-type scenarios on limited budgets, but "China Syndrome" and countless earthquake films have already been done. As the Bible--and Spielberg in his Oscar acceptance speech--said: "In the beginning was the word..." With or without a significant budget, there first needs to be decent script, and this one just doesn't work. If the creators of Mystery Theater 3000 were still doing their magic, this film would be a perfect candidate for parody.


I've come to expect sub-par sci-fi made for TV movies, but this is one of the worst acted flicks with stolen scenes from another disaster movie. While watching the earthquake destruction I noticed very familiar scenes of buildings collapsing and freeway ramps breaking apart. The footage is straight out of Dante's Peak! The horrific acting on everyone's part is annoying and keeps you from being able to get into the story without looking at the clock every few minutes. The fake Russian accents make it sound like everyone is developmentally disabled, not Russian. The children of the lead characters not only have different accents than their parents, but different from one another. It ends up being the age old story of the husband who did the family wrong and wins back the heart of the ex-wife by saving the children and restoring her trust and love. I know...original, huh? I want my last 2 hours back!


for me,this is easily the worst disaster movie i have watched to date.i didn't find it compelling at all,and the special effects were not believable.the movie was not exciting.usually,acting is not a big concern in these types of movies.however,in this movie the acting was the worst i have seen so far in the genre.i nearly quit watching before the end,but i decided to give it a chance.regrettably,it did not improve and i lost close to 90 minutes of my life.in my personal opinion,i would avoid this movie,as it is painfully tedious.i also felt embarrassed for the actors at times.the movie was directed by Tibor Takaks,who also directed,"The Gate" another movie i hated.he has directed other things since"The Gate",but i haven't seen any of them.anyway,I'd have to give "Nature Unleashed:Earthquake a dismal 1* star.


Ho-Dee-Ho, what should I have expected? I bought this TV drama on DVD for under 5 dollars so could I be disappointed, really? No, I wasn't and I'm afraid the standard low brow for midget minds situational disaster flick formula is in force here.

A family with teenage kids. The daughter looks like a slut, but so what? An improbable situation, a divorced American family in Russia, where Dad is an engineer, but his wife appears to have most of the smarts.

What can be said formula take over. Family divorced, and kids think Mom was a douche bag for divorcing Pop. We never learn why they were divorced or why the kids and ex are in Russia to begin with.

No matter an earthquake strikes where golly, you would think, the Russians would think maybe it wouldn't. Dumb Russies.

The rest is pablum for a 90 minute occasional glance at the screen to be sure your movie smeller didn't predict way ahead how it would end.

The brave young and arrogant 17 year old heart throb, the Artie- terribly trashy looking daughter, the very smart Mom who immediately sees a circuit board needs resistors bypassed with her cast off wedding ring.

Oh, well, you'll find this flick plays well and probably isn't a total disaster if you buy the DVD for under 3 dollars. I want a partial refund on what I paid.


I understand how much competition holds back the development of youths, I'm a teacher. But good intentions do not encourage learning and hope does not create understanding. Participation, motivation and being truthful with children does(and lots and lots of planning). The kids that watch this take the lesson that you can fall behind, not read, not participate and a miracle will happen. You will be able to pull reason, information and remember content from when you were drawing in class, on the day of the test from your heart, your courage and a magic hidden talent you possess deep inside you. What fools all the teachers who stay up until 1am(and up at 5am) planning for cooperative groups that encompasses multiple learning abilities in children to draw their interest in American literature and encourage them to work hard, have fun and be confident young people. You want a good sports movie moms - watch Little Big League, that's cute, and honest about the importance of fundamentals.


Oh, man - are we done with these kind of stories? I hope so. I am so tired of seeing the ragtag uncoordinated unorganized undersized, blah blah blah kids beat the super- organized, arrogant talented rich kids (or something similar.) This has been done so many times with so many of the same clichés, it make you want to puke.

As for the "family" tag, tell me why you always have to have profanity thrown in as if a "G" rating is the worst thing possible? (It isn't. I wonder if Hollywood will ever learn that?)

Rejects beating the established stars. That's what you have here....again. It's like a bunch of players who were cut from the NFL suddenly getting together and beating the New England Patriots! Come on!

Oh, yes, the coach is always led by a nerdy guy, too. At least it was good casting. Who better for nerd looks than Rick Moranis and who better for the obnoxious bad-guy coach than Ed O'Neil? Since movie-makers are always PC, they have to throw in a girl, too, who "kicks butt." Did I forget the fat kid who always farts, the smart kids who carry around computers, look geeky and have their noses running all the time, kids who always get hit in the groin, etc. etc. Enough, already! It's the same baloney, over and over, every movie!

It's movies like this that give "kids' sports movies" a bad name.


This is one of the more propagandistic things you'll ever see - and within moments you can rat out the way the characters, situations will go - if the character/situation is self-pitying, libertine, atheist, self-absorbed, licentious - he/she is loved. If disciplined, restrained, religious, frankly patriotic or traditional, he's hated.

It's a simple by the numbers job.

Thus, although some here have written of this revealing how the war changed people's morality, this is false. We see before the War ever begins, that we're watching as rotten a group as one can imagine - deeply self-pitying and selfish people - women without any kind of femininity ("sure, I'll have sex with you whenever you like once I've married a rich man"), men without any kind of masculinity ("sure, I raped as many women as often as I could - committed war atrocities, sure, the lot - it was WAR and I know war and you don't" (and I can't stop talking about it because I'm as self-pitying a human as you'll ever ever meet! Why, I saw men die!")).

I hated these characters - really loathed them right down to the ground.

This was a grave disappointment because I have really liked so many of the actors in other things - from Nicholas LePrevost to Jennifer Ehle, from Rosemary Harris to Toby Stephens, from Paul Eddington to Felicity Kendall to Richard Johnson. Perhaps the book is better - but I doubt it. It's the characters and story that I found despicable.


After reading the rave reviews on this site I bought this DVD. I love British (period) drama, and many favourite actors and actresses were in these mini-series (Jennifer Ehle, Paul Eddington, Toby Stephens...). What can I say? It's absolutely awful. There isn't anything redeeming about it: the plot is ridiculous and boring, the script is embarrassing and all seem to be giving the worst performances of their lives. As mentioned by others, there are lots of delicate issues like adultery etc. and usually I'm fine with it, but in these mini-series all incidents are just uninteresting and ridiculous. For the first time, I gave a 1 out of 10 rating to British mini-series. I'm not even watching the second DVD. P.S.: By the way, I was particularly disappointed with Jennifer Ehle, who I have loved in each and every role (Pride and Prejudice, Possession, Paradise Road).


Plot sounded entertaining but the cast simply could not pull off a potentially entertaining script. If Kathy Long and Brian Bosworth ever appear together, that film possibly could rate worse that this C film! Terrible waste of time.


... that this piece of jiggle/ghost/biker/martial arts exploitation is primarily an uncredited remake of "Once Upon a Time in the West", with a little "High Plaions Drifter" thrown in for good measure.

The soundtrack even quotes Morricine's "Once Upon.." soundtrack.

Proving, once again, that it's not so much the material as the idiot (or genius) who films it.

I caught the last fifteen minutes on satellite some time ago, thought it seemed familiar, and managed to catch the last complete run on that cycle, and sure enough, it was.

If it wasn't so darned expensive -- it was intended for the rental market, not the consumer "seel through" market -- i'd buy a copy just to show to people who would be able to appreciate the sheer effrontery of the people who made this travesty.

And the thought Caesar had gall.


The storyline of this movie goes that a small town in the American southwest is ruled by a evil biker gang that has already killed the sheriff's finance and has pretty much made him unwilling to take on the gang himself.

Enter Soccer Mommy on a her motorcycle and also carrying a whip.She comes in and beats up all those mean biker dudes all by herself beating them up with no trouble at all.The movie suffers from the four p's,it is predictable, preposterous,phoney,and putrid.

The star,Kathy Long,is no beauty to look at.She seems like many of these female martial arts B-movie types who do movies like these,they look beat up and have next to no sex appeal to them.Not to mention her lack of acting skills which need no mentioning anyway.

The women of this film are made to be the heroes here,the star,the murdered finance of the sheriff(She was going to give the FBI pictures of the bikers doing their crimes but was killed before she could do it.),while the men of the film are made to be the villians of the film,the cowardly sheriff,the bikers.Hollywood liberal politics at work again.

Made for feminists and girly male types,who like to see men beaten up by a woman for the sake of it,The Stranger is an action film loaded with violence, short on common sense,and hardly entertaining.High Plains Drifter it is not.Leonard Part 7 it is.


It's very lucky that this film has such a cool 'Battletruck' or else it wouldn't be worth much at all. As it is, it's not a good movie, and yet it's not bad enough to moan and groan over - moan and groan in either a laughable or a bored way.

Within the first few minutes 'Warlords of the 21st Century' (isn't Battletruck the better choice?) it's unavoidable to make comparisons to one of the greatest films ever 'Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior.' After all, both films take place in a post apocalyptic future where gasoline is a precious commodity; both have a giant Semi truck hauling around the Land Down Under; and both have a quiet, mysterious hero to fight for the people in danger! Battletruck isn't enough of a Mad Max clone to draw comparisons throughout the whole movie but the film doesn't have enough ingenuity to stand on it's own. Virtually every element of the film has been played out before.

So what's left to do? I was hoping for some good action; the back of the VHS box states that there is a 'terrifying chase' at the climax. And while the film does end on a high note with a little bloodshed and an impressive slow-mo explosive of the Battletruck, there is little else to cheer about. In the first hour of the 91 minutes, a few people get shot, there's a few explosions, a weak chase scene and, you bet, some Battletruck destruction! Mostly though, we get a bunch of aerial shots of bikes/cars/Battletruck driving through the wasteland. Hooray.

My pleasure stems from watching the hero, Hunter (played by Michael Beck of 'The Warriors' deliver the monotone one-liners while still having the physical charisma to run, dive, punch, kick, and shoot. 'The Warriors' is one of my favorite films, so for me shouting out "no Swan!" to the screen gives me some giddy joy - most other viewers may not get the same joy.

James Wainwright, as the villain Stryker out to rule the world and collect fuel, is good although he could do this role in his sleep. And the rest of the cast is decent - even the beautiful girl of the story isn't awful, she's just so-so. So it's a bit of a relief/surprise that the acting is as good as it is for such a ho-hum film.

But the real star is of course Battletruck.


...but there's no hope for the QUEST OF THE DELTA KNIGHTS. Ever wandered into a renaissance fair? Ever HEARD of a renaissance fair? Good, you're qualified to be a historical consultant when the sequel comes around. Seriously, folks, it's jaw-dropping misfire after misfire, as Lord David Warner chases David Warner the Taupe with an army of vikings, ay-rabs, pirates, and various castle types who thankfully have very short attention spans, because they never chase Warner and his ward for very long... or maybe Warner lost 'em at the inn/whorehouse. Aside from the prostitutes and a scene with urine-tossing though, QUEST is inoffensive enough, and manages to cram more idiocy into its approx. 90 minutes than most 2 hour Blockbusters. Plus, after a while the quantum-fractured wasteland this film takes place in starts to grow on you... a giant hand shaped rock made sense after the tree village (elevation: 3 feet) of cretins, the goon squad dressed as vaguely menacing knights, and the endless rolling hillocks and groves that made it undoubtedly clear that this movie takes place in...Europe... somewhere... or other. It's flashing bouncing stoopid entertainment and I wish the people who made it better luck with their future endeavors. Or more talent. The title was cool.

Huh huh... wizard wizz.


After 15 minutes of the film, I thought this was gonan be the most horrible POS i'd ever have to watch, I was even tempted to turn off the VCR, but seeing as how I paid a whopping 4 bux to rent it, I decided to watch it anyways. however, after an hour, the plot became so garbled and stupid, I just began to laugh out loud at all the cliches and poor acting and towards the end I could pretty much guess ahead of time what they were gonna say. Later however, I was watching sci fi channel and Mystery Science Theatre had decided to prod fun at it as well, so in conclusion, it's.....well bad yet funny. -Remorse P.S. Cthuhlu Fategn


GASP! at the amazing bad acting. FLINCH! at the horrible in-jokiness of it all (Leonard from the village of Vinci?!?). Yes, it's Sword & Sorcery as you never wanted to see it. It's probably Warner's worst movie (beating out Naked Souls), and possibly his worse performance, but he's just not given much to work with here. Sarah Douglas is suitably evil (can't go wrong there), but even she seems overwhelmed by the sheer hokiness of it all. The rest of the cast seems to be out-of-work SCA members. There's just nothing, nothing good about this.


Plot (and I'll keep this brief  no point in dragging it out): Quest of the Delta Knights is the story of a boy, sold into slavery, who becomes the leader of a revolutionary group out to stop the evil Lord Vultare from discovering Archimedes lost storehouse and the knowledge it contains. This knowledge includes a weapon of unlimited power.

My plot description almost makes Quest of the Delta Knights sound good. Unfortunately, Quest of the Delta Knights is one big old dog of a movie. Nothing in the movie makes sense. It's a mish-mash of ideas and characters that don't go together. Imageine every sort of pre-16th Century character you can think of and you're bound to find them fighting and living beside each other in this movie. Viking, knights, Italian scholars  it doesn't matter. Also, I've seen this movie several times and I'm not quite sure where it's supposed to be set. Someone mentions England, but there are Viking roaming around. With Leonardo Di Vinci as a character, you might think Italy. Again, how do you explain the Vikings? How about Atlantis? It's anyone's guess. And because the whole thing looks like its straight out a Renaissance festival, maybe the setting is supposed to be California? Makes as much sense as anything else you'll find in the movie. This is just one small example of the numerous inconsistencies and annoyances you'll find in Quest of the Delta Knights. Believe me, there are plenty more.

Watching Quest of the Delta Knights, I decided that some people will do just about anything if the price is right. Apparently the producers of this turkey offered David Warner enough money that he was willing to embarrass himself by taking on not one, but two roles. How much money does it take for an actor to agree to star in something like this? Many watchers would also recognize Richard Kind in the role of wise man/Magi Wamthool. But the casting of Kind has to be one of the most puzzling in movie history. I realize they were going for comic relief but they failed miserably. Kind may even have embarrassed himself more than Warner in his mercifully brief performance.

I could go on and on, but really there's no point. My opinion of Quest of the Delta Knights should already be painfully obvious. If not, I'll spell it out for you  it's an incredibly bad movie with one ridiculous set-piece after the next. There are few, if any, redeeming moments to be found. I must admit, however, that my experiences with Quest of the Delta Knights have been softened by watching the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the movie. The MST3K guys make it a barrel of laughs. So, while I rate the movie a miserable 2/10, I'll give it a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


Wow, I just rented this at Starworld video and found it to be very very, not good. It was awful, I mean COMON! It looks like Redge stole the props from the Renaissance festival. I think the Knights had a bigger goal...to kill the director and crew for filming pure dick. I really felt like taking this VHS and throwing it to the birds...and perhaps hitting a car in the mean time. This film is a embarrassment to the movie crew's life. I'm just fed up with even thinking about this awful movie. This review is concluded with a review score of the generous 1 out of 10. The story was just so stupid, it doesn't belong on screen. I rather watch MR.Hands. I want to shoot myself with a crossbow after watching this mess.


I have watched a lot of total crap in my time and NEVER have I seen a Satanic medieval henchman lead a pirate, a couple of vikings and what appears to be a smattering of unarmed peasants into battle against a troupe of GUN Wielding renaissance costumed buffoons and women who appear to be from the deep south circa 1860.

You might as well have Harry Truman wearing confederate gray lead Jesus and Harry conick Jr. into battle against Canada and it's mighty army of Huns in 1534 using laser guns and crossbows for all the accuracy in this movie.

Even the MST3K version doesn't have enough jokes to contain the awfulness of this asstastic abortion.

PS - Thats just the first 3 minutes.


This is up there as being one of the worse movies I have ever seen. Do not see this horrible medieval flick where the main character has 3 roles. I couldn't even understand what it was supposed to be about and didn't waste my time finding out. Look elsewhere for a good film, you definitely won't find it here!


Reading the reviews for these low-budget movies is almost as hillarious as the commentary on MST3K. I'm amazed how a movie made so recently (1993) could be so horrible in every aspect. The acting was bad, the special effects were terrible, the costumes looked more like something out of Tron than the middle ages. What was the deal with the people in Halloween masks that live in the tree or the villain with moose antlers. Plus the plot made no sense at all. I tried to explain it to my freind and he couldn't stop laughing. At least Mike, Pearl, and the Bots gave it the heckling it deserved. In closing... I'm coooooooommmmmmmmming.


How did Olivia Hussey get roped into this? For that matter, how did David Warner get roped into TWO roles!?

Set SOMEWHERE in Europe during medieval times, it's a pastiche of unidentifiable movie genre. Its saving grace is the inspired casting of Richard Kind, thick New York accent and all, as a klutzy wizard - it's worth the price of admission (if you can find a copy!).

This movie is simply much worse than it would have been with a coherent plot and intelligent dialogue. Does it border on being so bad that it's good? Yes!


How do studios give the ok for movies like this? I can make a better script on one sheet of paper. Let's cast an annoying kid and so so stars (David Warner and the guy from Spin City) and have a stupid story during the times of knights, but there will be no sword play in the movie, but there is gunplay. The only thing that made this movie watchable was the gal who traveled with the annoying kid and Leonardo. She was a very attractive lass, but her acting was as bad as everyone else.


All the best intentions went into this project. It has everything we've come to expect from the epic fantasy category: a young hero finding his destiny, a tyrannical evil which must be brought down, a secret magic that could save or destroy the world. It even has one of those unexpected cameos that can make a picture amusing and informative. So what's wrong? The entire project seems to be handled in a very heavy-handed manner. Long expository passages of dialogue, overblown characterizations and some truly terrible acting. Even David Warner is bad, and I like David Warner. For any one who thinks they might wish to see this film, I advise the MST3K version, or better yet, don't watch it at all.


I am a great fan of bad S&S. I have seen the Ator movies. I have seen the Deathstalker movies. I have seen The Sword & the Sorcerer. This one beats them all. How it ever acquired a rating of more than one star is beyond me. The intentional comedy all falls flat. What humor is present can be found in the poor execution, laughable script, ridiculous props, and the shaky grasp of history.

At the time the movie was made, I was working at the Northern California Renaissance Pleasure Faire, which was used as a shooting location. Filming occurred on weekdays, when the Faire is closed. If you look real closely at the half-timbered construction on some of the buildings in the village scenes, you can tell that it's just white painted plywood with brown 1x4s nailed on the front. They're all just closed-up crafts booths (the one in the panhandling scenes sells pewter) and environmental acting areas.

Some of the Faire actors were employed as extras. I know of one case where an extra was used to simulate a speaking role, by dubbing a voice in while his back was turned. This added greatly to the humor value for me personally, since the dubbed voice sounded nothing at all like the extra. It is also quite possibly in violation of AFTRA rules, but given the quality of the rest of the movie, I wouldn't be surprised to discover that it was a non-union production.


Pure drivel! It takes a few stiff drinks and the Satellite of Love to sit through this one. It's a '1' alone and an '8' with Mike Nelson and his robot friends. The historical portrayals are god-awful and inaccurate, the dialogue is purile, and the plot is splattered onto the screen in such a way that to attempt to understand what's going on will only make you cry.


As the most recent installment of Mystery Science Theater 3000 movies I have seen (Parts: The Clonus Horror doesn't count because I've already seen it) I immediately went out and rented this movie after I saw the show. I wanted to see this movie as it was originally made if I wanted to form an honest opinion about it. And, after seeing this movie twice, I have come to the conclusion that this movie wasn't so terrible. "But it has such a low rating! You're just not an easy critic!" No I am not. I consider myself to be very harsh. In some of my other reviews I have bombarded movies to no end with my opinions. I simply feel that a movie should automatically be voted so low merely because it was shown on MST 3K. On the IMDB scale of 1-10, I gave this movie a three (3) and here's why.

This movie has a decent plot. No, the plot's not the journey of Tee to the lost cellar, it's not the victories over Lord Voltaire and it's definitely not the Delta Knights attempting to bring about the New Renaissance (they could have done that years before if they hadn't waited for Tee to come around). This movie's decent plot was the back story of how the lost storehouse came to be, through their inventions and writings of Archimedes and the technology of the lost continent Atlantis. That is where the story induces interest into me. I think it's interesting to have a story where Leonardo da Vinci was really a thief of good ideas and Archimedes was the real genius. It's a new twist on old facts, and therefore it deserves some credit. I think if this movie had more of a budget, it could have been made into a very decent picture.

The MST3K viewing of this movie produced two of the funniest quotes I have ever heard from the show. Both quotes came from the scene where Baydool comes out of the bathroom holding his pan of pee and Pearl exclaims "Ewwww! Wizard wiz..." I think the house shook I was laughing so hard. But then, not five seconds later, he threw his urine on the guy trying to steal Tee and Baydool makes the goofiest and Tom says "That's my pee!" After that I lost it. I was rolling on the floor, stuffing my face into my pillow trying to muffle my laughter. Boy those two quotes really made that one episode worth watching because most of the stuff after that wasn't really that great. I would actually prefer to watch the movie without Mike, Tom and Crow and make my own jokes instead of having the show tell me what's funny about the movie. I would much rather use my own humor to make my own jokes to degrade this movie.

All-in-all, I think you people judged this movie too harshly. A movie being on MST3K doesn't necessarily qualify it for being a terrible movie. Thank you and good day.

-Scott-


A decent plot ruined by a bad script and lousy acting: That's basically what you have with this S&S turd. Was this thing made to cause Leonardo di Vinci to roll over in his grave? Because that's what he would do if he saw the mama's boy portrayal of him in this piece of crap. I gave this a 2 only because of the one guy who keeps yelling 'I'm Comiiiiiinnnnng!' Now that is laugh out loud funny!


Do not, I repeat, DO NOT be fooled by the title or synopsis here.

"Quest of the Delta Knights" may seem like, "Hey, cool!!!!! This movie rocks!!!!!," but in reality, it's "HEY!!!!! THIS MOVIE STINKS!!!!! BLEECH!!!!!" I mean, this movie is nothing but chock full of mistakes, goofs, continuity errors, plot holes, etc. I mean, would anybody, and I repeat, ANYBODY actually like this movie!!!!! I won't!!!!!

Unless, of course, it's featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000," as it was on episode #9.23. Mike and the Bots have done such a terrific job ripping this movie apart like a dog would rip apart a fancy $500 dress shoe, and the Minnesota-area participants that played the people in the Delta Knights Pancake Breakfast scene!!!!! That's amazing!!!!!

So, pick which version you want to watch. If I were you, I'd pick MST3K!!!!!

1/10


I saw this film on MST3K, and can really not add that much to what has already been said. This movie really is that bad, and incredibly historically inaccurate. It also rips off Citizen of the Galaxy with the whole "beggar/spy-in-foreign-land-buys-slave-boy-for-secret-society -and-gives-him-special-training" I'd also like to point out that they not only filmed a renfest in Northern California for the medieval/renaissance/whatever setting, but the exterior of the Ancient Greece scene was apparently filmed in San Francisco at the Palace of Fine Arts. The guys really do suck at crafting a story or directing, but I've got to give them credit original cheap sets solutions. They're Ed Woodian in their ingenuity!


When I first saw the title to this movie, I thought immediately of the film Animal House. I expected drinking, fighting, road trips, among other things. Actually the two aren't that different, but the Delta Knights movies just sucked. How can anyone say the characters in this movie were acting? It seemed they were playing out a faux village setting for Medieval Times. Anyway I watched the movie a couple of times before rating and commenting on it. I confess to watching the movie with Mike and the Bots, but I don't think watching it the regular way will matter. It still would.....suck.

1 out of 10. Painful, and hokey to watch. 7 out of 10 for the MST3K version.

PS: The poster before this comment must have had something to do with the movie.


I have seen this on MST3K several times and all I can say is,,,,,,,blech! However, whoever made it must have been trying to create a sword and sorcery version of Star Wars. David Warner's characters could be Obi-Wan and Vader, the boy -Luke, Leo -Han Solo and Thena -Leia. Her banter with Leo is almost just like Leia's with Han. The Power Source could be the Force, the Delta Knights the Jedi and even the treehouses could have come straight from the Ewoks. Thank god the movie is horrible enough that there were no sequels. Richard Kind from "Spin City" and "Mad About You" stars in this confusing farce as does the talented Olivia Hussey, but she is woefully underused in this movie. I can only assume she left halfway through filming.


I've actually seen one worse fantasy movie in my entire life, so I can't rank this one as a zero. Maybe a .1 or something.

Okay, all right, that's rude ... Most low-budget movies aren't truly made for the purposes of making money ... they're made by people who really love making movies. I really hope that this movie's creators had fun making it, but I'm a little baffled, trying to figure out how they got somebody to distribute this.


In case the point hasn't been hammered home hard enough, this movie sucks. A lot. I'm the kind of guy who, by default, tends to see the good things in movies. This film was so hideously bad that I felt ashamed for even watching it. Urgh!


As readers of some of this commentators other reviews will know, he has a personal ratings system by which some films are "elevens', films of such superlative artistry and beauty that they actually ennoble the film medium. Well, just as there are elevens, there are films that are less than ones..ZEROS, films so moronic, so badly acted, so cheesy a that they should be ranked as zeros or less. Such sublime pieces of film goop include They Saved Hitlers Brain, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes,the collected works of the distinguished Ed Wood, and almost 80% of made for TV movies. This astonishingly bad, incredibly stupid film deserves to be ranked in their company. It was a worthy addition to the films shown on Mystery Science Theater 3000.


This movie is more confusing and boring than just plain bad. The badness just doesn't jump out and bite you like "Neptune Men" or *shudder* "Overdrawn At The Memory Bank". Some scenes, like the pee-throwing or the "I'm commminnnggg!" guy or "Prince Jumpjugs" are actually pretty funny without M&TB.


Having previously enjoyed Constantinos Giannaris's 'From The Edge Of The City', flawed though it was, I imagined this film might represent a coming to fruition of this director's potential.

Alas, this film fails on all fronts. Neither dramatic enough to constitute a drama nor thrilling enough to be considered a thriller, the pacing is lethargic and there's barely a soupçon of suspense throughout. Character development is limited, and, even where attempted, ultimately uninvolving. This is not helped by the director's tiresome insistence on casting Stathis Papadopoulos purely on the basis (it seems) that the actor is extremely buff. I don't know about you, but I often find it quite helpful if an actor can act.

The depiction of the racism and xenophobia that lurks beneath the surface of contemporary Greece is perhaps the most interesting aspect of a film that offers no other message and little by way of entertainment.


Jesus. What a bore. This film is even worse than Romanian films (give or take one or two). The photography sucked big time (I think they shot it on digital format, you can almost tell by the plain two-dimensional shots, unimaginative hand held's, and dull colors - and don't tell me that's bleach-by-pass). I do know the Balkans are a very troubled region, where deep-seated xenophobia and nationalistic behavior make victims each and every year, yet this film didn't quite grasp that. The film is detached, not in a Michael Haneke way, but in a most tiresome unmoving manner, treading its way down the sunny slopes of Greece at a snail's pace, although it wants to mislead us into believing that what we're dealing here with is a thriller. The acting was so awful that I thought they had some b-series/ sitcom/ soap opera actors memorize some lines and deliver them in a very flat voice. As for the love making scene between the Albanian would-be hunk and the would-be steamy Greek woman (huh, forbidden love), I deem it less sexy than an Orthodox monastery dormitory. And despite the camera that was all-go (hand-held, because it's easier and cheaper than to use camera grip equipment), the story was so all-stand-still that I couldn't take it. Maybe some Western Europeans could find interesting this wanna be larger-than-life drama set in present day Greece, where the bad guy comes from Albania, living up to his stereotyped status, and the people on the bus are so afraid of him that they're a couple of beers short of joining him into a dance, accompanied by live guitar. You know, like we'd do in elementary school, till the driver'd shoot us off.