NOTE: This version IS now available on DVD.

Some Eyre enthusiasts say that this is their favorite version. Sorcha Cusak plays a Jane heavy on the "elfin" aspects of the character, and Michael Jayston gives a really strong portrayal of Rochester. Sorcha Cusak is a fine actress, but is not at all plain, she has an unusual striking beauty, and is nearly as tall as Rochester, which makes her a bad fit for Eyre purists. I suspect it is her personal lightness and charm which make people like this version, but this is precisely what makes her an incorrect Jane. We find that she looks very much like a blonde version of the dark haired beauty Blanche, so much so that they could be sisters, which is, of course, a miscast Jane, no matter how fine her performance.

This TV miniseries version looks much more like film than the 1983 version (which has the best Jane ever, Zelah Clarke), and this is a visual plus. Here, Michael Jayston is a much more believable Rochester than the gorgeous James Bond Rochester, Timothy Dalton. This version was very true to the dialogue of the book, but the endless over-narrations by Jane (telling us her motives and thoughts) are extremely unfaithful to the book, and are another thing that make this version very dissonant.

These 70s miniseries are very slow, but this one is exceptionally well done, and stands up much better over time than others of the same period. Conversely, we have the awful 70s hair, very fluffy and with the big bump in the back that was so much in Vogue, and even the mysterious woman in the attic has on heavy eye makeup when we see her.

So many little things are so right (the best Grace Poole is in this version) , but then disappointing in so many little ways, too. This version is several parts shorter than the 80s version, and it suffers from it.

Overall, this IS a very well done version, but if you have the patience for older TV miniseries, treat yourself to the 80s version, which is the most faithful to the book, especially by giving proper weight to the second half, which is where Bronte gets to sink her teeth into ethical and spiritual issues.


A nice Rohmer film. Fans of his work will like it a lot, and it's not likely to win over any non-lovers or even newbies. I'm a big fan myself, so it won me over effortlessly. I'd rank it lower than most of the Rohmer films that I've seen, but, then again, I've never disliked one of his films and most of them I absolutely adore. Rendezvous in Paris is made up of three short stories about near-affairs in Paris. The first, "Rendezvous at 7 O'clock," is about a young woman who finds out that her boyfriend sees other women. Through a set of amazing circumstances, she meets his other girlfriend. The second, "The Benches of Paris," is the best. It is about a teacher who is trying to seduce a young woman whose relationship with her longtime boyfriend seems to be on the rocks. We watch them as they walk around the parks and other scenic areas of the French capital. The third, "Mother and Son 1907," is about a pretentious painter who comes up with elaborate philosophies about his love life. He is set to spend the weekend with a Swedish girl, a cousin of a friend, but, when he runs into a beautiful, young, and married girl outside of the Picasso Museum, he has to run after her. The acting is great, especially Aurore Rauscher, the woman in the second section of the film. Rohmer paints these relationships so perfectly; they seem so simple, but they are rife with complexities. Contemplating them makes my head swirl. 8/10.


I first saw this in a cinema and was immediately disappointed with its low-budget production values. The sound and lensing is very poor, so much so that the blurred effect of the projected image eventually gave me a headache. However, the three individual stories of love save the film from its shoddy technical features. The first has a clever climax; while the second deals with complex issues in a sombre way, leaving the third to close this dynamic in its own unique fashion. The real star of the film is Paris itself, used as a constant backdrop to the trials and tribulations of the film. This is really a film for lovers of Paris rather than Rohmer's directorial style and is probably one of his most accessible film to date.


What is love? and can you explain it. Using three meetings at different locations , Rohmer creates a parable on the intricate and surprising nature of love. The first story about a rendezvous at seven is the best. Insidious in its nature, it plants the seeds of doubt that blossom into the tale of two women and two men, each seeking and expecting divergent results. Filled with coincidences, all three tales are, it presents the surprises we don't see coming.

The second story which is kind of dull or more demanding depending on taste, follows a couple meeting up in many public locations. The female character is afraid to meet in private despite the urgings of her male lover and when she does make the leap, the consequences will forever change the relationship.

The goat of the pack is the final vignette, a story titled after a Picasso painting that features prominently in story. Again the obvious is pushed aside for the unexpected and there is a certain breezy, plush ending to the proceedings that seems to jar with what has become.

A comedy in three parts, there is a chorus group that is interspersed and opens each story. Cherubic in nature, the songs present certain adages on the nature of love and life.

A mixture of his moral tales with his comedies and proverb series, it is the lesser of each but sub-par Rohmer is still superior to most filmmakers. His low frills style of film making which a previous reviewer called cheap tells him how little he knows about the edict of the French New wave, the only die-hard adherent remained Rohmer, his rules, a quantifier closer to the Dogma'95 tradition of cinema. It is cinema of the heart at its finest.


This little film (actually 3 separate films) looks as if it was shot as a college film school thesis. The characters all seem to be students, academics, and artists, exactly the kind of people who populate such films! The characters don't seem to be experiencing any romantic epiphanies, either, but rather the filmmaker seems to be exploring the kind of questions of how-do-you-fall-in-love-and-who-with that are so ... collegiate.

I found it mildly diverting; my wife found it a good cure for her insomnia.

As a travelogue, it provides a great tour of the parks of Paris, and glimpses of the Metro and city streets.


What can I say about this film? It's brilliant; Ko So-Young and Lee Sung-Jae are excellent as the married couple struggling to conceive. The only problem I had with the film is that it verge's a little to close to being sentimental during the early part of the film, but it's only a small problem. All in all the film builds up nicely and believably to what is an excellent and touching final 20 minutes. And for me the film stands as more evidence that South Korea is currently making many of the best films in the world (they have been since 1997).


Wow! This film is the kind of movie that brings tears to your eyes and warmth to your heart. Everyone connected to "A Day" should be proud of their efforts. The emotions you feel for this childless couple are powerful reminders that love and life and family are among the best subjects for dramatic cinema. (This review is in regard to the dvd with English subtitles.) Some wonderful films are coming out of Korea, and this is one of them.


This movie was so terrible it was amusing. I understand it is just a low budget B movie but I swear there were so many indiscretions that could have been avoided that made it very frustrating to watch.

My favorite part was when someone BURNS A CD on $30 DVD player that they pretend is part of a computer. I know, I have the exact DVD model.

The characters aren't consistent with their personalities. I enjoy stupid movies, but this one was more than I could handle because it was simply bad. B movies have the excuse of having a low budget, but in this case, I think if they had 20 Million dollars and the same help and talent, they couldn't have done any better because they aren't capable.

On a final note, I'm not sure how, but movies from this DEJ company have been on high order at my local Blockbuster. There were a couple actual blockbuster mainstream movies recently, where they don't keep many in stock. Then these "C. Thomas" movies come out and they keep 20 of them in stock. So don't be fooled by the "War of the Worlds" in your movie store right now, it's a B movie, not Tom Cruise.


to start this off i should say, that i thought "attack of the killer tomatoes" was the worst movie of all time, and it barely stood a chance with this movie. on a whim i rented this flick after seeing a preview at a local video store. didn't remember anything about ants from the preview but the box is very misleading about an experiment gone wrong...

a few poor saps who happen to be working the weekend are the victims or possibly the perpetrators, not only of the ants but of a horrible script, bad acting, and an even worse plot. to start off i like to pysch myself up by watching the preview(s) on the DVD. however, with the exception of a billy bob thorton trailer all were (straight to video) releases ill be missing. the cheese factor alone makes me think a DEJ PRODUCTION label is synonymous with CRAP! but i gave it a shot, sadly i wish i could get my 90 mins back but to no avail. to add insult to injury they didn't even offer English subtitles....Spanish ONLY...i mean come on.

FINAL THOUGHT: "DONT EVEN READ THE COVER"


lets start with the good point of this movie. The idea behind it .

People in a skyscraper are besieged, chased , eaten by giant ants. Any fan of monster movies ought to get sweaty palm right now and has to brace him or herself not to run to the nearest videostore. But wait.. there is a catch:

Lets start with the begin credits.. an unknown movie company and our friends from the Unified Film Organisation.. UFO for short, known for countless crappy movies and a couple of nice ones.

And then.. yeah the movie starts.

Stuff to watch for, cry about or laugh your ass off for.. depending on your mindset

- POV shot of the ants attacking - All killings off screen?? Mmhhh - Scarsely dressed models "You might remember her from a vogue cover" yeah sure, don't you mean an adult movie. - The janitor with a past - Mr Howell- gets hit over the head with a wooden duck - Did all those ants the size of a mid sized dog hide in those pesky little plants -

- idiot sheriff ( who knows in what crap he ventured and has all the laughs with his lines) a female agent from the agriculture department (??) She was in the FBI but made a career change because she faints when seeing a corpse.. not kidding.

A guy that wants to steal company info leaves his overweight crap acting daughter alone in the car. With a present.. an Aiwa radio with heavy metal music but takes the keys. - the lights go out.. so do the elevators which doesn't stop the janitor for trying to use them..and why should he, the company info stealing guy also used the elevators when the lights where flickering.. gets stuck and attacked by a plastic non moving ant.

-The ants come.. about the size of a mid sized dog.. a lot of them.. how did they hide in those small plants.

The assistant of the nasty editor has to make coffee but drops a sugar lump into a sewer thingy on the floor.. an ant crawls out and gets beaten to death by the nasty editor which leads to an instant classic piece of dialog " Ants cant get that big "well no one told him that" and she walks away business as usual.. however our ants are crawling through the hallways.

* Ants side note: imagine a 5 year old drawing an ant.. yup you have got it.. they look more plastic that a toy.

Sigh.. chase scenes.. the ants don't like heavy metal and the overweight daughter scares them off with dead metal music.

* reread the above sentence and ponder about it for a moment*

The moronic janitor with a past, the bitchy editor and the assistant try to make it to the roof ( reason: - as explained by the janitor "those ants see this as an ant farm so they will dwell on the lower levels.. we need to make it to the roof" My mouth fell open when hearing this. This building has a roof access that can only be reached by using the air vents (???).. just take a guess what happens..

They make it to the roof although the bitchy editor gets attacked and taken away ( "I was chairman of the Beverly hills gun club, of course I can use a gun" . they found the gun because our moronic janitor who is also a psychic broke into a desk in the office where he was hit over the head with the wooden duck..?????

They make it to the roof.. insert the "vogue" MUHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA models and their photographer. Thank god they can escape because there is a cable between this and the nearby skyscraper (???? we don't have skyscrapers in my country but this seems somewhat.. far-fetched??)

Most of them escape however the company info stealing dude pulls a gun to skip the queue - I don't blame him- an ant follows him , he pulls the gun - magic gun because it went from the eaten editor to him??- and fails to shoot the ant but does shoot the cable - did I say the ants were as big as mid sized dogs, good shooting-

He plummets to his death and the janitor and some others are trapped in the ant building.

In the meanwhile back to the garden thingy. The agriculture agent finds the slime on some plants and she yells something into a walkie talkie. Swat guys - and a girl- pop out and the sheriff has its gun taken away. And there is a revelation: the fainting when seeing a dead body female agent is a member of a secret department of agriculture that is so secret even the president doesn't know about it and she is following a lead that has a terrorist ship that had plutonium aboard. The plutonium leaked on the plants causing everything in the plants to grow.

Oke.. if you are still with me, pause and reread the above sentence.

there we go for the final part. The secret department of agriculture ( SDOA??) follows the trail to the building where the plants were delivered.. Intro Martin I will really humiliate myself for a scrap of food Kove.. shoots his next in command about 15 times because his colleague is attacked by a plastic ant that basically sits on his shoulder.. like a parrot. Good shooting Martin.

And you wont believe it but then I fell asleep..thank god for that.

If you aren't drunk avoid all all costs.


I viewed this film and was shocked by how utterly horrible it was. I knew it was a B movie, but this was below even that. The special effects were terrible.

The DVD jacket looked really good. It looked professional. That was the first impression that this film was worth seeing. Don't let the jacket fool you. This film isn't even worth picking up.

The movie started out the way every B movie would, but I had good expectations for this film. The story was good at first, showing a plantation owner looking for his workers. The film got even better, when they showed a gory picked-to-the-bone skeleton. I thought, "this is going to be good!" But my anticipation shrank when the first shot of the menacing critters flashed to my television screen. The large ants were very obviously plastic, and were being controlled by a human arm. I expected some CG effects to be completely honest. The movement of the ants reminded me immediately of Kermit the Frog. The gore was poor in quality. Usually, in a horror flick, you expect to see a good amount of blood, but in this film there were splatters. They were quite small and weren't very convincing. And the gory bodies left around from the ants were the same prop, used in different scenes. It became quite repetitive very quickly.

The acting was poor. It seemed the actors were hired off the street. But, what can I say. Most B movies have poor acting. But, this was one to remember. These people see these giant ants coming up the stairs, and all they have to say is. "That's a big ant!" It should have been a terrified scream. The acting was almost deliberately terrible.

Overall, this film was very poor. Most 1950's horror flicks packed more of a punch than this film. Glass Trap was painful to watch. If you want to see a good movie, Glass Trap isn't the way to go.


There's nothing special or significant about Glass Trap that hasn't been done about a thousand times before in these types of B-grade Sci-Fi movies. A large metropolitan office building is gradually overcome by gigantic radioactive ants who trap the helpless maintenance workers and office staff. Things get really bizarre when a SWAT team is called in to blow up the over-sized bugs. The project seems to play out like a funny RAID bug-spray commercial from the 70's! However, the corny situations and stupid dialog make this movie mildly entertaining. I am a fan of B-grade movies that bring back 1950's-1960's low budget special effects. Glass Trap makes an honest effort at doing that. It's not a good film by any means, and certainly the talented Stella Stevens is completely wasted in this. You will recognize some actors such as C. Thomas Howell as the janitor, and Martin Kove as a law enforcement official. Howell, best known for his role in The Hitcher, and for Kove, playing the sadistic karate school instructor in The Karate Kid.

There is just enough amusement in Glass Trap to keep it from being a bomb. The pacing is faster than you might expect. One mild spoiler, is that I thought the photo shoot scenes were completely stupid and unnecessary. As another reviewer commented, it appears that these scenes were almost part of another movie, because they didn't fit at all! With the acting as bad as it is in this film, viewers might just want to cheer for the ants! Go into this film with the mindset of it being a B-grade horror flick and you'll find it an acceptable late late show movie. However, Glass Trap is certainly nothing more than that.


Glass Trap is set in Los Angeles where Curtis (C. Thomas Howell) works as a cleaner in the posh upmarket Waldman Building where various offices are housed, it's a Saturday & the building is almost empty except for a few workers & security guards. A delivery of plants is made but it turns out that the plants are hiding an unexpected secret, they were exposed to plutonium & the Ants that were on the plants have grown to a huge size & their appetite for flesh has also increased. The Ants breed quickly & soon decide to turn the Waldman Building into their very own Ant hill, it's up to Curtis the Janitor to save the day...

Directed by Fred Olen Ray under the pseudonym Ed Raymond this is the sort of rubbish that turns up on the Sci-Fi Channel regularly that features some sort of giant insect or animal, a few Hollywood has-beens & lots of bad CGI computer work. The plot is full of holes & character's you don't care about who make the most stupid decisions that they deserve to die. There's this odd sub-plot about some guy who has to copy a disk for some reason but we never find out why even though he knocks the cleaner out so he isn't seen & it seems to be quite important to him, the disk or it's contents are never followed up or even mentioned again. It's never explained how giant radioactive Ants manage to stay hidden in what are basically houseplants or how they breed so quickly. The whole film is full of ridiculous moments like survivors sliding across from one building to another on a telephone wire (one guy shoots a gun at an Ant while on the wire & guess what? He shoots the wire & falls to his death, that's how stupid this film is). At 90 odd minutes it goes on for ages & even a couple of embarrassing cameos can't save it.

This being a PG rated film there's virtually no gore, there's a couple of bloody skeletons but nothing else. The whole thing has a pedestrian pace & it fails to generate any excitement or tension or scares. The Ants themselves look poor, the CGI work is terrible while the actual on-set models are so stiff & lifeless the poor actors have to jump around & roll around on the floor while holding a plastic Ant to try & create the illusion that it's attacking them, they don't & it doesn't.

With a supposed budget of about $475,000 this was low budget & it shows with pretty bad production values. C. Thomas Howell & Martin Kove are better then this while Stella Stevens seems to be having fun & puts in a reasonable performance.

Glass Trap is a really bad creature feature like the ones that turn up on the Sci-Fi Channel all the time but without any gore & an even lamer plot & killer giant creature than usual. There are much better creature features out there, you have been warned.


The ants looked incredibly stupid and strange. the acting was terrible as well. You'd think that they'd shut down the bomb i mean why does that guy not care about those people? seriously. and why did the ants have to be black? wouldn't it have been cooler if they were red or golden? or something like that? and that one guy the sheriff one. he had practically no lines and apparently tragically he was born without a personality. if i were you i would definitely avoid this movie unless you're looking for a stupid action movie to laugh at. and why on earth is it called glass trap? and where was the queen ant anyway? how could the ants have laid all of those eggs? scientifically incorrect.


I've "watched" this movie twice on SciFi Channel now. Both times I end up getting some badly needed household chores done around the condo, because this movie just doesn't hold your interest. It sounds like a compelling enough premise: genetically altered ants are transported into a city skyscraper and terrorize some unfortunate souls who got roped into weekend duty in the building's offices/lobby. It's just a very slow, suspense-less movie. And if it's going to be slow and suspense-less, you need interesting characters. These characters are as dull and lifeless as the movie. There aren't even any hot actresses (one of them is reasonably attractive). Finally, you can't even say this is a 2004 homage to the '50s cult classic "Them," because the ants are actually not really that big (about the size of a medium-sized dog). And since you never see more than three of them at a time, and they show no evidence of spitting poison or some other otherworldly power, you just feel like everyone in the movie ought to be able to beat the s*** out of these ants anyway and just go home.


Be warned, the acting in this movie is HORRIBLE. I don't think anyone really wanted to do this film, and I'm wondering what kind of financial trouble C. Thomas Howell is in to have to do this ...

He, along with Martin Kove are the only "stars" you'll recognize, the rest of the players are unknowns and are likely to go down in history as the most unemotional "horror" movie actors of all time.

Not only were the "special effects" laughable (the ants were made of paper mache' it looked like), but even the DVD effects weren't on par! The ants used as selecting tools weren't lined up properly so on certain options all you got were legs.

There are some serious plot malfunctions with "Glass Trap." Let's consider the following: * We don't find out how the ants became mutated until halfway through the film, and then this information comes from a "super secret" federal agency, and yet podunk sheriff is apparently special enough to get the scoop.

* There is no mention of how Paolo and Curtis get off the roof.

* Where did Uncle Hank's body go? * Why did Carley not call the cops when she first saw the ants? Or even use the phone when she and the security guard were trapped together? These are just some of the MANY indiscretions with this film. Regardless, it still gave me one of the best laughs I've had in a while. Highly recommended for a night in with a big group of friends!


Astonoshing acting! Phenomenal directing! and an amazingly well brought out film! Realistic killer ants invade a new york office building, and it's occupants are doomed! Ik you're into horror, many die from the killer attacks of the giant ants, if you're into action watch as the office workers fight off ants and suspend themselves across buildings in order to save their lives. If you're into romance, enjoy the passionate and romantic intimacy shared between the Janitor and an executives assistant. This movie is the full package! I HIGHLY recommend this movie and think that EVERYBODY should see it! 11/10 stars!!!!


Somebody took the money and ran. C. Thomas Howell, Stella Stevens, Martin Kove and Andrew Pine put forth a minute portion of their abilities and compete with what looks like blow-up plastic ants the size of a house cat. Of course, an experiment goes wrong and giant genetically-engineered ants become out of control in search of human flesh. A small group of folks happen to be in a skyscraper on a Saturday afternoon and become the prey of these overgrown blood-thirsty insects. Howell tries to play so laid-back its pathetic. And Miss Stevens, the once sexy knockout...becomes stuffy and guilty of bad over-acting. Here is another case of the DVD package being more interesting than the movie.


This slimy creature-feature starts '80s teen hit C. Thomas Howell. Scientists have created genetically altered giant ants in a bizarre experiment which backfires terribly as the creatures go on a kill-crazy rampage. It turns into a world where giant insects run rampant. Survivors barricade themselves in a skyscraper in an attempt to avoid the roaming menace, but even that's no guarantee of safety. Its a little bloody, not gory enough for my taste though. A thoroughly entertaining B-movie; GLASS TRAP was directed by cult horror director Fred Olen Ray who also directed "HOLLYWOOD CHAINSAW HOOKERS" Another one of my favorites.


This would be an amazing film in the -50's But nowadays, this is one heck of a bad movie. Like , OK, there are Huge Human eating Ants, and the people in the movie just say, OK, that is a big ant, and they don't get upset as they or I should be if i was in a situation like that. Its like i see a tree that falls down, and i "ooooohhhh" a tree just fell down due to it was old and dead. Emotions in this film is blown away. and when the ""SWAT"" team arrives, a full 4-5 people command line arrives to the place where the ants are bugging people, they simply comes up with the idea to Blow the skyscrape up... Like if 4 people had that power to do so.. Don't go see this movie, unless you are 90+ years of age and haven't seen a film in 50 years.

Cheers


I just watched this fine piece of entertainment and I must say that it's one of the best films that I have seen in a very long time. The premise is truly original. It features some great performances by veteran actors and even C. Thomas Howell! The special effects were truly mind-blowing and unique. It's so refreshing to see a movie without the use of CGI these days. I can't praise this film enough. Do yourself a favor and go see it. Earlier in the day I was contemplating suicide, but when I flipped to the Sci-Fi channel and started watching Glass Trap I remembered how great life really is. Glass Trap saved my life, it could save yours too. rofl


This movie was clearly thought out. I haven't seen a movie about giant ants before so i have to give it extra points for being original.

This movie was joined by FOX STUDIOS so the budget could be increased and the GIANT Ants sure looked much better then i would think. They are damn scary.

The whole movie is very violent and extremely well done. I noticed a few big names in it and the acting was better then most big actors these days. If this movie doesn't win an award for something IL be very upset.

Wait until this comes to the big screen because you will get much more of an scary and intense experience but if you missed it then hire the video. Not for people who cant handle extreme violence.

Oh and did i mention there are real life vogue models + + +


The Strange And Deadly Occurrence is one of the best made for television thrillers that you will ever see!When I saw this as a young teenager, my heart was pounding so loud, I thought that I could hear it!I was truly scared, and I turned all of the lights on. I saw this movie recently, and I was just as scared as I was back then. I will not give away the plot. I will say that Robert Stack as the father was terrific. Vera Miles played the mother, and as usual she was wonderful. The sound effects were so good. The constant loud banging in the story scared me more than anything.This is a thriller that the whole family can sit down and watch with no gore or bad language.I highly recommend this movie to people who love to be scared.


This suspense movie was the directorial debut of Danny. He chose a good theme and a good team. The plot is very interesting and keeps you guessing till the end. The music by R D Burman is very melodious and haunting at times. Rajesh Khanna the Super Star plays a different role with great aplomb and performs excellently. It is a must see for people who like clean suspense movies. It is a must for Rajesh Khanna fans as he does a different role in a different style. Danny, Aruna Irani, Kim, Jagdeep put in good support. The movie is recommended for its plot and one who sees it should not tell anyone the suspense of the movie. Great movie of the Great SuperStar.


Danny Dengzopa's directorial debut featuring the superstar Rajesh Khanna and Kim (whom he later married). This film is one of the best Hindi horror films. Apparently it has no haunted faces and fictitious haunted stuff but it provides an edge-of-the-seat entertainment to its viewers.

The protagonist has been haunted by her aunt who killed her mother and was sent to mental asylum. Rajesh Khanna is a psychologist who treats her and eventually falls in love with her. I will not speak a word after this about its story. It is a must see for people whose favorite genre in movies is horror. It has an enthralling suspense and will make you more and more engrossed as the story will progress.

Commenting on the technical points of the movie, it has no flaws. The director, cinematographer and art director has done complete justice to their work. Music by R.D. Burman is enchanting. Lata Mangeshkar's haunting melodies have made the songs memorable. Majrooh Sultanpuri's lyrics were fine.

I would rate it as 9.8/10 because it has the ability to entertain young as well as middle-aged viewers in terms of horror story.


This is a super-hit movie of horror genre with Superstar Rajesh Khanna in the lead.The song Sang mere nikle and other songs of the film became a big hit.Danny had once sang a Nepali folk song which when telecast in TV, R D Burman had heard casually and remembered this tune so that he could use it in Danny's own production and based on that tune he made beginning tune of Sang mere.This film is rarely telecast in TV channels.Rajesh Khanna's movies were not doing well between 1976-79 with 12 movies flopping of which 4 were classics and had only 3 super-hits during the period.He bounced back with box office hits Amardeep,Aanchal,Kudrat,Dard,Thodisi Bewafaii and unsuccessful Redrose.Phir Wohi Raat is a super-hit film which came after he regained his box office rating after which he had a good phase till 1991 as a main lead hero.


a very mediocre movie. starts in a promising manner but somewhere from the middle or a little before that, it degenerates and fizzes off and finally ends up in a typical bollywood crass. Some comments here on this site are advocating that the suspense is held right to the end, hogwash, the whole movie blurts itself out near it's middle duration and everyone gets to see and know who is the culprit and why. Th other half of the movie is just sitting it out for the sake of sitting.The acting is okay ,comedy from jagdeep may reward a few light moments, but other than that there's little that can be harped about in this one. sorry, I label this one a 'trash'


I got this movie after reading a review on digitallyobssessed.com and I have to say I was plesantly suprised - a low budget horror film that actually had a brain - this is not your average teens in a wood horror film - a lot of care has gone into the construction of the story line and it really keeps you hooked to the end - there are some nice sfx and a great atomsphere and bizzarley an acting turn by Uri Geller. Further unlike most low budget films these days it was actually shot on film rather than dv so it doesn't look like someone's home movie! Well worth a look - especially if you're after something a little bit fresher and more stimulating than a masked killer slicing and dicing people. Great score also!


I am almost 100% sure this movie was created from a videogame with the same name. If you are into video games and like the classic point-and-click adventure style, you're gonna love this one. Definitly you need to see both (the video game and the movie) before you can tell anything about the movie. Of course, the story is a little different, but it is the same thing. Actually the name of the main guy is the same: MAX. The plot seems to be a cliche, but as the real story reveals, you find out it is not such a thing! Forget about the low budget. This movie is awesome. The music is great and certain scenes make you believe you are really in a sanitarium. After all what could you expect from a movie with such title? Just what it has: Confusion, darkness, suspense and chills. This movie has it all, so, from my perpective, the movie reaches its goals. I am sure it was created not to be a big time but to create discussion, and leave you with a taste in your mouth. What taste? That depends on you...


I know for a fact this was SHOT on £3,000 which is nothing and parts had to be dubbed and done again costing £7,000 in total. The whole story and idea of it is a pretty damn good one, the dialogue is not brilliant in places, but it is a good film tho. Not the best film obviously, but i liked it. It shows what can be done with feck all money. The acting isn't great, but you cant afford top actors when you have no money, the actors conveyed the story well enough to be watched. Uri geller....foock man what the hell....oh well. The film was not a Hollywood multimillion dollar project, it was a few thousand pounds shot on 16mm, so you cant expect the best things ever from it. Its not a bad film none the less. If you like your small budget Indy style films, and know what to expect from them then you will be a lot less critical about this film than others. Not really a scary film, some bits may make you jump, but it needs a little bit of thinking to understand the film properly, but it is good don't get me wrong. Mr Roberts new film forest of the damned is supposed to be a huge jump from this one. I am looking forward to it muchly. And I hear from certain sources that the film in the works station 13 is going to be much much bigger budget and will be one to really look out for. Watch this film, and bare in mind it was shot on almost nothing, and is a quite early attempt at film making by the director(s) watch the other newer films and watch the progression. wow i wrote a lot.


Well-made with excellent performances, but not at all what was promised. I had hoped to see a self destructive man who was changed by his circumstances and especially by a wise woman. While that happened, it only happened because he was facing death! What a cop out! ANYONE would embrace strong spiritual guidance when forced to cope with a very early end to their life. I thought the movie really missed an opportunity to make its point. Resorting to such a time worn cliché made the writer/director seem lazy. If I'd known the whole film was a promo for Buddaism, I would have skipped it. I'm surprised so many writers on this site were so impressed. Yes, it's not the typical Hollywood fare, but that doesn't automatically make it a great movie.


I like "Amu the movie" tremendously. The movie has so many layers that it is difficult for me to pinpoint to a single reason for its impact. As a passive observer of compelling and authentic portrayal of a journey of a Girl finding her true identity, I had suspended my reality and enjoyed the experience. As an agitated follower of the injustice highlighted in the movie, I was incensed by the implication of tacit support . Yet as an observer of slow revelation of plot line, I was enthralled. The acting, the directing, the photography and the editing/music were totally endearing. The fact that there some people in the audience crying and others sat in silence after the movie had finished, showed that the movie had indeed touched all of us. It is hard to believe that Shonali is a first time director, who captured on celluloid a slice of life that was actually manufactured. Konkona Sen was spectacular but Lovleen Mishra, Brinda Karat, Chaiti Ghosh, Ashish Ghosh, Aparna Roy were all fantastic.

Finally, I would like to say, that in South Africa a unique experiment is taking place, the Truth and Reconciliation Commision. In India too, the wounds of destructive, ethnic cleansing violence go deep and are tremendously complex. It is indeed a bold step of shining the light on a dark period of recent history but "Amu the Movie" , is the step is taken in the right direction.

I look in great anticipation to others all over the world following in this film's footsteps and making more creative and more bold choices as Shonali has done in "Amu". I also look forward to many more viewers enjoying the tremendous journey of "Amu".

Berkeley


I was initially hesitant about watching Amu because movies with a backdrop of communal riots don't sit well with me. However, I had heard good things about the film and for that reason I also did not want to miss it.

Amu is a film about a young, adopted girl on a quest to find her birth parents. Kaju, played by Konkona Sen Sharma, lives in LA and is visiting India to be with her mother's family. During her visit she is also trying to get more information about her real parents, who she knows nothing about. The journey to find out her identity has her come across the characters played by Yashpal Sharma and Ankur Khanna, who help take her to each lead and finally to a point where she discovers her history. A history that is tied to the 1984 communal riots.

Amu is also about Kaju's relationship with her mother who is trying to keep the truth from her.

Shonali Bose does a fabulous job in telling the story and keeping the viewer glued to the screen. The cast was obviously selected very carefully. Konkona is completely believable as the young NRI. Brinda Karat as the mother puts in a wonderful performance, besides looking gorgeous! Ankur Khanna is perfect as the brooding, cynical Kabir, who gets exposed to a life he is completely unfamiliar with. Yashpal Sharma makes you laugh and makes you cry. The Bengali family as well as Kabir's parents are all people most Indians would have come across.

In conclusion all I have to say is that Amu rocks! It's a movie thats been made from the heart .... don't miss it.


This was a very well made movie and a very daring movie. Such movies usually fade away in India. Konkona Sen acted well and her American Accent was almost perfect and commendable. Shonali has poured everything in the movie. Konkona Sen shows why she is clearly apart and far above the run of the mill actresses of Bollywood. Other artists did their part well. About why the Great Govt. of India has banned the movie, there could be several reasons. Apparently the common reason is that the movie might have "raked up the long lost past". I'm not sure about that. Every sane person knows that the Govt. had a large role in the riots of '84 and I'm not saying this because I'm a sikh (because I'm not). I'm saying this as an Indian. Just like there was hand of the govt. when innocent Muslims were butchered in Gujrat a few years ago. Truth is easily suppressed in a country like India, but that didn't stop Shonali Bose from creating an award winning movie. Go see it.


I just went to screening locally as part of an Asian American Film festival. Amu was the opening movie for the festival. I liked the film a lot. Not your typical Indian movie by any means. After the movie they had Q&A with the director, producer, and lead actress. The discussion gave some neat insight regarding the movie. For example a lot of the filming / subject matter was done in fear of govt censorship. The version shown, as well as the one to be released later this fall in the US, is different than what those in India saw at the theater. For example in the scene with the widows discussing with Amu & Kabir the riots and how the government tolerated the violence, that the widows voices are left silent as Amu & Kabir sit in silence.


I had the pleasure of seeing "Amu" during the launch of the first annual Asian American Film Festival in Pittsburgh this past weekend. Perhaps a fitting testament to the reason festivals such as this need to exist in the first place, the film deals with a subject I hadn't even known existed beforehand: the Sikh massacres in India over a three-day period in 1984, and the complicity of a corrupt government in facilitating and masking the events.

Director Shonali Bose, one of the producers (her husband, Atiya, I believe) and star Konkona Sen Sharma were all on hand to answer questions from the audience, and the political nature of the film led to a spirited discussion (and occasional debate) that, unfortunately, could not be condensed into the time allowed. Thus, given the film's stature and the importance of its subject matter, it's a shame to point out the shortcomings of its actual artistry.

As another commenter has mentioned, the film is generally well-directed but is not perfect. I agree that certain elements of its narrative (particularly the pacing, as well as a few contrived interpersonal moments) felt tacked-on or inauthentic, and were perhaps invented to couch the story in a modern-day milieu that could appeal to audiences before "surprising" them with the political content of the film in its second half, as the mystery of the main character's history is unraveled.

It's entirely possible the film would have worked better without the "mystery" angle, especially since it seems to come from left field midway through the film and then becomes all-pervasive, in direct contrast to the semi-documentary "romantic comedy travelogue" feel of the first half. What struck me most awkwardly was the disjointed nature of the "suspense" surrounding the eventual divulging of repressed information. The purposely vague ways in which Kaju's family avoids discussion of her past or, when confronted with conflicting information, seek to simply change the subject or stare pensively at the floor felt falsely melodramatic.

But all of my criticisms become quibbles when faced with the undeniable power of the film's few flashback scenes, which depict certain controversial events in an unflinching light. In those moments, Bose finds her true voice, and the voice of the victims in these unjustified atrocities.

Incidentally, one area the films succeeds in artistically is the casting of Konkona Sen Sharma as Kaju. Her accent and body language were flawlessly American on screen, as they should have been (Kaju is an Indian girl raised in America), but Bose explained after the film that Konkona has lived her whole life in India and was only given two weeks to immerse herself in Los Angeles's culture to prepare for the role of Kaju. Those who see the film will certainly agree that she succeeded.


I have to say, I was initially not looking forward to this movie based on the lose plot line I had seen, but having seen in, I'm glad I did. While there were a few rough spots, there were a lot of redeeming qualities for this which makes this movie worth seeing.

For example, the historical look at an assassination in is done very indirectly by examining the life of one family. There is suspense, some interesting flashbacks, as well as some plot development which moves on reasonably nicely, with fairly good acting.

I think there were definitely points in the acting or possibly editing that would smooth out the transitions and increase the believability of the movie, but it is fairly easy to look beyond this after the plot line pulls you in.

The courage in telling this story is what is the most important part of this movie. This was good general knowledge information for me on a slice of Indian history as well as an entertaining tale on surrounding an important historical event.


I just saw this film in a preview for the SF Film Society, and was deeply moved by it. It was masterful storytelling combining a deeply personal search for identity with a historical retelling of a national disgrace. As others have commented, I too was in North India till 1985 (Delhi & Kanpur) and even being so close, I was unaware of the extent of the atrocities and the deep complicity of the government till I saw this movie. This really is an unexplored chapter in Indian history in the media, compared to the many films about Hindu-Muslim riots such as Bombay, Mr & Ms Iyer, Hey Ram etc and kudos to Shonali Bose for exploring this issue.

But it was also the small but exquisite touches that touched a chord in me. Others have complained that Khanna seems too wooden, but he reminds me of people I have known at college in Delhi (including perhaps myself), and a couple of scenes between him and Sen Sharma portray a deep intimacy without the unrealistic physical displays too often seen in other Indian movies. And the relationships between the family members seemed very real to me - the affection between mother and daughter and between mother and grandmother was touching and palpable. And yes, the pace seems slow at first, but the build up is terrific (although the music during the opening scenes could do with a little less of the dramatic bass undertones) and the scenes at the dhaba and in the jhuggis are first rate, as is the portrayal of Gobind by Yashpal Sharma.

Overall, this film is a must-see for anyone interested in Indian cinema and in Indian history.


First of all it's a delight to watch such unselfconscious acting and to hear English (and Hindi, Bengali) spoken so naturally. First time director Shobnali Bose elicits wonderful performances from most of her cast - many of whom are 'non-actors'. The script, too, is deliciously funny in parts, which off-sets well with the powerful and serious message underlying the film. The locations chosen capture the actual places represented so that the whole has the verisimilitude of a documentary film, even while the spectator is drawn into the lives of the characters whose stories are being told. All in all a very satisfying film, and a great debut.


Amu is definitely one of the best recent Indian films. I can't stop myself admiring the point the way the story has been told. The planning seemed to be very mature. Hats off to Sonali Bose for her outstanding maiden effort with writing, directing and producing such a film that has got voice and certain mark of difference. In short, this is called something doing courageous and different. I still can't believe that it was a director's first film. The last scene where the protagonist character Kajol walks with Kabir on rail lines and a train comes in the scene, was really hard to believe that the train was made stopped and this train scene was out of the script! It was Sonali's distinctive endeavor that made it possible. We are waiting Sonali for more of your such definite challenging works and would like to see your mark in film making. Best of wishes.


In Amu, a twenty-one year old Indian girl named Kaju goes back to her homeland after eighteen years to discover her roots. Adopted at age three by doctor Keya, Kaju was taken to the United States to escape the political turmoil of 1984 riots in India. Upon Kaju's return, she soon discovers that her stroll down memory lane has some obstacles and at the end awaits a bitter truth about her family.

Most of the cast fit their roles wonderfully, especially Konkona Sen Sharma as Kaju and Brinda Karat as Keya. Ankur Khanna did seem out of place as Kabir, whose Keanu Reeves' (The Matrix, Constantine) type of unenthusiastic, hardened character wasn't played out well in this dramatic film.

The story also seemed a bit weak, especially the tie between Kaju's background and the 1984 riots in India. The history of the riots was summed up in a few short dialogues and an approximate 10-minute clip during the climax. The dialogue for Kabir also seemed a bit repetitive as he frequently asked the same question concerning the 1984 riots.

The directing was another great element in this film along with the great performances by Sharma and Karat. The scenes were well staged; especially the scene with the dancing boy and the scenes at the train station. The flashbacks that Kaju experienced were also exceptional and helped the story give a sense of depth, the feeling that something deeper has happened that Kaju's relatives are hiding from her.

With the exception of Kabir's roles and the slightly melodramatic tone in some of the scenes, Amu was directed well and great performances by the other main and supporting characters. Amu also showed the true political chaos that corrupts India today. Eight out of ten.


Well I haven't yet watched this movie but I would surely like to watch it. I would like to appreciate director for such a bold and courageous effort. And the bad thing is that masses would watch it as just another work of art or ....... sadly in the so called largest democracy of the world there is no democracy at all. minorities in Punjab, eastern states, Kashmir have suffered thru successive Indian governments and continue to do so. My heart and feelings are with all those unfortunate but brave people who stood out for their self-respect and civil rights. SHAME on fascist people who still thrive freely !!! It is a blot on the image of India until justice is done to those innocent people


i have never written a review but felt obligated to after watching this film. i had heard very nice things about this movie but was surprised how disappointed i felt leaving the cinema. one question, why cast Indian girl for nri Indian? she had the accent down, but still - aren't there talented actors from America? also, who is the horrible guy playing kabir. he is awful! he spoils so many scenes of the film.

the mother brinda karat is good as is yashpal sharma from lagaan. the film seems to catering to outside Indians and somehow loses the effect of being powerful for the Indian audience and the outside Indian audience.

i must admit i thought the flashback scenes were powerful. director bose is promising but she should never write again. the dialogue is pretentious and the impact is minimal. still, she extracts competent performances with those restrictions.

the music is okay and the production value is decent. the riots had so much history and i was waiting for a film other than trash like hawayein to offer justice and honesty to what transpired back then. amu offers a glimpse and that's it. i wish the entire film was the flashbacks - it had the chance to make intelligent powerful cinema without the forced formula.

in the end, amu may be made with heart but the result is heartless for the audience.


I've seen many politically charged films. The one thing that always gets to me is that a cause drives a project to greater awareness of an issue or event. But what bothered me incredibly about "Amu The Film" was that the script was so benign that the history was getting a fairly weak treatment. Shonali Bose, the writer director should have stuck to directing as the handling is mostly first rate. However, the insipid dialogue, the forced romantic angle between Kaju and some horribly wooden actor playing Kabir (are we supposed to buy that she would fall for this chap?), and politics which unravel through a mystery that simply is too over-dramatic in its unfolding make me wonder if "Amu The Film" was trying too hard to please too many people.

I was amazed by the responses here as people seem to be eating up the contrived emotions and the forced responses we are supposed to feel for these characters and the situations. While the 1984 riots is absolutely a topic that needed further examination "Amu The Film" fails miserably.

As much as I tried to like the film, it just lacked the spirit. And the spirit is what drove me to see the film in the first place.


I went to a recent screening of this movie because I had heard interesting things about it. The one word that I can best use to explain the movie: contrived! The story is waferthin yet dealing with quite an important issue that I had no idea about. Yes, a filmmaker with passion and patience deserves applause but ultimately the film needs to back that up. This film dramatizes elements of the 1984 riots in such a way that if you didn't know about them, you are frustrated by the lack of being in the know and if you do know about it, it's far too trivial and over-dramatic. The lead actress played by Konkona Sen is a great heroine. The only problem is that her supporting team is horrible. Maybe something gets lost between the English the characters speak and my understanding but it's so pretentious and completely distances the audience. Her love interest is beyond words - horrendous. The mother is strictly okay. I liked the director's intent and her fierce drive. That is 100% missing on screen. The only thing I left feeling for AMU was sorry that I couldn't better understand her needs and her past. It's a shame because the film highlights a part of history that is not well known in the western world. Perhaps realizing that got lost in translation.


An intimate portrait of Brecht's final days, set around tranquil surroundings which stand in contrast with the passionate emotions of the assorted characters (jealousy, betrayal, petty spite).

It is an absorbing study, examining in subtle detail Brecht's relationships, the deep love (and hate) he seemed to inspire from the women in his life, as well as portraying the often casual cruelty with which he treated them, i.e. he suddenly talks to his loyal 'helper' Elisabeth Hauptmann about his work after having studiously ignored her for a week. I found it interesting how the various women in his life were often irresistibly drawn to each other (unspoken) despite their open hostilities, i.e the alcoholic Ruth and the self-effacing Elisabeth.

The writer and director cleverly toyed with the relationship between the ageing Brecht, a man who fled the US before he could be indicted by MacCarthy , and Wolfgang Harich, the young dissident for whom the Stasi lie in wait in the woods.

The film is the story of a great writer and flawed individual. It is about the smallness of greatness. Brecht, who wrote about the difficulty of being a good man in a bad world, is non-committal, the showcase man of letters in Communist GDR, as opposed to Harich's political idealist. As Brecht warns Harich at the end (with almost prophetic hindsight), the younger man's arrest would symbolise 'his bad conscience'. Sadly, it is a prophecy that does not take long to be fulfilled


I enjoyed this film overall, especially in its portrayal of Brecht's efforts to keep harmony within the little harem he'd created for himself. Nonetheless, I have some objections to the political overtones of the film. The film unfortunately reinforces the old anti-communist cliché of life in the DDR ('East Germany') as a nightmarish existence under a police state, and we are introduced to that idea early on when the Stasi (the DDR's FBI) come knocking at the door to inquire about one of Brecht's guests, Wolfgang Harich. And it certainly comes as no surprise to anyone that the Brechts' summer vacation ends with Harich's arrest(moreover, there's the suggestion that, in politics, Brecht's soon-to-end life came down to just that: turning a blind eye to the oppressive character of the DDR).

There's a bit of historical distortion here, however. Harich was active in the SED (the DDR's Communist Party) for a number of years and known to be in opposition to the existing leadership, as he attempted to articulate and rally support for a 'third path' between capitalism and bureaucratic socialism, a so-called 'humane socialism.' He was not arrested by the Stasi at the end of the summer of 1956, but rather in November of that year. What's the dif? Well, in the fall of 1956 there occurred the uprising in Hungary, which eventually took on virulently anti-Soviet overtones, with the consequence that it was interpreted by all the regimes in the 'socialist' bloc as life-threatening. In other words, Harich's arrest was not so much evidence of the DDR's inability to tolerate dissenting ideas as it was a measure of the state of international, geo-political tensions at that time (don't forget, similar things had gone on in the US with the anti-communist witch hunts). In fact, Harich, after his release from prison in 1964, went on to publish and teach in the DDR: he continued to argue for German re-unification under socialist auspices and for greater attention to environmental concerns under socialism; he traveled to the West and always returned to the DDR (though opportunities to 'defect' were not lacking), and, after the collapse of the DDR, refused to testify against those who had imprisoned him in 1956. He remained a life-long proponent of a socialist society and economy in which the human values of friendship and community, solidarity and equality, health and environment, culture and enlightenment would hold sway over the commercialization of all aspects of life that is our fate under capitalism. And he firmly believed that, however warped the socialism of the DDR had been in the past, it contained the seeds for evolving in the right direction.

I also find objectionable the suggestion that Brecht himself was complicit in the DDR's oppressiveness, at least to the extent that he failed to publicly denounce Ulbrecht (the DDR's leader at the time) and his regime. I think it fair to say that someone who objected to many aspects of the DDR regime but still wished to hold on to his influence with the leaders would necessarily walk a dangerous tightrope; and it is no easy matter to judge whether Brecht would have served the cause of humane socialism better had he spoken out more forcefully against Ulbrecht's regime (though, obviously, that would make for better cinema).


Jan Schütte's film about Bertolt Brecht's last summer is a wonderful biopic. People who know Brecht's biography and his work recognize that the director succeeded in rendering even small details as perfect as possible. When I saw that Sepp Bierbichler plays Brecht, I thought: that's not possible. However, he surprised once more with his versatility. Monica Bleibtreu as Helene Weigel is simply incredibly good. Besides the main roles, the hitherto unknown actress Margit Rogall in the role of Brecht's collaborator Ruth Berlau is miraculous.

Besides offering a great cast, the film deals with a Brecht who has lost hope in the New Germany called DDR - or GDR in English -, but has not the force anymore to protest. So, he is widely adjusted and swallows his resignation as an inner emigration into himself. As one knows, Brecht died already with 58 from a heart attack. Partially one gets the impression that the director focused specifically Brecht-connoisseurs as audience (although this is not a necessary condition to understand the movie). For example when Ruth Berlau jumps out of her seat crying that Brecht's daughter wanted to burn her - Berlau died in the Charité Hospital in Berlin from a fire that she caused by her cigarette - and this is exactly what she is doing in the movie. Or we see Brecht very uncomfortably sitting in his chair trying to but not succeeding in writing - Brecht used to write standing on specially high desks. Shortly before Brecht leaves his summer residence in Buckow, young GDR-pioneers are reciting for him one of his famous love-poems from "Baal" - at that time, Brecht may have known that with the summer also his lifetime has gone.


I saw this movie as part of a series of films dealing with The Family. No, it wasn't sponsored by "Focus on The Family"! In that context it was a standout. Most of the audience (including myself) were less concerned about the film's historic accuracy than its portrayal of Brecht's "hareem" and the tensions that seem to always accompany such an arrangement. Brecht's poetry plays a role, but the politics seemed to be there just to set up tension between the two male leads. I thought the periodic shots of different members of the family swimming was an interesting way of showing escape. The device of setting the movie in a single day with the chiming clock to mark time was also effective. The violent end of the story, which you are set up for in the first few minutes, was very jarring nonetheless.


This was the final chapter of Walking Tall the life of Sheriff Buford Pusser. Bo Svensen returns to play the role of Sheriff Buford Pusser, Lurene Tuttle plays the role of Grandma Pusser, and Forrest Tucker plays the role of Grandpa Pusser. When the picture ended the last time Pusser had just finished of the last man that was involved in killing his wife. Pusser term as Sheriff is coming to an end and now he has a new challenger. Pusser looses the election and now is unemployed. He turns to buying junk cars and fixes them up to be sold. In the mean time Pusser tries to get on with the highway patrol but is ****** ****. When things get bad a movie director comes calling and wants to make a Hollywood production out of his life. Pusser agrees but he's got more problems then he realizes. I give this movie 8 weasel stars because of the suspense that keeps watching the picture and the action.


This last chapter is better built than the second and hence has a better rhythm. He is defeated in the election because he shows a high level of distance from the people. He seems to consider it below him to come and discuss things with the public, the electors of the county in a public meeting. Then of course he is a double or triple victim One, of the low life people he had chased and hunted down in his crusade against crime and they think they can finally get their revenge and they can trash his car or even attack him in the street or attack his family or the people he has relations with. Two, of the new sheriff who has the tendency to consider him as a dangerous person and a trouble maker. Three, of the real bad ones who know he does not have the protection his uniform could provide him with (cars, deputies, etc) and they come to the idea they can finally organize his end and go through untouched. That will be his doom. But the best part is his economic situation once he is no longer the sheriff. He lives with his parents who are old and retired and live on a small pension. He refuses to accept the job his brother in the north is proposing because he does not want to move. He also refuses to accept the job the local lawyer is proposing: investigator for his special cases, because he feels it is charity. He finally accepts the proposal of some Hollywood producer to make the film of his life and that brings him the end of his financial problems but also the multiplied desire to get even from the local traffickers, even against the advice of their own higher-ups. This reveals how difficult it may be after you have been in the limelight of law enforcing in a small city. The people reject you and even refuse to testify for you when you are attacked and your property is attacked by some local bullies or rough individuals. The film also shows very well there is a change in the US at that time. People after the worst criminal activity is gone, want to have a more peaceful and less visible law-enforcing police force. But at the same time it represents the end of a generation of traffickers who also want to run things in a smoother way. In other words US society in these early mid 70s, at the end of the Vietnam war, moved from the cult of sheer force to solve any problem to the understanding that a solution can only come if it is founded on some kind of peaceful consensus, even if that means accepting some kind of traffic provided it becomes non-violent, peaceful, and it respects some basic rules like paying taxes. That's exactly what Buford Pusser did not understand. Maybe he was right but at that time crime moved from the back woods of Tennessee to the dilapidated ethnic and poor suburban areas or ghettos of the big cities because the main traffic did not concern moon-shine whisky any more, an inheritance of Prohibition, but the new hard drugs like heroin and cocaine coming from Latin America.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines


You don't have to agree with its message to enjoy the first "Walking Tall". Certainly not as violent as the "Dirty Harry" pictures, but just as unsubtle, it was a powerful movie with a totally convincing, appropriately square performance by Joe Don Baker.

The first sequel, in which Baker was replaced by Bo Svenson, was a boring, by-the-numbers follow-up, with none of the force of the original.

The second sequel is even worse; talky and drab, it exploits (in an almost cannibalistic way) the first movie by lifting and recreating the most famous sequences from it. There are a few good moments (when Pusser picks up his trusty bat), but they are very scarce.


This movie was good.....but i suggest you see the original.(Walking Tall) I find that this movie shows Buford Pusser as just a fantasy movie character, and not the real tennessee sheriff he was. Bo Svenson was terrible as the role of Sheriff Buford. Why didn't Joe Don Baker act in the final two? They probably would have been alot better if he were in them.


The first movie in the series what fantastic and the second was just horrible because they change the actors a little bit and now the 3rd movie in the series is just horrible.

The first movie in the series had a lot to tell about Bufford Pusser's life and the second in the series had just had few thing that really happened to Bufford but not enough to make it interesting and now the 3rd movie in the series is just horrible worst then the second one and this one doesn't tell anything real about Bufford life except for when he died at the end.

If anyone if planning on watching this movie you should not watch this one and just watch the first in the series its more interesting then this one.Please don't waste your time watching this movie go on and make coffee instead.


Power-tools and tits: a classic combination of horror movie ingredients that, as far as I'm concerned, almost always guarantees a good time (I know, I know... I'm easily pleased). However, there are always exceptions to prove the rule, and, despite plenty of bare breasts and much DIY-appliance based violence, The Nail Gun Massacre bored the hell out of me.

Ineptly directed, poorly scripted and badly acted, this dreadful slasher-style effort sees a mysterious killer seeking revenge for a gang rape by using the titular tool to commit a series of murders. Looking laughable, rather than menacing, in a fetching camouflage jumpsuit and black motor-cycle helmet, our maniac somehow manages to stalk their prey unseen, before blasting them with a volley of nails. And for some inexplicable reason, the psycho also opts to talk in a strange, electronically modified Darth Vader style voice, making them seem even more absurd.

The cast recite their awful dialogue displaying zero acting ability, whilst co-directors Terry Lofton and Bill Leslie display a complete lack of skill behind the camera. Throw in some unconvincing and rather weak gore (let's face it, nails don't make a lot of mess: small puncture wounds with a trickle of blood), and what you have is an amateurish production that completely fails to capitalise on its sensational title.


This movie was great. Even just looking at the box, you know you have a winner, with two (thats right TWO) awful jokes on the front.

 This movie has it all - thats right, the director even put in some porn scenes, so everybody is happy!! The soundtrack consists of, 1 song and the killer doing the evil laugh. This one song is reused over and over - everytime somebody turns the radio on, there it is!! The song itself is just Jimi Hendrix's Voodoo Child, but cleverly disguised (it sounds the same but with keyboards instead of guitars). The story is ridiculous (a killer on the loose with a nail gun, and thats it), but the director does try to add a mystery into the movie. If you don't solve it, you are stupid (sorry, but its true), but there was a clever way they covered it up - use different stunt doubles!! This way, the director has achieved nothing except to confuse the audience - well done!

 The acting is horrible, and the movie is jam packed with flaws. My favourites were the dead man balancing himself out, and particularly the final death scene. I suppose this would count as a ******SPOILER****** (or am I just paranoid about getting banned?) but it wouldn't really spoil the movie. When the bad guy falls to his doom, it is obvious he landed on a mattress, because his foot flies back into the picture. Next cut of the camera, he is stuck feet first into the ground. A classic moment.

 To sum up - great for a laugh, unless you get offended by pointless porn scenes or horrible movies.


A must-see for bad movie buffs. Fun stuff. A killer drives around in a gold hearse, wearing camouflage and a motorcycle helmet, killing people with a powerful nail gun. Bad acting and bad script (the most important elements of a crummy flick) are here in abundance.

After the massacre has begun, there's a scene in a small shop where the old lady clerk says "Remember when you could go outside without having to worry about the mosquitoes or the killers?". Classic. There's a scene of a couple making out in a car, while the radio plays a song (sung by the director?) called Foosball. The dj talks a moment, and then plays Foosball AGAIN. Watch for the scene near the beginning, of the couple in bed. It looks like a less explicit outtake from a porno. "But you said we could play doctor all day, today!" the girl complains. Then, topless, she walks to a large mirror to comb her hair. The camera then shamelessly zooms in on her breasts in the mirror reflection! Hilarious!

The director, Terry Lofton, recently released a DVD of this movie. At least one scene (a couple in a forest)is slightly extended. Oddly enough, my DVD does not contain any end credits, but they are on my old VHS.

I'd say the movie sucks, but that's what makes it so entertaining. I would much rather watch this than Lord of the Rings or Star Wars movies. If you're into this kinda stuff, and you can't find NGM at your video store, I highly recommend you search for it online.


Nail gun Massacre is one of the most poorly made movies of all time but, it is incredible funny. If you can get a copy I recommend you see it ONLY IF YOUR IN THE MOOD FOR FUNNY A "B"...no "D" RATE FILM. I surely hope anyone who rents this movie will be looking for sheer terror, but with a name like Nail gun Massacre I'm sure your not. Some hilarious thing to look for are: Man moving after being killed on a BBQ Woman's foot thrown in the air after she plunges to her death in the end of the film Man being "nailed" to the highway Radio song being played in a car twice in a row

Don't forget to have fun!


After a young woman is brutally pack-raped by construction workers, a mysterious leather-clad vindicator (imagine the progeny of 'Darth Vader' and "The Wraith" as an audio-visual cue) stalks, then summarily gelds the attackers with galvanised nail gun precision.

I've seen some howlers and this is tough to beat for egregious shoddiness. Jagged editing and jump cuts that look like they've been made with a knife and fork, sound that only certain species of whale can detect with sonar-echolocation and paltry special effects (denim is apparently impervious to nails, whereby they hang limply like fashion accoutrements, despite the victim writhing in pain, clutching at a severely bloodied crotch) are but a few in a litany of feeble production values that will either have you terminating proceedings at the earliest juncture, or, laughing hysterically throughout.

No doubt inspired by "I Spit on Your Grave", there's really not that much substance in the storyline of which to speak, other than 80-odd minutes of, well, nailing. Too trivial to qualify as a criminal justice commentary, and not sophisticated enough to be dark humour, it's amateurish, uncomplicated and unlikely to offend any but those with delicate sensibilities. If you enjoy those 'so-bad-they're-funny' movies, then this should surely please. Others may want to avoid.


Gloriously stupid cheap rural slasher about a nasty killer who realizes that the title tool makes for an effective murder weapon. The film opens with a girl being gang raped by construction workers, and the murder spree starts pretty much right away. The two events would seem to be connected, but it takes our heroes, a big bear of a sheriff (Ron Queen) and the town doc (Rocky Patterson), a long time to put one and one together, much less two and two.

Well, give the film-makers credit, principally Terry Lofton, who wore a number of hats on this show: co-director, producer, writer, actor (he plays a truck driver), casting director, stuntman, and provider of special effects! This is agreeably sleazy and trashy stuff, with generous doses of sex and nudity. (The sex scenes, including a vertical one against a tree, go on for quite some time.) It gets down to business right away with its rape scene, then moves right along to dispensing gnarly violence. (The gore is actually quite good, and will hit us guys right where we live by seeing a dude get his comeuppance in the worst possible place.)

What makes this work, in my opinion, is that the despite the sleaziness and trashiness, it's done in a real tongue in cheek style. It's a case of one big joke that everyone's in on except for the majority of the characters. (And, of course, the actors perform it all with straight faces.) Our killer is wont to cracking hilariously awful one-liners, which are bad enough, but the capper on this persons' dialog is the kind of maniacal laughter one would expect from mad scientists and I-want-to-take-over-the-world type villains. All of it is just incredibly silly, and downright priceless.

None of the acting is particularly good, but it's simply just another piece of this amusingly, agreeably cruddy hoot of a horror film.

8/10


If you're looking for a proper horror movie, skip this one keep on looking. If however, you're a fan of the so-called "so bad it's good" movies, keep on reading.

I've seen lots of the so-called "so bad it's good" movies, including the notorious TROLL 2. I can say without reservation that THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE is at the top of the pile and far surpasses many slasher movies intended to be taken seriously. It is also cheaper than virtually every other movie made. It makes most B-movies look like high-budget Hollywood classics. The chances are that the spare change in your wallet probably amounts to more than the budget of this movie! This is very typical slasher fare with a very simple plot - a woman is raped by a group of construction workers. Soon after, a wave of killings by an unknown assailant armed with a nail gun begin. A doctor and a sheriff try to catch the said assailant.

This grade Z movie truly is a classic of unintentional humour. All the way down from the killer's incredibly funny one-liners to a woman screaming non-stop for several minutes (this gag later being used in NUTBAG) to the sheriff's mysterious badge (which just happens to move from one side of his shirt to another between shots!) to random moronic characters showing up out of nowhere just to be killed to the cheesy special effects (the nails are actually real and not rubber as some other commenters have stated), this is truly a tremendous piece of work. It is almost certainly guaranteed to please any trash movie lover and leave you with the feeling that maybe TROLL 2 was quite competently made after all! The killer in this movie is seemingly deliberately made as ridiculous as possible. He wears a camouflage jumpsuit with a yellow oxygen tank on his back, a motorcycle helmet held together with duck tape, carries a nail gun attached to the oxygen tank by a piece of curly telephone wire, drives around in a gold hearse and speaks in a modified robotic-style voice similar to Darth Vader! I'm not making this up, seriously! His height and build also changes through the course of the movie because the director hired two stunt doubles, one of which happens to be female! A massive number of victims (about 15) get killed by the unknown assailant. The murders themselves are also ridiculously executed. People literally die even though they've only had nails fired into their arms or legs. I think you get the idea. Tons of random people show up just for the purpose of being killed and only a few main characters exist. Almost every scene seems to contain a completely different set of people compared to the previous.

And the rape scene! How can I describe it? It has to be the lamest rape scene committed to film. This is no I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, so don't panic and assume you'll see anything particularly upsetting or disturbing. All you get to see is a fully clothed woman crying her eyes out for a few seconds as a few burly construction workers molest her and the scene ends quickly with seemingly 20 or so construction workers there to join in the fun. Priceless comedy.

Also contained within the movie is a very funny outdoor sex scene which the director famously describes as being as close to the real thing as possible. This scene, along with all the random gratuitous topless nudity shown throughout, was added to please the distributors. The sex scene is without doubt one of the funniest you'll ever see.

The movie's low rating is probably due to an inaccuracy of marketing on the part of the distributors. This should have been marketed as a comedy. If so, it would have enjoyed the popularity of spoofs such as SHAUN OF THE DEAD. Instead, the distributors decided to market it as a typical 80s slasher in the same vain as such movies as THE TOOLBOX MURDERS, BODY COUNT, THE HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW, MY BLOODY VALENTINE and so on. This was an obvious attempt to cash-in on the slasher boom at the time. Unfortunately, it didn't work and the movie drifted into obscurity until the eventual DVD release in 2005. The said DVD contains a documentary in which the director talks about the movie and tries to explain away some of its shortcomings. It too is a must see for fans of this movie.

All in all an absolute must-see for all fans of the "so bad it's good" movie genre.


An hour and a half of complete drivel which is less than not entertaining, about a killer running around with a nail gun, killing off guys and their blonde bimbos. I think the story has something to do with the father of a young girl who is raped going out to seek revenge against the rapists. We see the rape at the start and there's five guys, but somehow the five men turn into about thirty. One of the most memorable scenes occurs in this film when a girl gets killed and the killer is gloating about it, unfortunately the girl is still very visibly breathing, blinking her eyes and looking around everywhere. Maybe she wasn't aware that she was dead. Yes, it's pretty pathetic.


Ah...my type of rotten 80's cheesy exactly! "Nail Gun Massacre" is commonly known as one of the absolute lousiest slashers ever  a reputation it definitely lives up to  but I couldn't help enjoying every insipid moment of it! The god-awful acting performances, the pointless gratuitous boob shots, the thoroughly lousy dialogues, the extreme gore!!! Simply wonderful or, to say it with the biggest cliché in horror reviewing, they just don't make 'em like this anymore! The least you can say about Bill Leslie's and Terry Lofton's "masterpiece" is that it doesn't waste any valuable time. The whole point of the movie is already illustrated during the three-minute pre-credits intro, when a bunch of hillbilly construction workers rape a defenseless girl. Only seconds later, one of them is already severely punished for his naughty behavior by a dude completely dressed in black and operating the titular tool as a murder weapon. All this during a brief intro and the best is yet to come! After the credits, that uses cheesy laughter for music, the handy avenger cheerfully continues to nail people down, only now he says something really stupid every time he fires his gun. After a good twenty minutes, half of the redneck population is already dead, while the local doctor and dumb sheriff are still cleaning up the blood of the first victim. The pacing slows down a little then, since new moronic characters need to be introduced first. But, no worries, the gore only gets sicker, the sleaze only gets...um...sleazier, and the killer's one-liners only get more retarded. Too bad his victims die so painfully before they get to hear his witty remarks. Also, the initial revenge motive doesn't stand anymore, as he's just randomly wasting horny teenagers like the average 80's slasher icon. Forget about tension or mystery surrounding the culprit's identity... You need none of that when there already is a guy waving around a nail gun! I'm rewarding this crazed flick with a 10 out of 10 rating, for sheer awfulness but most of all because it's the single most entertaining 80's slasher out there! Absolute most hilarious line: (whilst aiming at two pretty young girls) "It's time to do your nails". Total must-see!


Every horror collector worth their salt will at least have heard of The Nail Gun Massacre. It's such a tempting title isn't it? I finally gave in and bought the special edition DVD. This film is one big mess from start to finish, but you already knew that. The most interesting thing in it was breasts, big huge breasts at that! One woman has breasts so big that they're all you (and the cameraman) can focus on. The biggest problem with Nail Gun Massacre is that you can't really hear what anyone is saying, making it hard to follow. Every time someone speaks there's a horrible noise that sounds like a passing train. Perhaps this was to cover the bad acting? If anything they should have removed it and let the actors do their thing, no matter how untalented they are. At least we can laugh at them then! The sound is atrocious, half the time the background noise is louder than what people are saying. You also can't hear the supposedly "funny" lines from the killer, as the voice is too distorted.

It does have it's good moments though. You can't help but laugh at such an inept film, with scenes such as a couple 'doing it' against a tree, where all you can see is the mans white ass jiggling around. The best part for me was when the killer says to the big breasted woman: "Get inside, big tits!" And there's another hilarious scene where a woman gets hysterical and says "I'm gonna die, I know I'm gonna die!" I would say the film was worth watching just for those two scenes!

For a low budget "so bad it's good" film, The Nail Gun Massacre is nothing special. There's other low budget films that are much funnier such as The Suckling and They Don't Cut The Grass Anymore (the acting is worse than Nail Gun Massacre, yet more hilarious).


"Do you remember when you could sit outside and not worry about the mosquitoes and the killers?" That's the best line from this backwoods clunker filled with terrible sound, music, and "actors" who seem to be just a group of friends who took a week of acting classes and said, hey we can make a movie now! After a poorly filmed rape scene intro, some nut case in camouflage and a black motorcycle helmet straps a nail gun air canister to his/her back and starts picking off goobers in some small hick town. While some of the victims are the rapists and probably deserve this, other people are killed because they are merely construction workers(like the rapists) or because they are women who are with the workers. Very oddball stuff. The nail gun effects are all after-shots, where the gun is fired and then the camera gets a close up of the nail already in the flesh. Granted, I didn't expect much in the way of effects from a film with a title like this.

I would have given this a few extra points, maybe even 6 out of 10, dare I admit it, if only the stupid killer didn't have that lame laugh that you couldn't tell if it was coming from the helmet or the soundtrack. It was all reverb and echo and totally ruined anything decent the movie might have had going for it(well, that and the horrid sound quality--dialogue is often lost due to the sound of passing traffic). Then there are the jokes. Apparently, this killer has to be funny when he kills, sort of like Student Bodies, except in this case, the funny scenes are when the killer isn't telling jokes. God, they are horrible zingers and you wish he'd nailgun his own face.

I cannot in good conscience recommend this for horror fans as it is more like a comedy. I can't recommend it as a comedy either. You really need to have nothing better to do than sit through this garbage, like maybe if you are in traction and can't escape the front of the TV screen.


A biker-outfitted clad, hearse driving killer searches for the construction workers (and those associated with them) who gang-raped a girl earlier in the film. The vigilante's weapon of choice is, in keeping with the name of the movie, a nail gun. She (or he) also spouts some truly awful one-liners as he (she) offs the victims. Also an inept cop and inane doctor are searching for the murderer/revenge killer. That's pretty much it story-wise.

Man oh man is this a bad BAD movie. Atrocious acting, dreadfully unfunny quips from the killer (whose voice is synthesized to keep the supposed 'mystery' of who it is), a script my dog could write, el cheapo gore 'special effects'. This is strictly amateur hour in every single connotation of the word.For something similar, yet a billion times better, do yourself a favor and rent "the Toolbox Murders" instead (the original NOT the remake)

Eye Candy: Staci Gordon & Kit Mitchell get topless (Kit is also topless in the DVD outtakes); Shelly York shows tits & a bit of bush (word of caution: John Rudder shows his ass and penis)

My Grade: D-

Synapse DVD Extras: A 25 minute interview with Director Terry Loften; an 8 & a half minute outtake reel (with no film audio but with comments from the director) ; & Promotional trailer for this film


Beware...spoilers ahead. Low budget...great film. Blood, gore and sex, what else could you ask for. The nail gun is an unusual tool for the genre. They made good use of it. I especially love the hearse. Nice touch. considering i have two of my own. Although the taped helmet is tacky is was a simple solution to hide the killers identity without labeling him without a distinct face...like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. I even love the cliché vengeance motive. All in all it is a cheesy movie; but isn't that the reason for movies... suspension of reality. Or total disregard for taste. Fortunately both are my cup of tea.


I believe it was but a young Steven Hawkings who once said "As I watched perfection and tried tirelessly to describe it's gleaming magnificence, 'twas four words that came to mind, "The Texas Nailgun Massacre...or perhaps it was "Dude, look at those titties!" Which doesn't make any real sense because that's actually five words, and Steven Hawkings can't actually speak. Regardless, it is fair to say as one who hasn't actually seen this movie and is only commenting on other comments, supposedly there is fare amount of "breasts" in this movie. That being said, I am now intrigued by these so-called "breasts." "Breasts" what a concept, bet you can't say it five-times fast? Damn, you can! Anyways, "Breast," if you rearrange the letters in the word "Breasts" you get "Streabs," which sounds a bit European to me, and I don't know about you but this is America! Home of the good ole' Red, White and Blue, where cars are made out of steel and might was built on coal and iron. Where that good ole' American spirit hangs in the air, and we all rally around that one ideal that makes us better than every other country in the world "Fuck Soccer!" But i'm getting off track, what was I talking about again? Oh yeah, "breasts", I would say tits, which is much cooler, but for some reason people find that offensive, and since I can't say tits I refuse to discuss the matter any further. Besides the fact that all I know about this movie is that it is called "The Texas Nailgun Massacre," there is not a single word in the English language to describe something as obviously amazing and awe-inspiring as this film. I thought of one but I don't think "splendiferous" is a word. Anywho, if you are lucky enough to run across "The Texas Nailgun Massacre" in your local video store (which you won't) I highly suggest you keep walking, because only those with hearts as pure as snow and strength as mighty as the wind blows can handle what lies in front of you on that movie store shelf..."Critters 3." But right next to that is a movie...I'm sorry, let me rephrase that, a revolution that is "The Texas Nailgun Massacre."

(However since it is next to Critters 3, I bet you'll pick up both covers and compare the pictures on the boxes for awhile before you skip over both and rent "The Truth about Cats and Dogs," which is much cuter I think.)


Apparently filmed with a budget comparable to a fifth-grader's allowance, this baby pulls out all the stops. We have "nails" that are clearly rubber stuck to "dead people" who are clearly breathing and a killer that miraculously puts on forty pounds and appears to change gender when "unmasked." Throw in many horribly cheesy comments from the killer and you have one amusing film-going experience. While the film is clearly not Shakespearean, it is highly amusing and the many incongruities/not-so-special effects in the film will keep you laughing throughout. I could think of worse ways to pass ninety minutes (namely a Barbara Streisand movie or anything with Mel Gibson in it). A strong 8/10 rating from me.


Don't get me wrong, I enjoy bad cinema and b-flicks, but this film was sub-par. The video cover is a bad Mad Max parody, the tagline "cheaper than a chainsaw" doesn't exactly draw the viewer in anymore and when you actually view it, the only reason you keep watching is you can't think it can't get any worse, but boy does it. I've seen better acting in a porno, the gore is weak, and the killer is the worst "maniac" in cinema. Being filmed in Texas I thought it'd have a good indie feel to it, but nope, far from it. I can't continue to trash it anymore, because I just don't have time and energy to waste on this film. Rent it and judge for yourself.


I'm not a person who will usually step out on a limb and call something the "best" or "worst" ever, but it's simply impossible for any movie to be worse than this one.

The effects were horrible, the plot was a silly attempt at exploitation that never worked out, the acting couldn't have been worse and the ultimate playoff was a major hoax.

Grade A trash!! Rent this movie for an incredibly amusing evening!


Probably trying to cash-in on other power-tool related horror-films like Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE and TOOLBOX MURDERS...THE NAILGUN MASSACRE is a dull and unoriginal film that has a few laugh-worthy moments that don't make it a complete and utter waste of time - though it's close...

A chick is gang-raped by a bunch of construction workers. A camouflaged weirdo with a robotic voice that spits out stupid one-liners runs around with a nailgun killing a bunch of hicks and redneck hos as a means of revenge...

THE NAILGUN MASSACRE is a dull snooze-fest that only has a few "gory" (but ultimately) cheezy scenes that are nothing to write home about, and a few lame nude scenes to it's credit. I would suggest not wasting your time at all on this one...4/10


After a bunch of construction workers rape a woman, the men start getting 'nailed' by some vengeful killer carrying a nail gun.

Cheap and trashy all the way, Nail Gun Massacre has to be one of the worst excuses for a horror film ever. Our villain is laughably un-scary, as he makes corny, distorted jokes during every murder! The characters are completely wooden, the plot is non-existing, and the quality of this movie basically consists of one sex scene after another with the occasional unconvincing murder. Granted though, it does have one of the better murder-during-sex scenes of the slasher genre.

Only for those who love movies that look like they were shot in someone's backyard, or in the director's case his grandmother's general store. Grandma cameos as a store clerk reading a lame movie script.

BOMB out of ****


This movie really opened my eyes to the world of nail gun slaughter. I really had no idea that you could die from being shot in the arm with a nail gun. Totally blew my mind. And they had a song in this movie about the game that had the bible belt up in arms, we know it as FOOSBALL. They were so cheap they used it twice in a row on the radio they had on. This movie also revealed to me the fact that if you have snow camo on in the spring, a motorcycle helmet with black tape over the face mask, and a nail gun with a bright yellow air hose, you can still sneak through the woods. Or just stand there in the open and not be seen. Oh yes, did I mention that the killer rolled in only the best of vehicles. Thats right, a crap colored hearse that screamed more that it was a grocery getter, than a body transporter. One thing I will say is that the Construction business should be up in arms over this one, this totally portrayed them as rapists and idiots. I for one would not stand for it. This is definitely one of those movies where somebody comes onto the screen and you have to ask, Now who the hell is this guy and where did he come from? Backstory is not this films strong point.

In the end, was it fun to watch, of course. Would I watch it again, only if I had a six pack of killians and my friends with me. Let's check the scores...

Body Count - High

Nudity - LOTS

Gore - sort of, nothing fulci would put his name on, EVER. To sum it up, chocolate syrup, ketchup, and rubber nails. Thats about it.

Acting - Great, if you like bad acting from old folks.

Fun Factor - Excellent, a movie thats so bad that you can rip it apart is always good in my book.

I say, check out this movie if you're just out to watch something goofy. Chances are you'll be able to rent it for a buck.


While it is true that Nail Gun Massacre is a true insult to celluloid due to its lack of anything remotely well done, well acted, well framed, well planned, well edited, etc., I've found that if you pretend it is intentionally bad, it starts to have some redeeming qualities. The one-liners are so lame and include horrible puns, and I laugh like a mad man every time I hear them. The killings have absolutely no element of surprise to them; you're given at least 30 seconds of warning before the soon-to-be victims see the nail gun killer, and once they've seen him, he usually interacts with them in a poor, poor manner that would not be intimidating. While most slasher film fans don't really care about getting into characters and just want to see each and every person killed off, I find that I like to select a few characters to root for each time, hoping they make it alive. With the exception of the doctor and the sheriff or whatever they are supposed to be, it seems there are no constant, recurring characters in this film. When you are introduced to a character, that means they are toast. Great way to make you care about the characters and have a reason to care if they are dying, huh? Still, this movie is perfect to sit around with a couple of buddies, play drinking games if you like, and just laugh at all of the bad lines, unnecessary nudity, and hilariously bad special effects. 10/10 just cuz I can't bring myself to not plug this piece of snot.


This is how a movie should be made, on a low budget, with no plot or distinguishable characters. This film reeks of class, so much so in fact that this film deserves a Trilogy as it is up there with "The Godfather" trilogy and the "Star Wars" trilogy. Anyone who hasn't seen this film should give life and limb to see it, it is truly amazing! I would go as far as giving it a 9/10. Enjoy this spectacle if you are going to go out and see it!


what a great film. there aren't enough folks daring enough to produce and release something of this calibre. breasts blood and nails....hooooo-wah!! there also aren't enough killers who wear motorcycle helmets....by far this is the greatest film to hit this corrupted and smelly industry in years.


Futuristic Films Production and Terry Lofton give us this extremely low budget movie that should be avoided at all cost, it's a complete waste of time, no matter if you're looking for a horror movie or a comedy, this doesn't fit in any category, I've seen better kindergarten plays. The nails are clearly made of rubber, the "special" effects are cheap, sauce used as blood, etc. The acting, you can't really call it acting but anyhow, it's non existent, not one single line of text is said in a natural, convincing way. The killers synthesizer voice is annoying and what's with the helmet.

The director wants us to think that the killer is the girl that was raped in the beginning of the movie, it would make sense if it was, when you look at the body of the killer it pretty much matches the body of the girl but then turns out that when they remove the helmet we find out that the killer is the girls father. Not likely, he's taller and larger, I'm guessing in an attempt for a final twist they just decided to make him the killer.