Spoilers ahead: Never thought I would say it, but this movie is a failure.

Aside from Jared Padalecki and Amanda Righetti's strong performances the rest of the cast was very amateur and clichéd. The acting was awful and the roles were embarrassing. Danielle Pannabaker tripped through the movie with a slack look on her face the whole time as though she was bored to be there. The rest were so amateur I hardly believed them to have have ever touched marijuana or had sex before in their lives. I understand having a roundabout cast for appeal purposes (or more realistically PC purposes), but when you have the only African American character calling out his very existence in the movie, it is sad. For example: "You are going to have me pump gas because I am the only black guy here!?" A smart audience does not question nor care that there is one black man with a mostly white cast. I feel that the stereotypes in these current movies are too over the top. Cringe worthy.

The marijuana subplot was ridiculous. Let's have massive amounts of herb growing around Camp Crystal Lake, because God forbid teenagers might actually want to go plain, old camping and not need a reason like getting high the whole time! Overkill. All the screen time with the bong was lame. The writers really take their audience for a bunch of morons.

Considering the atmosphere of Friday the 13th (2009), you could tell we were on a set. Running in and out of the camp, with the sign overhead felt like it was some kind of amusement park! The setting was extremely one dimensional and the props made a mess of scenery. I'm sorry but Jason Voorhees does NOT collect trinkets! And for someone so obsessed with their mother, his shrine to her would have been a little more dramatic and not stuffed in the bathroom wall! This oozed Marcus Nispel's other remake The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and he should have went with another set designer and filmed somewhere other then Texas.

Jason runs (a lot). A lot of people thought this to be odd. Big deal. He went the distance in Part 2. I honestly do not have any complaints about his look or performance. The filmmakers tried to put their stamp his character and have him turn lights on and seem "more human." Why try to fix something that is not broken. The new Jason was brutal, as should be. Even though I thought his kills fell short.

Yes the kills were not exciting. I would have rather seen Jason use the same weapon over and over if he did it creatively! Instead he is using bow and arrows, poking people through floorboards! Very disappointing. It should have been more creative, more gory AND more brutal. It's a shame that for the hard R rating, the focus was on breasts and drug usage and not Friday the 13th's signature death sequences.

One other thing. How Jason stumbles across a size extra large hockey mask and decides to put it on was laughable out loud!


wow...since Batman started this whole "re-boot" thing a few years back, everyone's going "re-boot" crazy if not "re-make" crazy...

Short and sweet, it's another slasher film...nothing is elaborated on in reference to the previous canon, which is probably the biggest disappointment. Pam V. only gets a whopping 1 or 2 min of screen time. I guess with that in tow, we'll never meet his dad, how he was conceived (what kind of man does Mrs. Voorhees let in her bed anyways?), we'll never know his emotional significance of growing up in the wilderness alone, did he try to connect/rebel, etc. Tom Foolery's review on here probably puts it best so read his for more detail on the film's drawbacks.

On the positive side there were some nice boobs and nudity in the film, and it was at least better executed (no pun intended) than parts 6 thru 10 (though 10 story wise is probably more entertaining).

In summary: Like TCM, not anywhere as good or creepy as the original (or in the case parts 1 thru 4) BUT better than latter day sequels. My Bloody Valentine's re-make was far more entertaining however, and if you have to choose, go see that instead (especially if you're an old time like myself).


I was disappointed in this remake. At least they did try to get a little creative by involving a lake house instead of only having Jason at Camp Crystal. Who knew Jason could leave the campground. The main disappointment was the killings weren't that good for a slasher flick. There wasn't a whole lot of blood and what killings they did show were quick. There wasn't much detail. Also, Jason does not take prisoners, so he would never have kept Whitney alive. It's not right for some remake to completely rewrite the rules of a classic killer. Also, this movie had quite a bit more T&A than most of the 13th sequels. It was clearly pandering to 15 year old boys.

FINAL VERDICT: If you are going to redo a classic about a serial killer, at least have new innovative ways to kill of the teens. The killings just weren't that good and not enough gore. I only recommend this if you want to watch a movie with friends that is so bad, it's actually funny and you can have fun laughing at it.


I got a scary story for you. There was this guy, and he had a girlfriend. One day they had nothing to do, and "Friday the 13th" was playing at the Dollar Theater. Despite everything that his instincts told him...HE SAW IT! AAAAH! Okay, okay...I know that none of these films are supposed to be scary, just dumb but fun entertainment. And that's what the original was! The original was very fun! But this...the only reason this gets a 2 is because I loved the new Jason so much. He is fast, smart, and seriously more brutal. But everything else in the film is flat-out so-horrible-and-boring-and-not-even-remotely-fun that it should be avoided at all costs. AT. ALL. COSTS. I have come to realize that when Michael Bay says he is producing something, what he really means is that he is projectile-vomiting it. God help the remake of "A Nightmare On Elm Street". There's NO WAY it can be as bad as this was...right?


They basically put parts 1,2,3 and 4 together in one movie.First of all the kills in this movie were boring and made with CGI.Second,way too much sex and nudity.I mean a little is okay but having a sex scene last 3 minutes and showing EVERYTHING that's just dumb even for a horror movie.Third,the ending was kinda hard to understand.Jason jumps out of the lake and cut,it's over.I mean that was just mind blowing and odd.On a positive note,Jason looked scary and cool.Jason looks the best in this movie.This movie had it's moments but it's just wasn't that good.I strongly suggest watching the old Friday The 13th movies.Parts 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 are the best ones.The rest are just okay.


Hollywood's remake machine still droning on, and eighties semi-classic Friday the 13th is the latest film to get the unwelcome treatment. I can't say I'm a massive fan of the Friday the 13th series; certainly it's one of the better slasher film examples, but that's not saying much in a niche so lacking in good films. However, compared to this remake; the original Friday the 13th is like Ferrari compared to Ford, it's Led Zeppelin to the Spice Girls; Mario Bava to Michael Bay. To say this update is poor would be a gross understatement. The plot is, of course, just your basic slasher fare. The scene is set at Camp Crystal Lake; where a bunch of kids have travelled to camp in the woods and steal some of the local weed that grows wild in the area. It's not long before there's a discussion about the legend of Jason Voorhees, and shortly thereafter all the kids are butchered. A while later, someone named Clay sets off on his motorbike to look for his sister (who was one of the kids from the start) and he meets some other kids who are there to be slaughtered.

The film is a remake of Friday the 13th, but effectively it's a mish-mash of ideas from the first few films of the series. The plot involving Jason's mother is briefly skipped over in the first few minutes as the producers knew they couldn't market a movie without Jason Voorhees in it. There's also a scenario where Jason finds a hockey mask and puts it on, which feels completely out of place. Obviously the producers knew Jason had to wear the mask so they could put it on the posters, but it would have been less silly if he was just wearing it from the start. None of the characters are interesting at all, and only one is memorable. I don't remember his name but he's the one doing a Tom Cruise impression. Director Marcus Nispel (who did quite well with the TCM remake) expertly captures the modern horror MTv music video style, and this basically glosses over any attempt the film makes to be shocking/scary. There's some gore but it doesn't make any impact. There's also some RIDICULOUS idea about Jason taking a prisoner, which was obviously put in the movie to dampen it and ensure that it got the 'R' rating, which helps the producers to make more money. Overall, this is an absolutely abysmal effort that does no justice to the original and was clearly made to cash in. Luckily, it didn't cost me anything to see (but I still want my money back!)


Movies like this where a group of friends are on a road trip to nowhere and then something goes horribly wrong in this case crystal lake's Jason, are nothing new. Girls in these movies are just there to ride their boyfriends or most of the time tease guys. You'll see a lot of boobs in this movie and sex of course like there's not enough porn over the internet or elsewhere. During these scenes it appears as if Jason is watching from behind a tree or something and masturbating, when it stops he recalls oh i'm here to kill 'em. Then these killers, generally speaking, develop a bond with these girls they abduct and do not kill while providing them everything so that they can break free and run, at times taking a hell of a beating at their hands yet doesn't kill. The next time the killer(Jason) finds her somebody else gets slashed in trying to save her. This happens until more lives are laid down, protecting the girl and you ask why ain't she dead already? that's the funny part.

Now that you'd see and Friday the 13th is no different maybe some parts. Killings are exaggerated, he/she would be dead when machete pierces their bodies in the first place. Acting is not needed here as you'd probably know but i hate to admit Julianna Guill made quite an impression in her topless sex scene and is the only thing to look out for in the movie. Also Jason brutally murders his male victims though not so brutal with females Why? trust me that takes away even the fun of watching violence. Well i won't recommend it to the readers, rest...is up to you guys.


Why would anyone take the story of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and then slap on the title of Friday the 13th???? I've seen the original Friday the 13th movie and all of its sequels of the 1980's, and even the worst sequel of this bunch is far superior than this 2009 remake. They should have called this movie Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Why is this movie so horrible? First and foremost, they tried to show a "different" side of Jason. That was my biggest turn-off in this remake. The Jason in this movie is something of a calculated hunter who keeps people chained up in his basement. The original Jason would've never been like that. Period. The original Jason was a cold and inhuman killer - you simply could not understand his motives because he was so evil and inhuman. He was a killing machine that never stopped and never toyed with his victims. He was a brutal monster. The new remade Jason is more "human" and less threatening, less scary. He essentially becomes a backwoodsman who doesn't like people on his turf.

Secondly, the cast is too Dawson-Creekish for me. I like stupid teenagers getting sliced and diced in slasher movies, but these young actors and actresses really pile on the unnecessary drama amongst themselves and have too much of a social and political conscience. As if we care who they are. It's like the cast of a Scream movie decided to camp out and end up bumping into a territorial hunter in a hockey mask.

Third, where did all that sex come from??? Since when did Friday the 13th turn into porn? I like nudity sprinkled into my slashers, but the amount of nudity and sex in this movie really makes you wonder just why in hell so much energy was put into the movie in the first place. I still haven't figured out if they really intended on making a slasher or a porn - the sex and nudity far outweigh the gore.

If you're going to do a remake, do a freaking remake. Don't continue the story with a whole set of new characters and an entirely different plot. I was hoping to see a remake and instead I get a sequel 2009 style. Only this sequel is by far the worst made and should not at all bear the title of Friday the 13th.

My recommendation - rent this remake if you want to see a movie that resembles nothing like the original. You're actually better off just watching Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


(May Contain SPoilers) Okay, this is what I knew from interviews with cast & crew. They were going to show the origins of 'how' Jason started using the hockey mask. Uhm, excuse me, but did they NOT see Part III which CLEARLY shows how and why he started using the hockey mask? Apparently, not but they were still hired to make the movie. We were promised the 'origins' of Jason and all we got was a half-attempted beginning that really didn't explain much at all. For a newcomer to the Friday The 13th lore, a newcomer wouldn't have known what that was even about in this so-called 're-imagining'. This is cemented when the campfire Jason story is interrupted thus a newcomer still wouldn't know anything about the origins of Jason. Yet they were still hired to make this movie. They were hired, in part, by Producer Michael Bay who walked out during the first screening saying there was 'too much sex'... LOL! Of course there was. This IS Friday The 13th for camper's sake! I'm betting he didn't read the script. Shoot, I know he didn't because he would've seen then there was, in his words, too much sex. But he didn't know until the film was made and he was watching it for the first time? Gimme a break! He just heard the name brand and put his money up without even reading a script and that's his own stupidity, imho. The editing was beyond bad. The actors were all very capable here. When Jared P. & Danielle P. got on that motorcycle to go to the other side of the lake, I was thinking "man I hope they're gonna ride onto another movie set and skip this one!".. But, of course they didn't. But overall, if this were the first Ft13 that someone ever saw, then this 're-imagining' has left them confused as to what Jason's mother actually did and why Jason does. Jason, here, on the other hand was the one redeeming character in this mess. He was relentless, to say the least and had the script been better and done with more suspenseful editing, Jason would've been a force to be reckoned (sic) with! But he didn't have much to work with. As for that hockey mask. He found it in a barn. Wow! That mystery has finally been solved (sarcasm alert)! How was that any better than when he found the mask in Part 3? It wasn't. Then in another barn, there was even more hockey equipment. Now where do you suppose all these 'hockey playing pot farmers' actually play hockey at? I thought it would be near impossible to make a bad Ft13, but all involved here have achieved that and then some. It had to be harder for them to do this bad, so maybe they should get some kudos...lol And the one thing that really ticked me off: Where was the obligatory VW Beetle? It's been in all the Fthe13th's and they missed an opportunity to use the NEW VW. Shame...lol This was Part 12, not a re-imagining unless they have no imagination. :) Also, why does the music sound more like the 'Terminator score' than Harry Mancinis' original score. And Jason does NOT take hostages. He just doesn't. And the hostage here ('Whitney') has been tied up for 6 weeks inside Jason's cabin. Yet, her very clean shirt is still nicely tucked in and her finger nails nicely manicured. She had also obviously been eating good. What did she eat? Human flesh? And how did she maintain that 'kick-your-ass' spirit for 6 strait weeks without freaking out. Maybe it was all those manicures that calmed her? I think there were just too many cooks in the kitchen on this one. And by calling it just 'Friday The 13th' they've screwed themselves on being able to call the next one, the 13th one, which could've been called 'Friday THE 13th' but now that's shot down. And we still don't know anything about Mr. Voorhees! They could've at least had him in an asylum, having his way with that nun, Miss Krueger ;P (i'm only half-serious on that last statement) And instead of showing us AGAIN where the hockey mask came from, they could've used that time to show us who taught Jason how to drive in Ft13th Part 2 ;P Just saying...lol Peace


This film is dreadful. Wasn't this a good opportunity to kill Jason off once and for all? I would have given 6 out of 10, but the last few seconds of the film dropped the rating to 1. Awful. A waste of 1 hour and 45 minutes.

The first film in 1980 was brilliant. We've then had another 11 (inc. Freddy vs Jason), plus this one, and they have just got worse each time.

Some good acting in this movie but it's a shame it ended like it did.

I'll certainly not be watching the next one! I can't believe that over 2,000 people have given this movie 10/10.


Well it's Friday the 13th and by the remake is so retarded.Jason is Back!!But...... HE'S RETARDED!I'm So sorry all of you Jason fans but this just disappoints my butt.The only thing that Friday The 13th Part 12 Deserved in Media is a video game.Yes..a video game.Now Friday The 13th is classical 80's series in a creepy sorted of way.Now Other Series in the 80's Like Batman,Halloween,and Nightmare on Elm Stereet are 80's that don't lie.I kind of enjoyed the new Halloween Derectied by Rob Zombie but this is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! Hahaahahahahahah! Next Review: Superman Returns (2006)

Sigend:The Angry Video game Nerd.


I have a Hook-Ups shirt (Jeremy Klein's Skateboarding products company) which has the Genocyber's menacing pose from the back of the DVD sleeve on it. Having spurned my interest, I went to the ends of the earth to find a copy of it so I could see for myself whether or not it lived up to the hype, and finally ordered it from my local anime house for $30+. Boy did I have no clue. The Genocyber is present in about 5% of the story, and scenes with it in action are woefully short and inadequate to even support the drawn out (2 and a half hours!) story in which it seems to be a sidebar item rather than the cause itself.

Utterly awful. I should've seen this coming however knowing full well going into this that this stinking pile came from the director of M.D. Geist, one of the most loathesome pieces of japanese animation of all time.

Not recommended for anyone but the most elitest of anime snobs.


Genocyber is one of the most repulsive, ultraviolent examples of anime I've had the misfortune of watching. With unsympathetic characters, low-budget animation, and an eerie fascination with blood and gore, Genocyber loses any moral message it tries to express in a bloodbath of proportions matched only by fellow Ohata Koichi titles such as MD Geist.

Many people think that titles like this are what makes anime worth viewing. I thoroughly disagree with that opinion. Genocyber has precious little coherent plot to go with the scenes of carnage it presents, and gratuitously adds sequences (for example) of children being little blown apart by helicopter gunships in slow motion.

Sure, it's not real, but should we be encouraging this kind of stuff by buying or renting this sort of sludge?

Granted, violence is a fact of life, and a fact of entertainment, but I can't possibly with any sense of conscience support or endorse this much glorification of violence for entertainment's sake. Especially in a title as pointless and overwhelmingly bad as Genocyber.


What happened with this movie? It starts pretty good (minding is a B-series tv production). Very a-la 24, Jack Bauerish. Then when you get to the half, even if you were trying to still believe its contrivances, the storyline becomes so incredibly stupid and fragmented you start thinking you must have dozed off at some point and missed something.

**SPOILERS AHEAD**

They plan a scam, goes fine, and then suddenly the bad guy henchman jumps at them out of nowhere. We're never told how he got there (is there a scene missing? talk about deus es machina!). Well from there on, cheap blackmail, contrived plot, ridiculous high-tec computer company reliying on 3 1/2 inch disks,the clichés are a dozen a minute and more plot holes than anything you've seen recently on the small screen.


Okay, now the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency, (that's an oxymoron itself)) is framing Jane Doe(or is it the company that's doing it?), but then her 17 year old son is a DIA operative in the company and her ex-husband is a DIA agent. Bad guys in the company she works for are into selling secrets to foreign agents, so she reveals happenings about this and is fired for doing so, then is set up by insiders in the company to cover up the killing of the company president. Now the DIA is in cahoots with the company big wigs from the get go, but makes out like it is trying to catch the company VIPs in the act of transferring the secret stuff. Next the DIA boss wants to kill her DIA agent husband because who knows why and also wants to take out she and her son. DOES ANY OF THIS MAKE SENSE? A movie you definitely will want to miss.


A mulligan stew, inherently of low expectations: throbbing music; lots and lots of different locations, sometimes interesting but fleeting; abundant gun play; a plethora of characters (more than indicated by IMDB); wild camera angles, till they tire of them; deceit and treachery all over, with vaporizing loyalties; super high-tech weapons; and something about intelligence agencies, computers, encrypted passwords, and critical databases doctored by the good (???) guys for sale by the bad guys to unseen other bad guys of murky pedigree. At the end, the only true good guys stand alone.

Teri Hatcher has the lion's share of acting duty. Sorry girls, there's not as much of Rob Lowe as you'd expect from his star status: just enough to preserve his star billing but not enough to break the budget or really exercise his talent.

Fine production values and good acting. BUT: why, oh why, can't they spend less on frills and more of the budget on a decent, respectable script; shouldn't that ALWAYS be the first priority?

By the way, we never learn how Jane Doe (Teri Hatcher) came by her legal name, nor what that has to do with anything.


Admittedly I've seen a lot of bad films in my time but this has to be one of the worst films I've ever seen. First of all the plot is really ridiculous and there is no apparent beginning and the ending isn't all that great either. The fact that there is no beginning proves that the director obviously thought it would be a good idea to push the viewer into the middle of the action to get the instant involvement but it only serves to confuse and annoy. Secondly the plot is way too complicated for its own good. The story has a lot of twists and turns and they are obviously there to keep the audience guessing as to what might happen next. However, again I must say that it only succeeds in confusing and annoying the viewer. People really aren't looking for a really deep, complicated storyline in a TV-action movie. Now as for the actors they are generally really bad. Teri Hatcher is completely uninteresting and sucks as a mother. I'd be really sad to have her as my mother. Rob Lowe who is actually a decent actor but he does some of the worst acting throughout his entire career. Trevor Blumas... well Trevor Blumas sucks. Not at a single time is he believable. He sucks throughout the entire movie.

All in all a really poor effort 2 out of 10


The movie was entertaining, but became frustratingly unrealistic in the last half hour. I won't tell you exactly what happened but I was yelling why don't they do this or that, or you have got to be kidding me for almost the entire last half hour. Especially the ending where the victims are located in a place where there was no chance they could have had access to, but they are still spotted immediately by their rescuers. I believe you should suspend disbelief to a point when watching a movie, but the movie makers also have a responsibility to keep things within the realm of possibility.

I am a professional firefighter so I understand that in a crisis a lot of people do stupid things and use bad tactics when facing life threatening challenges. But to me it would be more entertaining to see people who are using good judgment and not freaking out.


After seeing some good reviews on IMDb For this pointless waste of time i decided to watch it with a group of mates.

BIG MISTAKE!

I want my sat night back, but more, i want the trust i also lost with my friends back, as i will probably never be allowed to choose a movie again.

Don't get me wrong, this movie looked pretty good at the start. Building up characters for the audience to slightly get connected to, Only to lead to absolutely nothing. I was expecting to see another LA riot. But what you get is about as exciting as the dramas in the Brady Bunch movie. This movie dragged on building up its climax only fizzel out just when things looked good.

This would barely make it as a mid-day movie. It gets a 3 because the acting was pretty good.

But having a black-out in your own home would be just as exciting.


Got to see FIVE GRAVES TO CAIRO recently; saw it last about 20 years ago. The same thing that I'd forgotten bothered me then came back to bother me once more: I simply could not get past the fact that Franchot Tone's accent was never taken into account by the German characters in the story. Of a sudden, Tone, a British Armoured sergeant (with a "suspect" British accent), adopts the identity of the spy Davos, with no noticeable change of accent. Nor does Wilder, the film's director, account for the nationality of Davos. Is Davos multilingual? Are we to assume he's addressing Rommel in German? English? French? This inexplicable glitch compromises the verisimilitude of the entire film and strains the viewer's credulity. As a result, I could not enjoy other elements of the film to the fullest, despite a charming performance by Akim Tamiroff. Furthermore, Von Stroheim is totally miscast as Rommel who, by all accounts, was a svelte, elegant, and heroic figure, not a vainglorious, pompous, and porcine caricature.


What's the difference between Space Balls and Scary Movie 2, 3 and a lot of the first one. Well Space Balls is funny all the way through. It does somewhat of a story not just a showcase for jokes. And thus the jokes and the story(spoof) are given a chance at humor.

This spoof on Alias starts out funny then the stale joke gets quick fast. Yes, i do watch Alias. Think it's a good show. This spoof with hammered into your skull "jokes" and its "slapstick" humor was anything but. These directors definitely did a good job editing and getting locations but if that's the best you can say about something then is it really worth mentioning to others? Yes, to tell them to watch something better.

So do yourself a favor and watch something better.


Recap: Life is looking good for Robinson and his fiancée Elizabeth. But one day everything changes. Elizabeth is out riding in the hills and witnesses the brutal murders of a whole group of young women by trafficking mobster Dolan. Dolan is known for getting rid of all competition and threats but Elizabeth is determined to witness. Despite getting protection from the FBI Dolan manages to murder her and Robinson goes on a quest for revenge. But Dolan's car, a Cadillac, is a fortress in itself, armored and bulletproof, so Robinson must think of something special.

Comments: A rather bad movie that actually is rather hard to put into a genre. It got a little action but not enough to make it an action. It is probably supposed to be a thriller, but it doesn't got much of suspense. And it certainly isn't a romance, comedy or drama. It got a little of everything, but it is nothing in the end.

The story is very simple and divided into three parts. First, the setup. Show the happy couple, kill the girl and give proper motivation for Robinson's quest. Then, the plot. This is where Robinson plans his special revenge, which plays out by him working as a road-worker. Not very exciting at all. And last, the revenge. Which is not very exciting either, because it is very single sided. Oh, I'm sure Robinson got a kick out of it, but to watch it. Nah.

Unfortunately, but not very surprising, the acting is nothing to remember either. Well, I suppose there wasn't much to do with the material at hand, but still. The cast is mostly unknown, to me at least, with the exception of Slater. I have higher expectations on him, although his recent work doesn't promise much. Vaugier was the only one that showed some promise, and I hope she gets another shot.

In conclusion, not a good movie, but not too bad either. Nothing to remember, and there are many better movies out there.

4/10


The "hero" of this movie has no redeeming qualities! Though bent on revenge, he has to crybaby breakdowns, then becomes "tough" shoveling dirt on a highway construction job (those guys don't look tough to me) and then comes up with a crazy plan to bury the bad guy in a hole in the highway. Luckily for him, no cars come by after the initial three that appear right after Dolan's Cadillac is driven into the hole. The hero then tries to bury the car with one load of dirt, that he shovels in by hand, rather than using the front loader that he has available. An effort is made to make him appear to be "crazed" but all the movie does is make him look stupid. Slater on the other hand plays the same character he played in "Pursued". It is unlikely that anyone of Oriental heritage will enjoy the racist crap he has to say about them. Nothing here for those who like good movies, or even those that can accept so-so movies...


Whatever happened to Eighth Wonder singer Patsy Kensit after she appeared in the high voltage, high energy thriller 'Lethal Weapon 2'? Well, she went on to appear in a number of okay pictures (the acclaimed 'Twenty-One' and the sweet romantic comedy 'Does This Mean We're Married') and some truly terrible TV-movie-type fodder such as 'Kill Cruise.' Unfortunately, this crass production falls into the latter camp and, despite some good talent and a serviceable script, the movie is betrayed and let down with an overabundance of (blatently obvious) body-double nudity (that would seem more in place in a soft porn production) and a (supposidly) "surprise twist' that is telegraphed early in the movie. Kensit plays the lesbian girlfriend Alex, to Alley Sheedy's motivational speaker character, who persuades her girlfriend to escape the big city after she is brutally attacked. The two seek the solitude on an island and tension arises with the arrival of an injured man, a violent storm that knocks out the phone lines and ferry services to the mainland and the almost voyeuristic fascination with the girls displayed by the local sheriff. Kensit was the reason why I picked up this movie, that and the promise of an okay suspense thriller, but her talent is once again squandered in a movie that fails to deliver any real tension.


Caught this tonight on cable and have to say it surprised me - didn't figure out what was really going on, even though I knew that what was being shown wasn't the entire story, and I have seen so many films like this, where what you see isn't exactly what you get, where you can't take anything at face value, so it shouldn't have fooled me. But it did. It's the sort of movie that leaves you shaking your head at the end, wondering why you didn't see it coming (no pun intended).

Sheedy, Baldwin and Kensit turn in clever performances, with enough eroticism to keep you watching and wondering where the heck it's actually going. I don't know if it would be as enjoyable in a movie theater, but seeing it at home from the perspective of my couch was a decent experience.


**SPOILERS** Jogging through the streets of NYC well-known motivational speaker and former womens PGA golf champion Louise "Lou" Dalamere,Ally Sheedy, gets attacked by this masked weirdo with a stick-ball bat who almost kills her. After recovering from her injuries Lou and her live-in girlfriend Alex Patsy Kensit, take a ride out to her country house in far out Shealter Island.

It just happens to be that at the time that Lou & Alex got to the house a major storm hit the island and knocked out all the electricity and telephone lines leaving the two women alone and cut off from the outside world. Just then Lenny, Stephen Baldwin, the local clam digger gets swept up out of the ocean and dropped right into Lou's home.

Agreeing to let Lenny stay over until the storm blows over Lou & Alex soon realize that he's anything but grateful to them for practically saving his life. Lenny imposes himself on the two women, with off-color remarks about their lesbian relationship, and makes a total jerk of himself by also trying to hit on to Alex, right in front of her startled lover Lou! Thus doing his best to out stay his very brief and unwanted welcome at the Dalamere house.

It's obvious from the start that Lenny was anything but a stranded clam digger or even an Shealter Island resident but was part of some off-the-wall scheme to do in Lou and take off with her money making it look like her death was a drowning accident. It's also obvious that Lenny was the guy who attacked Lou earlier in the film in New York City that left her almost dead and that this time, in secluded Shealter Island, he was going to finish the job that he started back there. What we don't know about Lenny is that he's anything but alone in his attempt to murder Lou and has a lot more help in doing it then we, the audience, and Lou may think.

Stephen Baldwin together with Ally Sheedy and Patsy Kensit are about as odd a trio as you would ever see in a motion picture. In most of their scenes together they came across so absurd that you at first thought that the scenes were badly done out-takes that for some reason or mistake, or maybe even practical joke, ended up getting edited back into the movie.

There was also the local Shealter Island Sheriff Deluca, Chris Penn, who also got into the act later in the movie, after you forgot all about him and thought that his brainless actions earlier were just comic relief. Sheriff Deluca is also one of the major players in the plot to do in poor Lou.The ending of the movie was about as anti-climatic as you could make it with the only major actor in the film who, up to then, had nothing to do with the plot to murder and legally steal Lou's money ending up being the "mastermind" of this whole crazy and unbelievable scenario.


It would be easy to say that this low budget thriller just doesn't work and then point out the obvious flaws but I think it's incredibly sad to watch any actor that is even remotely well known appearing in something so idiotic. Story is about two lesbians that go to their home on Shelter Island to get away from their hectic lives and spend some time alone. Louise Delamere (Ally Sheedy) is a motivational speaker and former pro golfer and while jogging one day is savagely attacked and beaten by an unknown assailant and her girlfriend Alex (Patsy Kensit) is the one that urged her to take time off and heal.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Once they arrive on Shelter Island they run into Sheriff Deluca (Chris Penn) who warns them of an approaching storm. That night during the storm they find an unknown man on their doorstep unconscious and they take him in. He awakens and tells them his name is Lenny (Stephen Baldwin) and he immediately starts to act weird. Once the storm passes they have a difficult time getting rid of him and then to Louise's horror she discovers that Lenny was the one that attacked her before!

This film is directed by Geoffrey Schaaf who seems tailored made for those late night Skin-amax flicks that usually star Shannon Tweed but somehow he managed to get some well known actors. This horribly made un-thriller is so bad that it doesn't even work as one of those "It's so bad it's good" films and every male character gives new meaning to the word Neanderthal. When Penn is first introduced in the story he starts to meander and mutter about "being good on the eyes" and then starts to really babble like an idiot. Baldwin is always irritating no matter what he's in and he's astonishingly primitive here and after talking with Sheedy's character he asks her to arm wrestle! Even though he must outweigh her by 150lbs she beats him and in more than one scene she gets the best of him. Every nude scene with Sheedy and Kensit is with body doubles that look nothing like either one of them so if you had the idea of maybe viewing any of these two naked your out of luck. Sheedy's career had hit a high note in 1998 with the fascinating "High Art" and I thought she deserved an Oscar nod for her tough performance but ever since then she has slowly slid back down to crap like this. I can't describe how painfully sad it is to watch a good talented actress like Sheedy having to work in an utter abortion like this. This film fails on every single level and isn't worth anyone's time.


Geoffrey Schaaf probably had no clue where he was taking this story, because ultimately, it makes no sense at all. The credits tell us it's based on a screen play from Paul Corvino; it makes us wonder if the writer must have been under influence when he conceived this pathetic thriller.

The actors are wasted. Poor Ally Sheedy, she gets involved in projects that really don't deserve her talent. One wonders if after High Art a lot of directors have decided to cast her in lesbian roles.

The story is too obvious. We know what's coming just by looking at the first scenes of the dinner party. It goes downhill after that. Stephen Baldwin will be better off by retreating to his native Long Island and start a clam digging business. Chris Penn is just horrible in the film, as are Patsy Kensit and Mimi Longeland.

Surf channels whenever this dud shows on your screen.


Is there a movie category lower than Straight-to-video? If so, perhaps it's Straight-to-Showtime-at-3 a.m., which is where I caught this little oddity. I won't waste any time on how idiotic the picture is since others have already explained it well--but I did want to comment on a "technique" so badly executed that I had to pinch myself to confirm what I was seeing and hearing. Midway though the film, for what seems like 20-30 minutes, there are passages of dialogue and voice-over narration that are accompanied by the actors talking, or mouthing words since you can't actually hear them--you can only hear the voiceovers. It seems like you've stumbled onto the worst dubbing job of all time. The actors appear to converse, and separate dialogue is heard on the soundtrack. I think the director was trying for artiness, a way of conveying events in a way parallel to the action on screen. Or something. We'd have to dig out THE CREEPING TERROR to find another botch job of this calibre.


Okay fine to be honest it is TERRIBLE. Cheap story that you would expect a grade 4 to write better. basically what happens is:

2 Women (Lesbians) go to a island to have a little vacation. they 1 night find a man knocking at the door and he falls in. They keep him for around 2 days, 1 of the women find him to be unsafe. but shes actually the one who works with him. She hired him to kill the other woman to take her money. But he didn't manage she came back to the house to try and rescue the other woman (the evil) because she thought she was being attacked. She beats him up. Then the bad woman kills the one that was supposed to die.

Okay that's basically what happened.

DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY OR TIME ON THIS.. NOT WORTH IT.


I might have a partial spoiler here, but maybe not.

What's the matter with Ally Sheedy, taking a role like this? The movie's plot and ending would do well in an 11th grade creative class, but gee, we paid money to see this. It's impossible for anything like this movie to happen. In a crime scene, the same gun was used on every person in the room, which would make forensics people lick their chops.

I've always liked AS, but she must have a lousy agent. She's a pretty good actress, and needs to be tested a bit. The Dancer Upstairs was okay, but another mediocre writer ruled.

I felt duped, and to call this movie a thriller was mislabeled.

2 out of ten.


this movie is hideously and unredemably awful. if you want to see softcore lesbian porn with Ally Sheedy (not BreakfastClub!Ally Sheedy, when she was kinda cute in a weird way, but AgingAndReallyCreepilyOver-Aerobicised! Ally Sheedy, no less) and some bitchface blond Brit, and then have a whole movie's worth of lame nonsensical plot crammed into the last 10 minutes, then you'll end up building a little shrine to this movie somewhere in your humble abode. the rest of the human race, and several other organisms who possess more than one cell will absolutely loathe it.

don't go see it just for the girl-on-girl sex, either. it's not particularly sexy, and even if any girl-on-girl stuff will get you off, you will at some point see a partially nude Baldwin. check out the photo of Stephen Baldwin on his page here, and you'll understand why you'll have to schedule a trip to your nearest cutlery store in order to purchase a knife to gouge your eyes out. he's got the fug big-time.


I saw the opening of this film at a film festival on long island, and i was disgusted. The movie has absolutely no plot... doesn't make any sense... and uses nudity very distastefully. I think the director just needed to shoot the film out of his sexual fantasies. I will say the acting isn't half bad, but the movie itself is a waste of time. I wouldn't recommend anyone to see this film unless you're a teenage boy looking for a sleazy girl-on-girl kinda movie.


I caught this movie free on Showtime On Demand last night. I'm glad it was free because I'd have to "demand" my money back.

I know a movie's in trouble when I can sit there watching it and say to my partner, "So, when do the lights go out?" and "BAM!" the lights go out. Or when Patsy Kensit goes to use the phone and I say, "The phone is out," and Patsy comes back and says, "The phone's dead." Close enough, right? So the word for this movie is "predictable". Okay, lame, too.

Re: the use of body doubles people have commented on.

If both Ally and Patsy are in as bad shape as Stephen Baldwin, it's a good thing they had body doubles. Baldwin should have considered using one, too.


this movie is pretty awful. it lacks suspense and is all around boring and worthless. i connected with none of the characters and now as i think back, i can't even remember how it ends. don't waste your time w/ it. actually i think why i don't remember the end is because i fast forwarded to the end, i do that sometimes, so i can say i've seen a film but i don't have to actually sit and watch the whole thing, i usually get the gist though. it's a bad habit really, if it's getting too long or i'm just feeling too fidgety or it's boring i'll fast forward. i always feel a little guilty when i do it though. like i'm disrespecting the director, and i am, but i've got other things to do than watch a crappy film. now mind you i've only done this a few times and this film happens to be on my 'sucky' film list.


This movie was absolutely horrible. i know nothing of the actors previous credits but i do have to comment on this movie. if you can even call it a movie. first of all, i live in a town a stones throw from the ferry to shelter island. i have been there many many times and i know what it looks like. The two women in the movie are supposedly moving to shelter island. this is one of the flaws. the shots that were supposedly Shelter Island are not. they are shots that were filmed in the Hampton's somewhere. that disappointed me. also the whole movie was a flop. the acting was bad, the story was stupid. the only reason i would rent this movie again would be for the lesbian scenes. although those weren't that good either. Anyway. all in all this movie was absolutely horrible. don't waste your 5 bucks on it or whatever it costs to rent a movie at your local video store.


Up to 1970 lesbians almost always died in the movies. The modern movie maker does not want to blame lesbians, but they have to die. By the way, in Nazifilm there also were a lot of strong women, who had to die at the end. It does not give meaning, why the blonde woman kills her lover just to find another woman, who will make her laundry. When she is killing her girlfriend, you get the impression, that she is heterosexual, but she has to be a lesbian at the end - because the film wants to tell you, that lesbians are mean, stupid and, in a way, helpless. They can get rich, but they have a poor live. That it is dangerous to be a lesbian - very dangerous. In one thing the film is right: it's all about perception. The film is bullshit.


By 'they' I mean the people who told the young lady at the video store when I asked her "Do you know anything about this?" and she replied that she hadn't seen it but had heard good things from people. Geesh, I wonder what their standard is? This was pitifully terrible. I very rarely turn off a movie (or put down a book) but my partner and I just could not endure it to care enough about what happened to whom. Actually, "Who cares?" really does hit the nail on the head. Who cares what happened to any of the characters; perhaps it would have been better if they all expired within the first 5 minutes and thus spared the viewer for lame dialog and a tremendously boring story.


**SPOILERS** Pros: Hot actresses (Sarah Chalke looks in this), nice looking campus that actually look well-kept, and... uh lemme think, Oh yeah A good flick to make fun of while plastered with friends.

Cons: Bad camera-work that give it a 70s-like look to it, A plot twist that makes no sense, music that repeated itself over and over and over and OVER and OVER and OVER, unrealistic in parts, etc.

DYING TO BELONG(1997) 3 out of 10: This movie features a nice cast for the time, is a good (in more ways than one)look at the actresses Hilary Swank before her days as a Hollywood star and Sarah Chalke before being a regular on the show Scrubs, and also shows that sometimes film music needs variety.

As for where the film goes wrong, I suppose I'll start with the music first. Three songs does not a versatile soundtrack make. This is one of the distractions of the movie as well; you wonder of the filmmakers has an obsession with this song and decided to shamelessly plug it all over the film. You'll know which one I'm talking about pretty early on in the movie/ There is one other song with the title of the movie in the lyrics, but no one will know or care about it, but it gets played about in three different scenes. The budget problems show here.

I realize that this isn't Oscar-worthy material here, but some of the dialogue could've needed some work. That guy from Saved By The Bell looked horribly miscast as a bookworm reporter for the school newspaper who takes his job to seriously. Of course, who would've thought that he becomes the boyfriend/informant of Hilary Swank, and help to unravel the evil fraternity's harsh atmosphere and habitual Satan-worship. Speaking of that, I found the whole cloak and candles bit to be cheesy beyond belief. Don't get me started on the like spoken by Hilary Swank's mom which went something like, "Don't ever let me tell you how to live or you can slap me. (Sobbing)" Or something close to that.

Now onto the plot. On first watch, the college-wide cover-ups of the death which led up to event like the reporter getting hooked me, and make me actually think that it was somewhat decent. But then, near the end Sarah's character tells Hilary that her friend falling was indeed and accident, leaving the viewer bewildered as to most of the antics the frat did in order to cover up the "accident". This is of course accepted as fact. If the movie was supposed to show how smooth that they lie, the movie did a bad job of conveying this.

If it's on TV than go for it, and rent only if you are bored, don't have basic cable or dish, and like to laugh at these sorts of campy movies.


Yes, I came from my university's greek system, but that isn't the reason I think this made-for-TV flick was total crap. The whole thing is just stupid overall. I can assure you that no men are allowed in the sorority house rooms, aside from the atrium/living room, at any time. Trust me, I was your average college guy who would have LOVED to have seen the rest of the house but it flat out wasn't allowed. Not only that, but the alcohol in the house would have resulted in a chapter shutdown. I've seen it happen and it's not a pretty sight. The glaring stupidity that makes the movie look unrealistic is the ridiculous part where the cops just happen to be waiting for the girl who has marijuana planted in her car. Amazing how sorority girls got the stuff so easily. Not only that, but she is just let off with a warning??!!?!?!?!? What the hell is that? They let off DRUG POSSESSION SUSPECTS with a WARNING?!?!?!?!? Was this flick made in Fantasyland?

This was the worst portrayal of college life since Higher Learning. Anyone who recommends watching a stupid made-for-TV movie before "allowing" their college-aged (and therefore legally adult) children to join an organization needs to find a more credible source. This was as much like my college as Saved By the Bell was like my high school.


I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show


I've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called "That '70s Show," I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.

If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than "The Wonder Years."


As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.

Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.


Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there.

Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.

For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.

For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?

Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.

OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!

If people think this is quality television, it worries me.


+ SPOILER ALERT + Well, after seeing this movie, I often pondered to myself; "Why did Aladdin and Jasmine get married again?". It's true. If you remember at the end of "Aladdin", the two were clad in fancy, purple wedding vestments. But in this third "Aladdin" movie, the two are about to wed (in their plain, white wedding digs) when suddenly, Aladdin's random father, (who never even existed up until this point) along with his forty thieves, crashes and destroys the ceremony.

Then, some random wand is really an Oracle who tells Aladdin where his father is. Aladdin is all like, "DADDY!!" and goes to find him.

(I won't give the whole movie away, but I'll sum it up into this...)Aladdin ends up helping his dad in his quest to find the "Hand of Midas". (Seriously, it's like collecting PokeMon cards. Just get a life.) They find this Hand, that brings out many goof ups.

One; the Hand turned Aladdin's dad's cloak to gold. It moves freely and seems flexible. Yet, when the bad thief Sa'Luk touches the Hand and turns to gold, he can no longer move at all.

Two; the items that the Hand touch turn to gold instantly. Yet, Sa'Luk takes a while to change.

Three; after all the trouble poor Aladdin goes through to get his dad the Hand, his father hurls it out to the sea. What a waste!! Though this film was way better than "Return of Jafar", it couldn't save the film's cheesy songs and sappy storyline. Aladdin's dad gambles with his son's life several times, really making Al's, "He's a good dad." philosophy go to poop. It's really a poor movie.

3 out of 10.


1st watched 2/14/2010 -- 4 out of 10(Dir-Tad Stones): OK straight to video 3rd entry in the Walt Disney Aladdin series tries hard to be like the Disney movies of old that we love(but that's also it's problem -- it tries too hard!!) It has the many songs, the good guy-bad guy theme, and the guy gets the girl scenario but it obviously has less heart and funds to pull it off. It was made by the TV animation studio and it kind of has that look and feel to it with it's incomplete, un-realistic backgrounds but otherwise looks OK. Robin Williams as the Genie is funny at times(but overbearing at others)and some of the other minor characters brings some laughs but the movie tries to be too grand and too good even though it wasn't meant to be. The story is about Aladdin and Jasmine getting married but is interrupted by the forty thieves. We later find out that Aladdin's father is the king of thieves and he goes on a quest to bring him back and reform him. There is a bad leader of the thieves who keeps fighting with Aladdin's father over the kingship of the thieves, who amazingly is voiced by Jerry Orbach, in a very different role for him. They are then lured to the ultimate treasure of Midas's hand by an oracle and they eventually have to decide what's really important(the treasure or the people). As most Disney films, it all works itself out in the end but the movie overall doesn't deliver the kind of craftsmanship in the story that usually keeps us interested in a Disney movie. A good try by the TV animators but it's not quite what it could have been. Given a little more money and time it could have been a worthwhile effort but instead it's pretty mediocre.


In a time where animation means animals, it's great to see a coming back to roots with human characters.

It's all the more enjoyable that the Arabic culture isn't very exposed today.

This opus is much better than the previous sequel, as well in the art than for the story: it mixes some tragedy, fun, adventures & historic appeal. The Midas Hand is really based on a myth.

I am delightfully surprised to see that there's no time-out, except the silly songs parts: it's always based on jazzy tunes, so if you heard one, you heard them all!


Okay, so they reunited MOST of the original cast. So what? The result is still a second rate sequel with poor animation, and worse music. I especially loathe the ridiculous lines fed to Robin Williams as Genie. His character was completely overdone from a plethora of excessive costumes to interjections that really didn't belong. Just don't expect to see the magic from Williams' original performance. Let's focus on the positive: The story itself does have intrigue. Aladdin decides to search for his missing(?) father and finds him as the leader of a band of theives. He hopes to change him from his treacherous ways, and well... Watch it to find out. Jasmin's singing voice is the very talented Broadway veteran Liz Calloway (back from "Jafar" and most recently heard singing as "Anastasia"). As a whole I must say that "King of Thieves" is an improvement from "Jafar" and we can't be too critical toward a video aimed to please children in the 4-9 range.


Fun to see the Thai version of a slasher movie. It is very much a "teen" movie and a mix between The ring and Scream The acting rates from decent to awful, but it's fun to watch, OK entertainment.

There are better Thai movies, but it's fun to see them doing things in this genre


This movie was a good idea to bring the disease of Scleroderma to light but it depicted one of the worse case scenarios of the disease.

Being a sufferer of Scleroderma and having a brother who died from the disease I was scared beyond belief at what could happen to me. In talking with other Scleroderma sufferers some of them felt the very same way I did. Scared and concerned.


This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Somehow, in this veiled [auto?]-biographical mess, Sagat actually makes HIMSELF the center of attention! I will summarize the movie: [SPOILER WARNING]...

 * Mother: "Yes, you're dying. We argued when you were young but now I love you." * Father: "Yes, you're dying. And yes, you argued when you were young but it wasn't that bad." * Daughter: "And now I'm dying!"

Repeat several (apparently) hundred times and you get the idea.

This is a train wreck of a movie, and I use the word "movie" lightly. I was drawn to this in that manner - a wreck on the highway that apparently no one else but me sees ... why is it still there? Won't anyone clean it up? Help?


FOR HOPE is a TV movie recounting the slow, slow death of a 40 year old woman. The film offers little other than sharing the experience of an utterly hopeless, and very long, deathwatch. The result is pretty ugly and depressing. The production is well meaning, but as a whole is lacking any entertainment value. The bottom line recommendation is don't waste your time.


An unleashed, nonstop documentation of one man's thinly veiled attempt to annoy every available woman and prostitute he can find the nerve to approach. His addiction is not so much to having sex with prostitutes, but to endlessly approaching them, pricing the act, and then saying "I'll have to think about it." Lather, rinse, repeat, with every opportunity taken to confess his every thought to his current girlfriend in the supposed interests of honesty and openness.

The redeeming realism of the film crops up in a fairly straightforward reporting of the hideous effects of this behavior. Do not expect much fun from the sexual adventures - there's some fairly graphic content, but it's about as joyless as it comes.


It's been more than 48 hours since I watched this pitiful exercise in ego masturbation disguised as film, and I still can not erase that truly vile scene of the narrator receiving oral sex, out of my mind. While I can admire anyone willing to open up and bare their soul on camera warts and all, throughout the entire movie, I never once got the feeling that the director/star ever felt a bit of remorse that his obsession with hookers lead to the demise of several of his relationships with women. He also comes across as an egomaniac as well: none of the real women he was in relationships with look anything like the porn stars he used in the reenactments.

Find a better way to waste 90 minutes of your life.


Yes movie nuts that's what the title should have been: I'm a Kid that Can't Grow Up.

At first I was impressed by his insight into his sexual needs. And his wanting-to-have-a-girlfriend-he-can-be-honest-with sounds like it's progress. (He doesn't want to hide his urges.) But he repeats the cycle with three new girlfriends and you see that he's not learning. He's just thinking up naughty and then giving in. It's really about hooking someone else into watching his drama. I finally caught on when, with the third girl, he freelances all night, then comes home to Christa and kisses her and says he wants to try to kick the habit. That's his whole problem. He doesn't want to kick anything or anybody except whomever is his lover of the moment. It gets boring when you see he's going nowhere and he succeeds again in alienating yet another woman who started out being understanding. No that's not enough for this guy. It's "Come watch me," then "Help me quit," then it's "Don't you go out and do this stuff because I'll get jealous." Enough. I could not finish watching the thing. This film is a lot like Henry Jaglom's films. They're all about Jaglom.

I gave it more than one star because his story sounded worth hearing for about a half hour.


You would think the lead could do a better job of acting since he's just playing himself, for God's sake, and you would think a movie with this title would not put you to sleep. I rented this as a fairly liberal person and a fan of "Sex and the City," almost expecting to laugh at whatever society considers "excessive" sexuality.

Caveh has an irritating voice on so many levels-that childish lisp, that flat delivery and the self-indulgence of the content itself. Am I supposed to share his offense that he inadvertently hired a porn star to play his ex-wife? What was he doing surfing those websites when he found out, anyway, who is he to judge? My reaction to Caveh was mostly disgust with his self-absorption, ranging to being absolutely CREEPED OUT when he groped receptionists' breasts at massage parlors. Just when I thought the "Eeewwww" factor couldn't get worse, I listened to him reminisce how much he enjoyed himself by groping and getting thrown out, how it was a big entertaining game for him. Also listening to him describe his rough-up a prostitute fantasies to a friend, who did not react with any normal response. Where does he find these people?

This was the first time ever I felt like asking Blockbuster for my money back.


Although professional in scope and production, this film not only loses it's self portrayal, self review objective, it also never develops any plot line that pulls you in as a viewer. The writing is non existent and the film constantly runs along as though it was made in the same chronological fashion as the diary format it is narrated in. What you are left with is an odyssey of "my perverted world and welcome to it" over and over....and the women in Caveh's relationships almost deteriorate in value during each relationship...only to escape from him which just further tortures him. What his hang ups ensure is that the women in his life may not know what they want, but they know what they don't want....and they don't want Caveh. Why anyone would care about somebody like this or someone who has the deep rooted sexual hang ups like this is curious. Initially, as a viewer you are aligned with Caveh because you are following him as the "narrator"....and he initially connects the viewer in humorous terms....but as his sexual desires and hang ups persist.....you are left feeling sorry and uncaring for Caveh....which is how his existence comes across by movies end. Yes, some of the women in this film are gorgeous....and perhaps they are the "hook" that pulls you in as a viewer...but Caveh's constant mulling over his problems never gives the viewer any belief that Caveh intends to change enough to become the man he needs to be... Call it a fetish lifestyle...but in the end, "I Am a Sex Addict" is all about a very selfish, self centered person...who inspires nobody.


or "I am a Really Bad Actor" or "I am Sexually Immature" or "I Learned Nothing in Film School"

The subject matter doesn't bother me. I was hoping to see a somewhat insightful film about a man coming to terms with, and rationalizing, his own sexual hang-ups and cravings. That is what the director/writer/star would like to say he's doing with this film, but he fails miserably. The story itself is essentially a history of his sexual experiences, poorly reenacted, complete with laughable orgasm sounds. His flimsy directing and wooden acting is on a par with Ed Wood. The whole production, from sets to camera movement, to acting, comes off like something made by a few twelve-year-old kids with their first camera. His story is not shocking, merely self indulgent and boring.

I could almost forgive him... almost... if this was his first film. It is his eighth.

I beg his parents to please cut off his trust fund so he can't keep making these terrible movies.


Very very interesting movie about self story struggling being a sex addict. Even if its a low budget film project, this could be a great enjoyable movie with a much better casts. These days everything is about how you present the 'whole package'. Acting by Caveh himself is truly brave, but sometimes expression and fire is more convincing,the constant eye starring and mimic could be a bit annoying to watch, same goes to the female casts, it needs to gets the audience to feel the story, the only female cast that I feel did a good job was the alcoholic girlfriend, she did a great job, very convincing. But the fact that it won for an award surely must be a great joy and pride for Caveh, I hope to see great future films from him.


This movie is witty and funny for the first half an hour, but afterward it is completely boring, it's the same action repeated over and over until the movie ends, only the prostitute in the scene is different. It presents the drama of a guy who didn't have the guts to do the things his heart told him at some particular times in life, and how could he do it? He is a sex addict, he sees all relations through the prism of sex which for an adult is both immature and disgustful. The end of the movie is blank, it has no taste, no smell; it's there because the movie just had to end. Suddenly all his sex addiction problem ends when he finds the girl of his dreams (that's like for the fourth or fifth time). Unfortunately i have watched it, it ruined one of my evenings and the only thing that this movie showed me, once again in my life, is that when you don't know what you want you ruin your life and the life of others around you :)


The guy is obviously sick and I can't believe that he found somebody to fund this self indulgent masturbatory aid.

He wants so desperately for you to like him and accept him that it just comes off as slimy and annoying.

I got to see this movie for free and I still feel as though I have been cheated. It's no wonder that this film was rejected by Sundance, I'm glad at least one group of people had the chance to tell him how crappy this movie was.

p.s. although there are lots of boobies and sex scenes, none of them are even worth fast forwarding to.


Do documentaries or mockumentaries get any worse than this? If you've read the other reviews then you know the focus: a self-involved film maker wants to introduce you to his sexual habits.

Unfortunately, his sexual habits aren't very interesting or original or even entertaining. There isn't much sex on display here, just a lot of talk about sex, and you've heard it before. He does a lot of agonizing about his relationships, and possibly doesn't know himself that he just comes off as a fool. Not in a funny way, either, but in that way where you're glad he doesn't live near you, or isn't involved with anyone you know.

Mainly it's a self-indulgent documentary about his past sexual relationships with nothing interesting to carry it. An extended version of the average high schooler telling you about how he scored with the cheerleader. You won't believe it here, either.


This is truly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The movie is a pathetic extension of this man's therapy/sex addict self-help group. One of the more disturbing elements is his delight in humiliating the actresses who are in the film by revealing private details from their personal lives. Perhaps this is an extension of his prostitute fetish (that is, he believes that by paying them he owns them somehow)? The man is a control freak, and obviously not a talented filmmaker. Also, the sex scenes (and there are a lot of them) are truly disgusting to watch. I literally had to close my eyes, fast forward, and even turn off the movie at points. A complete waste of time.


I have never thought the term "addict" was appropriate for those who are unable to control their sexual behavior, but that is the least of my reasons for disliking this narcissistic semi-documentary. The director has actors portraying characters from the earlier part of his life, and interacting with him as he "plays" himself. And of course he also plays with himself a lot; we are subjected to many scenes where he seeks privacy in a bathroom so he can masturbate. When he isn't engaging in self-abuse he is seeking the company of prostitutes or discussing his inability to stay away from ladies of the night with actresses representing his various girlfriends. Oh, what a tedious exercise; certainly for the audience and one would imagine for the director. But maybe there is nothing about himself that bores this man. Perhaps we can look forward to a film about his smelly feet and how often he washes his socks.


Never have I seen beautiful women like those who appeared in this film fall in love with an ugly skinny brute with no sense of commitment like in this movie. This movie has awful audio and video. It was shot poorly and had a very ugly main character. It however did make the audience feel better. If a really ugly person could get hot women, then anyone could sleep with super models.

The main character is your classic example of an ugly man with a very small penis. He should be given extreme help from psychologists and plastic surgeons. If you want to watch a horrible movie than knock yourself out with this.


** 1/2 out of ****

Tremors 2: Aftershocks is shockingly well-made for a film that went straight-to-video. As the sequel to the much beloved Tremors, it's easy to say that it's not nearly as good, but it is a respectable continuation that, after a relatively slow starts, mirrors the fun of the original without being a blatant rehash. It is missing Kevin Bacon and some of the character chemistry that worked so well, but it stands as a movie that is easily watchable, and often funny and thrilling.

As the film begins, it features a rather low and depressed-looking Earl Bassett (Fred Ward), who, unlike his partner Valentine Mckee, didn't profit from the appearance of the giant worms, now known as graboids. But a young man named Grady Hoover (Christopher Gartin) arrives at his door and tells him of an offer to kill some graboids scurrying around a Mexican oil refinery. Bassett agrees to the terms and teams up with Grady.

When they do arrive, they meet up with Kate Reilly (Helen Shaver), a scientist who is studying the graboids in the area and is also assisting the owners of the oil refinery. At first, killing the graboids is relatively easy for Bassett and Grady, but after a little trouble, they enlist the help of gun fanatic Burt Gummer (Michael Gummer). Meanwhile, the worms begin to mutate into creatures that are equally deadly, giving rise to a new menace aboveground.

The first thing that is noticeable about Tremors 2 is that it has the look of a theatrical release. Almost Everything about it is fairly well-done and accomplished. I'm sure the movie was given a low budget, but what's important is that it doesn't look like cheap, which makes me wonder why Universal didn't just go ahead and release this one in theaters. It may not have had the possibility of larger box office draw because there's no Kevin Bacon around this time, but audiences consistently watch a movie for its quality, not for the main star, at least not usually.

S.S. Wilson handles the directing reins for this movie, and while he doesn't match the incredible job Ron Underwood did, he still does a solid job behind the camera. Not bad, considering he never directed before this (nor did he ever do so afterward). He does capture some of the feel of the original without making the movie feel like a rip-off. As for how he handled the action, I'd have to say it's pretty good. The movie takes a little too long to get to the new mutations, so none of the thrills really begin until then, but the action is exciting when it's there, most particularly in the final half-hour.

Speaking of the mutations, it's basically a medium-sized creature with legs and a huge appetite, but lacks when it comes to eyesight and sound. They choose their meals by whatever gives off heat, and of course, that principle applies to humans. This creature design is obviously not an improvement over the graboids, but it's nonetheless nice to see the filmmakers do something new, and the effects are actually good, for the most part. The CGI is sometimes a little cartoonish, but isn't very distracting, especially considering that this film isn't taking itself seriously.

Brent Maddock and S.S. Wilson's script supplies the humor, one of the aspects this series is popular for. Tremors 2 is funny, thanks to Fred Ward's fine and entertaining performance, as well as Michael Gross's return. It's obvious Maddock and Wilson were hoping that Grady would be the much-loved comic relief, similar to, say, Kevin J. O'Connor from Deep Rising. No dice, unfortunately. The character's too annoying, though Gartin does get off some good lines. His performance isn't the problem, mostly the script, which often relegates him to doing nothing but whining. As for Helen Shaver, she's okay and has some good chemistry with Ward that should have used a little more development.

The script does have some other major problems. For one thing, they should never have tried to explain the origin of the graboids. Any explanation would have been laughable, and there's a reason why none was offered in the original film. The screenplay, while sometimes clever, doesn't necessarily have a lot in the way of imagination, and sometimes it almost feels like the movie is just going through the moitions, but thankfully, that's not quite the case in the last 35 or so minutes. When the thrills and humor kick in, they push Tremors 2 above the usual straight-to-video crap up to solid escapism.


i really enjoyed the original Tremors.it worked on a lot of levels.unfortunately,this sequel doesn't.it seems to be mostly played for camp value,but i don't think it works very well.i found it very mostly very slow and boring.there were a few almost amusing moments,but overall,it was a disappointment.Kevin Bacon passed on this one,and it's easy to see why.he must have read the script.Fred Ward is back,but without Bacon,he his character just doesn't work as well.Michael Gross returns,and doesn't have much too do.also,i thought the dialogue was pretty cringe worthy at times.plus,the movie isn't really original.in fact it borrows heavily from another big movie that had come out a few years ago.i've seen worse movies,but this one still ranks as a major disappointment.for me,Tremors 2 is a 4/10.


Serials are a low point in film history and the period around the Great War was bad for the French film industry, as well. Commemorating both is 'Les Vampires,' probably one of the best-remembered serials and the most accessible French motion picture of any kind from its era.

Serials are banal sensationalism aimed at lowbrow tastes. They always have been, from their inspection in magazines, newspapers and other cheap literature, which has continued to this day with television. It's always been economical--promising return costumers looking for a satisfying wrapping up of previous installments' cliffhangers and loose ends. Usually, the budgets for them are quite thrifty. Additionally, it doesn't require much imagination if one repackages the same devices for each episode--and even less if one repackages the same devices from previous serials--all of which Louis Feuillade, more or less, did here.

Feuillade further popularized serials in France, which was probably inescapable anyhow with the flood of American films (and serials) into the cinemas. For some reason, he seems to have garnered more respect than any other maker of chapter plays has--even to this day. I don't know of any other director mostly known for serials offhand. His pictures have had widespread popularity--in their day, but also 'Les Vampires' seems to remain one of the most praised representations of 1910s cinema. It's not evident that it has anything to do with a mastery of film-making, though; to the contrary, I think that's absent. The long takes from fixed camera positions get very boring, especially the scenes of extended length--those of the characters' every action: scaling buildings, driving off in automobiles, how exactly they go about their crimes and such, as fellow commenter tedg and others have described.

As other filmmakers did, Feuillade alters tinting to suggest changes of light within the story. Other filmmakers, especially those in Denmark, actually changed the lighting of the scene for the change in light within the scene, which usually required a well-positioned splice to allow for time to alter the lighting scheme. Danish filmmakers from around this time tended to avoid editing and camera movement, too, but they replaced it with innovations in mise-en-scène, which aid the camera in creating brilliant images, as can editing and movement of the camera. Such innovation, staging, composition, or mastery is lacking in 'Les Vampires.' The actors do all the work, and the camera just sits there.

You might, but I don't like this serial's content, either. It's a series of convoluted story lines involving a reporter detective and his sidekick Mazamette (played by an awful mugger of an actor) trying to rid Paris of Irma Vep and the underworld criminal gang known as the "vampires." To me it seems to be nearly seven hours of each side ineptly attempting to capture, imprison or kill the other.

In episode eight: Why did they give Mazamette's child a gun, and why did they originate such an elaborate scheme to arrest the bad guy in the first place? Why would they use a kid? Where was a gun in the hands of a decent shot when it should have been in other scenes? And, the vampires require a justice to arrive after enough time has been provided for possible escape to declare their prisoner guilty, although, to their credit, they never do that again. Anyhow, you see my point.

(*Summary title taken from "The Serial Speaks," New York Dramatic Mirror, which is quoted in the chapter on serials in "The Oxford History of World Cinema.")


It's simply, one of the worst movies I have ever seen!

It is hard to believe people put money, and agreed to participate in such a puerile film. This is a completely flawed 'after the end of the world' film - badly acted, with cheap effects, and a horrible filming. Nothing to keep you watching it, excepting the fascination of how worse it can get. And it gets worse, as you watch it!

Avoid it! 2/10 on my personal scale.


Taken straight from "actual files of the Hollywood Vice Squad",Penelope Spheeris' fourth film tries to be both a comedy and serious drama at the same time,and fails miserably at both.The comedy doesn't work,and all the actors look like they're acting underwater,so the viewer ends up not caring what happens to any of the characters.This movie is like watching a train wreck in progress,without the adrenaline flow.


To start, the young boy in "Baxter" gives a highly credible, palpably evil performance as the young, Nazi-obsessed boy who comes to own this very strange pitbull suffering from existential dilemmas. The movie is also helped by the sense of dread hanging over every scene with the dog. If you've been trained to be wary of pitbulls, this movie will freak you out.

The whole thing adds up, however, to little more than an exercise in morbidity. While it accomplishes that goal very smoothly, there isn't much else to recommend "Baxter." The rest of the characters aren't very well fleshed-out, and the dog's endless yammering is laughable.

4/10.


A Cuban American returns to Cuba in search for his long-lost mother. But his bags, alas, do not contain a hearing aid for director Humberto Solas, who's tone deaf for dialogue. Nor a Dictionary of American Slang, so his protagonist can use the right cuss words in English. Otherwise, in Spanish, he sounds as corny as a blurb on a romance novel's cover.

In exchange for a few politically incorrect venial sins, Mr. Solas delivers the neo-official party line, where only Cubans on the island know who they really are (despite "everything"), while Miami Cubans have to marry an American to get any respect. Are you sure? In Miami?!

Before Miel para Oshun, Mr. Solas handn't made a movie in a decade. Who said it was better to let sleeping dogs lie? Well, lie he did.


Miel para Oshún is wrongly called a movie. It's format is based on a documentary style, and very badly done I dare to say; also, it´s premise is so predictable that it almost becomes painful to watch. It´s about some cuban guy that was forceably taken by his father to Miami on his childhood who comes back to the island to encounter his mother (to find out why she didn't leave with them). Once there, he discovers by a cousin that everybody lied about the reasons why his mother stayed and to make things worse, his father, dead by now, made him promise that he'd never go back to Cuba (so he wouldn't find out, my guess). But, as the defiance to a deathbed oath becomes stronger because of his resentful feelings, he flies to Cuba to discover what really happened as well and getting to know his roots. He's helped on the task by his cousin and a taxi driver.

The flat screenplay has nothing to do with the bad results in the film; narrated in some sort of a road movie as well as a travelogue of those little, picture like towns in Cuba, Miel para Oshún is a terrible experience mainly because of it's visual aesthetics, soap-opera like, a very bad acting by everybody that transmits nothing to the viewer, and a long story that usually gives the feeling of going nowhere. Thank God we already knew the plot, otherwise, we wouldn't be able to get a clue. There's not much to do with this crap and I think Miel... tries to show the cuban culture but even in this matter fails. It is corny and amateur like, manipulative and dumb in it's dialogue, and generally speaking is boring like hell. By way before the half of the movie we stopped caring enough to not give a damn whether he finds his mother or not.

I rate it 1 star out of 10, and suggest to keep away from it.


For the information of your readers - I am the person who played the mother in Cindy and Donna. My stage name was: Suzy Allen. I never used the name Susy Allen and any information shown for Susy Allen does not apply to me. I don't know why I was not credited properly. I agree that Cindy and Donna was a terrible movie, but the stagehands and crew said I was the best actor in the movie! We spent an entire day filming one scene, with me and my "husband" driving on a freeway, with me nagging him about not taking me out often enough !! I had a lot of fun trying to be the whining, miserable wife for the movie, even though in real life I am nothing like that character. It was also very interesting for me to have to dub in some of my lines after the movie was finished. Quite a challenge to get everything right on cue.


I just bought Drive-in Cult Classics at Best Buy today and quickly put in Cindy and Donna after reading what this movie was about, hey I'm a guy and it sounded great!!! After watching this appalling heap of 70's garbage I realized that this T&A movie needed something else.........to be buried and NEVER watched again!!!!! I thought all I needed in a movie was an ample supply of booze, boobs and drugs but I was SO wrong!!! I do have to say that I loved the ending!!! It was so sudden and unexpected. I hope that the rest of the flicks on this set are better than this one. I am giving this 70's sexploitation flick a two for 2 BIG obvious reasons.


The reviews stating that this film is void of plot, acting, and merit are, for the most part, right on target. Cindy and Donna is nothing more than a soft-core exercise so prevalent in the 70s with a pseudo-story about two half-sisters sexually awakening - certainly peaking at different times as Donna is having a relationship - witnessed by Cindy - with Cindy's father(I think?). The material is spartan when it comes to plot development and really is just one sleazy scenario after another. There is essentially no acting in the movie except a rather mediocre performance coming from Susy Allen as the harried, booze-filled mother. Her performance was at least interesting if not definitely over-the-top. There is some weird moral the director and scriptwriter try to squeeze into all their soft-core nudity scenes, near-incest scenes, and masturbation scenes, but I wasn't buying. This film above all was a lesson in tedium and how one must sometimes endure even the most trying of films to get through to the end. Cindy and Donna is one of those films.


... actually, come to think of it, the gummy panties would probably be better, since there's the possibility of things like variety in flavors and kinds of underwear - maybe a nifty little thong too. Off track though, down to brass tax, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, deviants of all ages, this is Cindy and Donna, by far the most pornographic of the 2-disc 8-movie set of "Drive-in Cult Classics" released thanks to Crown Entertainment. It might have been better for those expecting something of an actual movie if they had kept this out, but the good news is for anyone who bought the discs expecting to get their fair share of soft-core masturbation material, it's here on a silver pseudo-psychedelic platter. Groovy s***, man? Not really.

There is no story. All it is is that Cindy and Donna are sisters, half-sisters in fact, who have a father (well one is the real father, we know this because the one who's the non-biological daughter gets a sex scene with the guy - that's right, near-incest, yum to that) that goes around to various whores and gets addicted to one that's her daughters' ages, and a mother who is drunk 24/7 and complains about her husband without doing much about it. They're obsessed with sex, see, or at least Donna has a bunch of it, from one guy, maybe two or three more. Oh, and there's pot too- that spurs on sex, you see, not like it doesn't actually make you, you know, totally mellow or laugh a lot or munchies or whatever. Cindy- who gets her own gorram theme song- is curious, a voyeur, peering in on any sex scene she can get her grubby little eyes on... and wonders, what is it "like"?

Well, the director, master craftsman Robert Anderson, who also has credits The Young Graduates and The Hoax (not the Richard Gere one, remember that for the exam), movies no one but his wife has probably seen, and so with Cindy and Donna, his first film, he puts everything he knows into his art... which means, basically, we get a scene like when Donna is totally 'doing it' with her pot dealer in the car at night, and Cindy is looking on but, you know, the angle of the car is so radical so that there's no way Cindy is looking in on the car that the angle of the camera is and... Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, this is, after all, Grade-X trash that has basically no value; a Cinemax late-night flick probably has better production value, and maybe slightly worse music than the repetitive garage rock here.

Acting also goes along with story, there is nearly none that does anything to further whatever point the filmmakers are making - which, of course, is none. It's sexploitation that has one or two moments of sexiness (the stripper/Ted's prostitute's dancing scene is hot, I'll give the film that), but also many, many dull patches throughout: any time Anderson actually tries to tell the story, or advance any characters, it's like a snowplow running full speed at high-tide on a beach, it just is flat-out s***. But hey, if hippie chicks who go through many, er, changes rocks your boat- not to mention one of the most abrupt "tragedy" endings ever horribly filmed- have at it. Out of the lot of 8 movies in the collection, it's by far the least redeeming, which says a LOT.


Cindy is a very curious girl. Her big sister Donna can get all the men she desires, in fact she has a new one every night of the week. Even her good ol' dad is having an affair with a stripper he met at a bar. (Looking at his screechy shrew of a wife, I'm not surprised..) Why can't she get that kind of passion in her life? So follows two hours of tedious 'coming of age' drama which basically is film-speak for "lets convince our young starlets to deprive themselves of their tops every two minutes".I have to admit I was shocked not to discover Russ Meyer's name among the credits. Mind you, the women in this movie are probably not quite busty enough for him, and there's no sign of the underlying humour here that you see in his best work. Yep, this is serious stuff all the way, and all the softcore sex, lesbian, massage and shower scenes seem to be building up towards making a firm point about the futility of a hedonistic lifestyle. Personally I'm not buying it for a minute.. this is a skin flick with a moralistic ending thrown in an afterthought just to satisfy the censors so it could get a mainstream release. In the matter of whether you should watch it or not, I would say: If you want mild porn, go to one of the many specialist shops that cater to your particular needs. If you want a quality movie about growing up, I would suggest The Breakfast Club or Flirting. Under no accounts should you sit through this nonsense. Unless you want to be put off sex for life.. 0/10


A small charter plane has crashed on a banned and supposedly lifeless island, stranding the pilot, a real estate broker and a wealthy young woman. The rescue team put together to go in, unable to contract a professional adviser, as all believe the isle is cursed, are forced to hire the only guide available; a drunken ill tempered recluse, who's spent the last decade attempting to running from the memories of animal experimentation gone horribly wrong. Now, with the recovery crew, he will be going into his nightmare, and it is viciously wide awake.

This is average paint by numbers TV movie quality; dialogue is generally uninspired, sieve-like plot, and characters are stock (the spoiled little rich girl-Kimberlee Peterson, the chatty plotting business man-Richard Fancy, the doctor with a secret-Roxana Zal, the hard nosed tough guy-Mark Kiely, the haunted man-Ron Perlman). The acting runs from so-so to excellent. The camera angles and cuts are very frenetic, attempting to create a suspenseful atmosphere, and there are the obligatory stunt shots in slo-mo. Basically, it's a pizza and a movie evening TV fare.

Ron Perlman has the lead; a broken man unable to have a life because he stayed alive when many others did not. He takes a generic, usually one note role; the haunted man, and imbues him with multiply layers of emotional depth (quakingly fearful yet strong, bravery in spite of moments of cowardice, morose but dryly humorous, fatalistic yet willing to act, haunted but yet still able to hope, etc) turning in a well rounded, excellent performance.

Favorite Line(s): (Matthews/Zal) "They're evolving at an incredible rate! They're almost Neanderthal!" (Brodie/Perlman) "I'd like to get out of here before they get cable."

Worth a rent/buy for Ron Perlman fans.


Primal Force gave me as much laughter as any comedy I can remember in recent years. It was so bad throughout, it was almost good and I HAD to watch it again to make sure I wasn't just imagining it.

There is always scope for a cliché low budget sci-fi/horror/action film to go wrong. If Primal Force was to be compared to meal, it would have to be 'Cheesy Chips'. Students will know what I am talking about.

Much has already been said about the wastage of Ron Perlman's talents on this movie, how badly made it is, how stupid the plot is, how low budget it is, how bad the effects are, how unconvincing the killer mutant baboons are, etc, etc. And all that is true in my opinion.

However, if what you want is a low budget b-movie that's as tacky as fondue and makes you laugh out loud, then this is just your cup of tea.

I feel there is something to like about genre films like this. Primal Force promised to be really bad right from the start and for me it delivered the goods and I was entertained as well as amused.

For all it's flaws, short-comings, it's lashings of cheesy clichés and predictable outcomes, I really enjoyed myself. The mutant killer primates are hilarious. And, then there's the mad professor who's totally lost the plot. His experiment has gone pear-shaped with disastrous consequences. Inspired stuff.

Such a volume of laughter gives me a sense of warmth and well-being. So I thank everyone who conspired to create Primal Force for that!


Primal Force is a terrible movie but it's one of those ones that's so bad you actually enjoy it. Now, Ron Pearlman is a fine actor but this film probably isn't one of his proudest moments.

It is hilarious at times. The 'mad scientist' giving his speech is unbearably funny and the psychopathic mutant baboons will make you wet yourself (not with fear, of course). When you're not dying of laughter, you'll be marvelling at just how bad this films is.

It is awful but I recommend it just because it's so much fun to watch a great 'bad' movie sometimes. If you're not up for Kurosawa or Tarkovsky, some beer, a few friends and Primal Force are a great way to spend an evening.