It is impossible to review this film without comparing it to Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 version. This production has no romance, no mystery, no suspense, and no atmosphere -- all of the things that made Hitchcock's version a masterpiece.

The only thing that makes this film watchable is Diana Rigg's new take on the character Mrs. Danvers. I found her to be the only believable character in the production -- different than Judith Anderson's interpretation nonetheless, but well done.

If you've never seen a film version of Rebecca, watch the Hitchcock version instead of this one.


I'm being forced to watch this in my English class. I can't believe how horrid this is. Charles Dance puts Maxim De Winter to shame. He is not charming, not handsome and he lacks the inner turmoil that is very much a part of the character. And Emilia Fox.. she is too sweet, too innocent and also lacks the character's struggle to develop her own personality. Mrs. Danvers is just bad. She is not at all evil or sinister like the Mrs. Danvers in the book. Also, the mood of the story is supposed to be dark and very gothic. It's dark alright but not it's only dark because the lighting is horrendous. It doesn't set the mood of the story it just makes it seem like they are acting in a studio with only one light. The outside of Manderlay is not what you'd expect. It is bright, cheerful and sunny. In drastic contrast to the dark mood of the story. Also, the flashbacks including Rebecca really took away from her mystery.. they personified her breaking down the magical barrier that seems to have built up around her. It's a distracting point of the movie. All in all, this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. And I work in a video store so I watch a lot of movies. If you can avoid this movie do so at all costs. Hitchcock's 1940 version is so much better. I may be a die-hard Hitchcock fan but the Academy agrees with me. It won best picture and Olivier was nominated for his performance of Maxim. It's so much better than this monstrosity.


I'm sorry guys, but this movie is bad.

Ivan Sandomire's performance, the music, and some externals (including the B&W still pictures) are good, but not strong enough to save the film.

I found the screenplay particularly unconvincing and the direction quite uninspired. The overall result looks more like a graduation project than a proper production.

It may be enriching for those struggling with emancipation from Hassidic Jews communities, but it fails to be compelling to a broader audience. As it talks about a young man in search for understanding, identity, and love, it could be much better.

I also found the representation of Brazilian culture, of which I know a thing or two, outrageously inaccurate and small-minded. It surprised me that it got best actress and best picture award in São Paulo International Film Festival (which is misspelled in the DVD cover as "Sao Paolo"). I went to the festival website archives (www.mostra.org) and found no confirmation. Perhaps they are referring to another festival or to nominations, which I would consider it misleading.

In anyway, for a really good movie showing the interaction of Jews and Brazilian culture, check "the year my parents went on vacation" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0857355/).

I hope this review helps.


This film was bad enough to get me to spend my time writing this review.

It actually started out as a big promise. Finding this movie, I thought it would be a nice addition to contemporary Jewish cinema with films like the excellent "the believer". However I was very very wrong.

This is a bad film in every sense of the word bad. 1. very bad acting (the guy's friend was so obnoxious, I couldn't stand to watch him) 2. very shallow and uninspired script (Half of the script is just stupid rambling about f-cking, supposed to signify lecherous new york life) 3. mediocre movie making

This really looks and feels like a student film, and a pretty bad one. The only thing this guys got right is the DVD box which is pretty cool.

For me as someone interested in the line between religious Judaism and secular Jews, this film was a major disappointment and embarrassment. It is filled with the worst kind of stereotypes about orthodox Jews and about secular new-yorkers. Some parts got me so disgusted I could hardly watch it.

It wouldn't have made me so angry, if it weren't that this film even won awards in different film festivals like the San Paolo film festival, Bendfilm festival and Brooklyn festival. How on earth can that be??? I can't believe they didn't find better films to give awards to. Probably the politics of cinema played some parts here.

Anyway, spare your time. And if you wish to see a decent movie about a displaced Jew, go watch "the believer" or even "the chosen", but please not this one.

1/10


It's a little funny, the Yiddish makes it interesting, but a lot of silly comments and it sounds like bitter depressed person with a lot of issues wrote it up, very very bad ending, not a real ending to the movie.

It's very fake and not the real life in the Hasidic community, boys are smarter then this boy sounds, he knows how to take a train and get around the city and goes to clubs but cant buy himself a pair of jeans.

If you are not an orthodox Jew you will hate this movie, if you are an orthodox Jew you will find it a little funny and very stupid The Yiddish speaking sounds very annoying it sound more like Russian Jews with bad Yiddish.

The education in the yeshivas from this movie sounds like these boys are told to study religion all day long I wonder how and why you see young Jewish boys who are very successful in business without any education


Squirm is a film that I first saw on Mystery Science Theater 3000 and I absolutely love that episode. It was just a terrific and hilarious one that will always give me a good laugh. Now believe it or not, I later found this film in the 5 dollar bin at Wal Mart and figured, why not? This movie was just so laughable, why not watch it and make up my own sarcasm. Well, when I watched the uncut version, actually I have to in some ways admit that this wasn't the worst film ever made, worthy of MST3K sarcasm, but I would say that the problems are minor and the film just needs a band-aid, lol. The music and southern accents are just a bit much.

Mick is coming to Fly Creek for a good country vacation and meeting an old friend, Geri. There was a nasty storm the night before and electricity hit the ground hard causing the worms to turn into killers. Mick and Geri, along with her creepy neighbor who is a mixture of Steve Young and Alvin the Chipmunk have to learn how to deal with it. But the worms are going to destroy the town and hopefully tone down the southern accents.

Squirm isn't necessarily a bad movie, well, I think it's one of those movies that it's so bad that it's actually good. Just the way the actors present a lot of the lines are a little distracting and get a good unintentional laugh like "Yer gonna be da worm face!" was said a little oddly. This is a great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode I would recommend, but as a film, it's worth a look if you're into a cheesy drive in flick type of movie, otherwise, don't expect too much.

3/10


This is one of the few movies I have seen from beginning to end and then seeing it on MST 3000. Watching it this way first allowed me to see some of the more gruesome parts the show edited. As it stands I don't rate this a one, I give it a three. The problem with this movie is not the worms per se, which apparently go on the attack because a power line is down (that happens all the time, and I have yet to see killer worms) it is the thoroughly unlikeable characters. This is set in the south so everyone revs up the southern accent to intolerable levels (I live here and I have yet to hear anyone sound that southern) then there is Mic who is from New York. Why the heck is he in Georgia you ask? He is antiquing. And they want you to believe he would be interested in the girl. Oh and don't get me started on the sheriff. The stereotypical sheriff of the south who is more interested in sex than solving crimes. Actually the most likable character I thought was Roger. Sure he becomes crazy, but he was generally a nice fellow till Mic kept advancing on the girl. Oh, and the character of Mr. Beardsly is also very impressive in his brief stint on the film. So should you watch? Go ahead, it isn't totally bad, and there are some pretty gross scenes on the straight version.


On a dark and stormy night in Yeehaw Georgia, a powerful electrical storm downs the power lines, and the electricity floods the muddy ground, awakening the vast population of worms! Unfortunately, the electricity doesn't turn the worms into Giant Worms, or mutant worms, it just makes them kind of cranky.

Enter Mick, a wimpy antique enthusiast who has come to Georgia on vacation to visit his Southern Belle girlfriend Jerri, a scrawny redhead with an outrageous Scarlet O'Hara accent. Jerri lives with her whacked out mother and her odd looking sister, and is stalked by the local worm salesman's son Roger, a big dumb guy with an IQ of a cucumber. Mick's vacation turns out to be anything but restful, as he encounters a worm in a chocolate soda, a skeleton on the ground and a creepy sheriff with frightening teeth and gravity defying hair. By the time he and Jerri realize what is happening in the small town of Fly Creek, it is too late. The worms flood the streets and houses like an angry swarm of spaghetti, consuming any and all who stand in their way. Will anyone survive the night?

I've never been able to figure out if this was supposed to be a black comedy or if we're supposed to take the worm threat seriously. Either way, the only thing this film did for me was to make me feel incredibly filthy. Filmed on location in Georgia, this film was also too convincing in it's portrayal of the rural south: I kept waiting for the banjo music to start up, kept waiting for Roger or the sheriff to ask Mick to "squeal like a pig." I couldn't feel sorry for the people who ended up as worm food because they were all so icky. I didn't care if young lovers Mick and Jerri lived to see another day - they're both so wimpy and whiny you won't care much either. The only character I actually enjoyed was Alma, Jerri's kid Amazon sister with her smart ass attitude and weird clothes. Other than that, I spent the majority of the film cheering on the worms.


A middling horror yarn that gets decent mileage out of a thin story line and a premise that's too silly for words. The feature lacks any semblance of professional polish but manages to convey the backward, clannish atmosphere of a rural Georgia town where flash storms and downed power lines gradually unleash a terrible, crawling menace. A spurned suitor for a girl's affections is scarier than the worms that attack the town with a vengeance. However, this twisted farm lad has his own plans for revenge. The cast isn't distinguished but Fran Higgins, a droll, rustic type, is spirited and has her moments, such as they are. The movie has the usual unexpected shock scenes when the story line drags and the special effects don't really work well at all. Still, this film has its devotees and is regarded by some as a camp classic.


Okay, this sure ain't a work of art!! Yup, it's hard to be "artsy" with a film about a horrible outbreak of billions of killer worms--and even tougher when your total budget is $39.95 and your actors have never even had the experience of doing TV commercials or community theater! No, it's fairly obvious early on that NONE of the actors had ever before acted (and probably never since!). It's a cheesy and low-budget film that despite its crappiness is actually kind of watchable--provided you're not very demanding! A stranger comes to town and quickly hooks up with a local girl. At first a few small odd things occur--such as the guy getting a milkshake that has worms in it! But later, the horrid beasties began devouring everyone in their path. The script and plot are pretty thin and you see quite a bit of nudity by women who frankly don't look very good naked--but still, the film is oddly watchable and the worm sequences are pretty cool! A TRUE guilty pleasure!


When I saw this movie, I thought that I had heard of every possible premise for a gross-out movie. I was wrong.

In this gem of cinematography, a swarm of earthworms have begun eating humans in a small town. Yes, you heard me right, the antagonist of this movie is a swarm of killer earthworms. Why didn't someone come up this concept before you might ask, because its STUPID!!

Where do I begin reviewing this masterpiece? It all begins when a storm knocks down some power lines, drawing all the earthworms in the area to the surface of the ground. I missed the part that explained why they begin eating people, but that is just what they do. That's pretty much it.

The script is bad. The directing is difficult to follow, too many cut-aways to the worms takes away any surprise this film has to offer.

The acting is horrendous. The director decided to go with Local Yokel actors, and it shows. Case in point, the bus driver in the very beginning of the movie, trust me it only goes down hill from there.

To sum it all up, this movie boldly went where no other movie dared to go, and payed the price. Absolute Chunk-Fest.


The ugliest cast in the world squares of against blood worms turned ravenous man killers by lightning strikes. A Richie Cunningham lookalike travels to a southern swamp to meet up with his hot babe that looks a lot like ...well, Richie Cunningham. She's got a busted bean pole of a sister who acts as bizarre as she is ugly. They have a haggard mother who catches the vapors every 12.5 minutes and they all live next door to a worm farm(that figures)which is run by a skeleton named Mr. Beardsley and his hired hand Roger. Roger is a bonafied piece of work, a hulking dim wit who gets to blubber immortal lines like, "Weee hooo itsa gunna be a soooprise!" and "Uh huh uh uh now you gunna be da wormface". The movies best line though is handled by the stereotypically oblivious and prejudice backwoods sheriff. This gem of a character fornicates in his own jail cells and bullies our wimpy hero every chance he gets. When he threatens our flannel clad Richie Cunningham he says something along the lines of "You wont even get youself a phone call....cuz all the phones is dead!" I tell ya folks you gotta see and hear this brilliant script writing for yourselves. I almost forgot to mention the action and suspense scenes. When hero burglarizes a dentists office you'll be on the edge of your seat and later when he gets beat up by a flying sheet of plywood? Man oh man! You'll actually be surprised that for all the riffing Squirm is not even as close to ridiculous as the premise would make it sound. As far as the "nature goes icky bingo and turns on mankind" genre goes you could do way worse than Squirm. I do however dare you to find a movie with a more unattractive cast.


The comments about this movie seems to focus on the fact that it's based on a true story. What has that got to do with the quality of the movie? Nothing.

The acting is actually good, at least the children are great, but the directing and the script is awful. Everything moves at a near-sleep-pace, and the dialogue is throughout without interesting language and lines.

And what about the psychology between the mother and the children. She forces them to move in with a man they've never met, to a house neither she or the children has seen? Further on, when she gets sick, she claims that she all the time are forced to lie to the children, for their own good. OK it's the 80's but still.

All and all, a very unsatisfactory movie.


I got out this movie because it has Scott Bakula, a talented actor, who for some reason ends up in terrible and cheesy roles. If you're looking for Scott Bakula eye candy, then this is not the best you can do - he has a terribly fake moustache and the only scenes he is remotely attractive in, is when he has a singlet on and you can only see his back. If you do watch this - keep an eye on his moustache, it changes size halfway in the movie, he must have lost his fake one and gotten a new one about twice the size. Very funny. Also take heed of his accent, it's constantly changing - bad Bakula, bad! If you are looking for Bakula candy, I suggest "Quantum Leap".

I suppose if you are a young teenager you may enjoy this. It has issues to do with growing up and "becoming a woman", and I found the sibling rivalry reasonably believable. The child actors did a pretty good job. I felt that the mothers relationship with her daughters lacked any chemistry, it was forced and didn't quite strike home.

A couple of scenes are halfway cute and some are tear jerker's, though the part of the movie I liked the best was when it ended. Although this movie was extrodinarily predictable, if against reason you watch it, do not read the blurb on the back of the case, it gives away the entire story. Casting could have been better - Scott Bakula was not meant for this movie. Frankly I don't know how it even made it to DVD. The only thing mildly entertaining about it is the changing moustache and accent.


Take a bratty teenager who whines constantly about everything and her slightly younger sister, their mother dying from breast cancer (every stage spelt out in far too much detail... and a guy who takes this lot on (poor guy!)

Basically, this movie reads like a third-rate trashy novel and is overly long to boot. It has no particular direction and meanders hither to thither with no perceivable destination. And when it's all finally over... all you seem to have done is wasted 2 hours of your life... ...and then the bad cover of "Every Breath You Takes" starts up.

Yeuk!


I've seen a handful of unusual comedies from Japan and the most recent one being the Calamari Wrestler followed by Cromartie High School which also featured two well known wrestlers; Takayama and Hashimoto (RIP), playing complete opposites of their fighting characters of course, but in a script that would make the Power Rangers' screen writers shake their heads in disbelief.

The film opens with the purposely lengthy lesson of the school's chaotic legacy. The school in the present time looked like a strong candidate for the Battle Royale competition (which I thought the film would eventually rib, but never did). The main character, a composed young man decides to enroll despite possessing higher education, but soon regrets after his not-too-bright friend flunks the 'subtraction exam'. Some promising sidekicks get introduced, including Takayama's character who hates all types of transportation and decides to help the hijackers of a plane just so they wouldn't fly. The film showed much potential, but sidetracked twenty minutes in after shelving these winning characters and spending way too much time with the intros of the gorillas and the "Hard Gay" man who ended up offering very little throughout the film. And where the hell were the Freddie Mercury impersonations?

Yes the film needed such off the map characters (like the depressed Pootans), that was a given, but it failed to realize what direction to go with and what characters/situations to stick with in its full feature form. A perfect example of film-making where it seemed like the direction had no working script, just sketchy gags thought out by the crew late at night. Simply putting a blonde wig on an evil alien ape and calling the duo, Gori and Lla wasn't enough to tickle my funny bone. Spoofing of the Exorcist with a possessed robot, revealed to have only been infested with a cat was just a wasted, lazy attempt at parody. Again, I wasn't looking for sensible comedy or in-depth characters here, but even as a sleazy, low budget com-oddity, this film failed to keep me laughing and to exceed the wacky goods and true characteristics of the anime show. But, if you find these types of films irresistible and are a die hard fan of the show then I guess you'll watch and enjoy this movie regardless, as it was mainly aimed at its fan-base.


The Cromartie High anime series is a very high mark to reach. Admittedly it's a specialized taste but the series worked wonders in it's 10 minute episode format. The decision to make a live-action movie is curious but who knows it might have worked if the writers and director had tried to move away from the 10 minute format.

The first half of the movie is a series of skits and gags which were all done in anime (and I assume in the manga from where this all sprang). The actors are very good but the casting is strange and some of the characters are visually different from the anime. The problem is the lack of a connecting plot to hold it together, anyone unfamiliar with the anime will lose interest pretty quickly. It sort of like watching your friends at a party act out scenes from a favorite comedy show. Some of the scenes work, some don't. The slow pacing doesn't help either.

The second half finally diverges from old Cromartie material but will probably end up confusing people more. That is unless you are familiar with a 1970's sci-fi show, Spectreman. This show was dubbed and released in the US in 1980's on the TBS network. I remember the show and it was fun to have it mixed into the Cromartie universe.

Unfortunately, the whole film never becomes coherent enough or inventive enough to be really interesting or especially funny. Recommended for die-hard Cromartie fans.


I have never seen such a nicely made piece of rubbish in my life. I am still working out what the film was about and what was its cause. There was none and I felt I wasted an hour and a half, as well as £1.50 hiring this from the library. Nonetheless, it was beautifully made, the camera work was nice, there were interesting statements about love and Sandra Majani has a very nice bottom.

So what does happen exactly; well, it's about a man called Victor Chmara (Hippolyte Girardot) who doesn't do much with his life apart from living off his fathers inheritance. He falls in love with the beautiful actress Yvonne (Sandra Majani) and becomes best-buddies with her mysterious old friend Dr Meinthe (Jean-Pierre Marielle). They all have a great time together and then things go wrong after a strange motor/fashion show. Victor wants to go to the USA, Yvonne doesn't, and the Doctor just continues being camp. If I tell you anymore, I end up telling you the ending, so that's enough of the synopsis.

There are ingredients in this film that I liked. The camera work was sometimes interesting and there were some nice landscape shots. The dialogue, the heart to hearts, the warble about their lives, the philosophical statements about 'never letting her (Yvonne) go' were very romantic and very poetic. The acting by Jean-Pierre Marielle as the camp doctor was also amusing. Otherwise, his character is totally wasted in the story and has a far bigger role than that is necessary.

For me, Patrice Leconte's reason for adapting Patrick Modiano's book Villa Triste to the big screen was all about Sandra Majani and seeing her nude. She was a poor actress. Her movement and the way she carried herself was half-hearted. That goes for Hippolyte Girardot as well. He plays someone a little too stiff to be in love. Either the actors are poor or the director is, because there are bad performances all around, and it's the director's job to make sure that these types of performances do not happen. Another of his problems was conveying the messages in the story. They were mixed up and statements of romance were just thrown together without thought of the plot. To me it just seemed pretentious and the director was trying to be too clever with little resources.

The story had little meaning other than not to let love go when you have it. That and to see a beautiful French lady naked, which was admittedly quite nice. The statements of love were unsubtle and the acting didn't really convey any proper emotion. Totally unconvincing and I hope Yvonne's bad smelling perfume goes away. I give this film two.


Okay, you've heard about "so-bad-it's-good" movies before, but this demented little thing plays in an entirely different league. "The Terror Within" is so bad it's .really, truly freaking abysmally bad! It's a cheesy and minimally plotted 80's earthbound "Alien" imitation and it's produced by Roger Corman, so that ought to give you an immediate idea about the overall quality of this production. You may prepare yourself for the worst, and then still "The Terror Within" will surpass your most cautious expectations. This is one of them films that gives you absolutely no feedback or background about anything that happens before, during and after the main events in the plot. The script even fails to inform what year the events take place in, what kind of company the 6 protagonists work for or how the breed of gargoyles developed itself so rapidly. All we know is that some kind of "accident" wiped out 99% of the earth's population and that the few remaining survivors on the surface are continuously threatened by gargoyle-creatures. Six people in a subterranean laboratory, led by the poor & desperate-for-work George Kennedy, attempt to save what's left of humanity, but they clearly don't have a clue what they're up against. Unaware of the fact that the gargoyles mate with regular females, they take a pregnant girl into their lair and numbly observe how she gives birth (in a sequence shamelessly copied from Ridley Scott's milestone) to a ravenous and fast-growing monster. Now they're all trapped underneath the earth, with two remaining female employees as potential monster-mommies. Admittedly, the plot description for "The Terror Within" doesn't sound half as bad as initially feared, but honestly the film is stuffed with plot-holes the size of the Grand Canyon, laughably inane dialogs, poor acting performances and tiny stupid oddities that are almost too amusing for words. Here's a brief listing of all the crazy stuff occurring in this film (extra spoiler warning).

1)The gargoyles may be tall and strong, but apparently they're quite terrible in the sack. The monster only was a few nanoseconds alone with the girl, but it clearly was more than enough to impregnate her. 2)Actually, the monsters look a bit like an over-sized version of Duckman. 3)The hero (Andrew Stevens) is obviously more upset when his dog gets injured than when his black colleague and even his girlfriend get torn to pieces. 4) Presumably the film is set in the future, but technology appears to have taken a huge step backwards. The characters operate the largest walkie-talkies you've ever seen and the only exit out the subterranean lab is through a ramshackle shed. 5) At a certain point, the remaining survivors try to attack the creature by blowing on a dog whistle. I guess their next move would have been to throw a banana peel in front of its feet. 6)The film probably just took a few days to shoot; still I think George Kennedy had other, more urgent places to go to. Halfway the story his character just vanishes after an idiotic kamikaze run into the creature. Still, you don't actually see him die so you expect him to return at some point. Guess again.

Strangely enough, and despite the rather cheesy & tacky monster designs, the killings are pleasingly gruesome and blood-soaked. The aforementioned birth-sequence may be very unoriginal; at least it's suitably repulsive and even mildly shocking. The finale is effective as well, since the gargoyle meets his death in a rather nasty fashion. As if you couldn't guess yourself, "The Terror Within" is an awfully crappy 80's cheeseball, definitely worthy of the Roger Corman label. It could be considered "entertaining", but you'd have to be in the right mood.


A Roger Corman quickly produced cheapie that wears its influences proudly, as many elements (character descriptions to lifted sequence ideas) just reek of Ridley Scott's 1979 feature ''Alien''. However this systematic fodder remains enjoyable (for most part, despite its often lumpy pacing) on a very b-grade level, as it doesn't pretend to be anything else than cheap, exploitative fun. Instead of being set in space like that classic, the action takes place in a post-apocalyptic setting due to a chemically induced plague wiping out the majority of the earth's population. Nevertheless a small bunch of scientists are holding up in an underground laboratory in the bone-dry desert, but their existence is soon threatened by genetic mutations known as gargoyles. These beasties are quite randy too, because at nearly every opportunity they go out of their way to impregnate the women. What the story lacks in imagination (as it does draw upon a predictable amalgam) and coherence, it makes up for in durable performances (a likable Andrew Stevens, George Kennedy, John Lafayette, Starr Andreeff and Terri Treas all keeping it straight) and gruesomely tacky splatter (even though it doesn't have much impact in engineering the deaths and tawdry jolts). Being rough and crude, it's kind of similar in style / budget to the likes of ''Creepazoids'' and "Parasite". The creatures are kept off screen during the first half, to only be heard and getting some POV shots. Nonetheless we do get to see them, and it's a fair looking monster design of a man in a rubber suit. Everything looks low-rent, which is cemented by its compact setting and stuffily framed direction but still lingering within is a grim atmosphere. The music score tagged to the project isn't too bad either, being high-strung but ominously pitched. Mechanically uninspired, but gruellingly cheesy entertainment.


A plague has pretty much removed mankind off the map for the exception of underground bases throughout the US. There are two at least we know of..Mojave Desert base, the one where our low-budget sci-fi horror flick is set, and the Rocky Mountain base where our base communicates with from time to time. It seems mutated "gargoyles" have spurned from the plague/virus that killed off civilization and are trying to break the stronghold(a minor steel door "hidden" inside an old metal shack)of the Mojave underground base. The film opens with hero David(Andrew David)and Sue(Starr Andreeff), secret lovers, searching for possible survivors and running into a pregnant woman(..after finding a dead family with their stomach's ripped open)who herself is fleeing a gargoyle. At first, we see through the eyes of the monster after her. David and Sue, through the permission of base commander Hal(George Kennedy, really slumming it..he must've really needed the cash), bring this female, named Karen(Yvonne Saa), inside the the installation paying dire consequences..she is carrying a monster fetus growing at an alarming rate. In a scene VERY reminiscent to ALIEN, the gargoyle fetus, as Dr. Linda(Terri Treas)attempts to abort it, explodes forth from Karen's womb and escapes into the air duct. The rest of the film shows our small crew trying to find the monster, now fully grown within 45 minutes(..now that's fast!), on the four levels of the base as it picks them off one by one, slashing their throats with it's sharp clawed hands. The characters of Andre(John Lafayette)and Neil(Tommy Hinkley)are modeled after Parker(Yaphet Kotto) and Brett(Harry Dean Stanton) without much success. Bright spot is Starr Andreeff as Stevens' beautiful love-interest who may possibly become a victim of the rampaging gargoyle..in the plot, the gargoyles rape and impregnate other human females so that their race may breed and grow;Sue, when attempting to assist her hurt lover, is captured and victimized by the rubber fiend.

An unconvincing rubber monster suit wore by a tall stuntman, a plot which unashamedly borrows elements from another popular film(s), cheap sets patch-worked together, and underwritten characters..living the B-movie experience. "The Terror Within" does move at a quickened pace and the cast, at least, seem inspired keeping a straight face. The rubber monster is corny and inspires giggles instead of fear. I do feel this is the kind of film for bad alien movie connoisseurs only. The gore is pretty good..the way the monster tears at it's victims. There are chase scenes in air-ducts also very reminiscent of ALIEN/ALIENS. Go into this expecting an unoriginal monster sci-fi actioner and you might find it entertaining. But, if the whole point of the film is for the viewer to bite their nails at this horrifying monster popping up out of nowhere, then it fails miserably. Because the rubber monster in this film sure doesn't elicit the same effectiveness as the creatures in ALIEN.


Did the makers get sued by Ridley Scott or the production company behind Alien? It's impossible to spoil this movie but I hate to mention the many times it blatantly rips-off Alien, a far superior film. Maybe it was done as a kind of tribute, either that or it was done with contempt. They duplicate dialogue, plot lines and weapons/tactics to the point it's ridiculous. They even have a 'chest-burster', except it's a 'fetus' that bursts from the mother's belly. Even the banter between the crew is directly from Alien, with very minor changes. The acting is vastly inferior, along with effects and sets, I'm sure I've seen the same rubber suited creature in at least one other low-budget film.

Oh, sorry, I did notice one major difference. Instead of a cat that gets in the way of the hunt, it's a dog. This was one of the few times I actively cheered for the 'alien' to devour all the crew members (and hopefully the producer and director).


I've seen much worse- but at least those movies had the guts to try something new (even though they tanked doing it).

The Terror Within is a rip-off of Alien. Similarities include (but are not limited to: a homemade flamethrower, a chest-bursting monster, lots of drool, a pair of engineers- one black, one white, an aging male captain who is somewhat heroic, a tense scene in something resembling air ducts, Creature reproduction includes humans, and a pet that is orphaned when its owner is killed.

The most obvious ripoff is the scene when they are searching a storage room (cargo bay) for the creature. Even the camera angles and shot order are similar to Alien.

I'd like to give this movie a 2 but there are other movies I'd give a two...and this isn't as bad as those.


-- crap I've seen, why oh why did I have to watch -let alone purchase- THE TERROR WITHIN!? I'm a sucker for Corman, but man did he have a downturn in the '80s between this and HORROR PLANET! Yeah, the effects are all alright, and they didn't kill the dog (Yay!) but GOD this thing blew chunks-o-cliché. It's like paint by numbers with a plot, and hey... the guy's black, so guess how long he lives? Go on, guess? I can only hope the ingeniously named sequel set things right. Ha!

On the Roger Corman timeline, this is right after he got done using 'big' budgets (for BATTLE BEYOND...) and right before he started cannibalizing his own stuff for footage (BATTLE BEYOND... okay, so 'during' the period when he was ripping himself off, but I was thinking of RAPTOR), and the end result is something neither good nor interesting.


This movie is a direct cross of Alien and The Beast Within. Alien, a great Sci-Fi flick, had the birth and rapid growing which was poorly repeated in this flick. The Beast Within (notice the title similarity), which was a decent horror movie for it time, has the same theme of a monster trying to mate with every woman it comes across. They took two good movies and made one pretty bad one. The low budget definitely didn't help. The "Gargoyle" reminded me of Godzilla. A rubbery suit that was too big for the guy wearing it. Water, or some sort of goo/liquid sprayed on the suit would have helped - looked too dry. I will give it 1 star for gore though.


Man this thing stinks bad! I don't think I've ever seen a worse piece of garbage in my life. I love B grade horror films, but this stinker takes it to a new low. Acting stinks. Script stinks. Effects stink. I don't think this film has one good thing about it. Maybe the relief of seeing the closing credits is about it! And to top it off...they made a part two! Pass this thing up if you see it on the rental shelf. My friend didn't, and we really paid dearly for it! Time wasted that I'll never get back. I do believe tweezing my own nose hairs would be more fun. Well thats it. Be warned! THIS THING SUCKS!!! 1 out of 10 rating.


Nazli, an 18 year old girl with Persian origin, tries to break away from her father who has decided that she should marry her older cousin. She falls in love with a Swedish guy, something that her father dislikes and tries to prevent. Director Reza Baggher has said that this movie was inspired by "Romeo and Juliet", but the parallels are few and the differences aren't especially good either. Sara Sommerfeld does her best to help this mostly hopeless script, but that doesn't help. How much I tried to find good things in this movie, I couldn't and gave up. The directing is poor and the cinematography is rather bad. And what did the title ("Wings of Glass" translated into English) have to do with the happenings? Rating: 4/10


William Powell was a charming actor but he had some bombs between the Thin Man series and "Life With Father." This surely is one of them. Hedy Lamarr was gorgeous. And the supporting cast is excellent: Felix Bressart actually imbues a cardboard character with some life. So, in a smaller role, does Margaret Wycherly. Claire Trevor does well with what she's given. Basil Rathbone, though, is stuck with the worst role and he can't bring it to life.

It has a paint-by-numbers feel. It bears no relationship to any sort of reality. The characters are not well drawn and the plot is risible.

Can you imagine William Powell as a French diplomat? Can you imagine William Powell as a murderer? If so, you may like this. Possibly.


William Powell is an amnesiac who can't recall his past beyond waking up in a hospital in Marseille in 1922. He had just survived a train wreck, but has no memory of the event or any of his past.

Now of course he's a rising young man in the French Diplomatic Corps about to get a big appointment in pre-World War II France and he's accused of being a former master criminal. The evidence against him is 50/50.

Basil Rathbone who says he's a former partner in crime with Powell now is engaging in a bit of blackmail and he's contrived quite a scheme to convince Powell he's who Rathbone says he is. A quite unbelievable scheme at that.

It's sad that MGM wasted the talents of some of its best players for a story that's quite unbelievable. I don't want to write any spoilers, but let me say in order for this scheme to have worked Rathbone would have had to have psychic abilities to rival Nostradamus.

Hedy Lamarr has little to do, but be Powell's faithful missus. And Claire Trevor, Felix Bressart, Margaret Wycherly and H.B. Warner have all done much better films.

In fact the only reason it gets as many as three stars is for all the stars in this thing, God Bless 'em.


When he was 6, my younger brother got a black and white video camera for Christmas. He spent a lot of time filming a lot of rubbish black and white videos. Korol Lir is structured to begin with, but then it ends up being fairly similar to one of these black and white videos. At least my brother's videos were in English though - but then, I guess I wouldn't have stayed awake through most of this film if I didn't have to read the subtitles.

Do not bother seeing this film. You can achieve an equally entertaining experience by locking yourself in a darkened room for two hours and staring at the walls. And you could do that for free!


A Mexican outlaw (Tomas Milian) steals gold from a stagecoach along with some other Mexicans and Americans. The Americans double-cross the Mexicans and leave them all for dead. The one outlaw survives and looks for revenge in this film that has jack-all to do with the original Django (the distributors only named it "Django Kill..." to squeeze a few more bucks out of more gullible people. What we have here is a slightly below standard western that's too surreal to be that enjoyable. and as such I can't really recommend it to all but the most hardcore Spahetti Western fan.

My Grade: D+

Blue Underground DVD Extras: Part of BU's Spaghetti Western Collection. Uncut; "Django Tell" (20 minute documentary); Poster & Stills gallery; Talent Bios for Guilo Questi & Tomas Milian; Theatrical Trailer

3 Easter Eggs: Highlight the hidden gun on the extras page for Trailers for "Django", "Run, Man, Run", and "A Man Called Blade"; Highlight the hand on the main menu to get interviews on the formation of a rock group; and a hidden gun in the Language/Subtitles menu leads to the story of how Tomas Milian almost got killed for being anti-communist


In many ways a book can be made into an excellent film. This of course, was not one of those occasions. As boring as the book was, the film version was even worse. There were so many inaccuracies. So many in fact; I could not keep track of what was in the movie that was not in the book and vice versa. It was like a nightmare. First of all, the introduction in the book where we learned that Jim and the author met on a train out west was not in the film, so as a viewer, I was lost. Another thing I noticed right off was the fact that in the film, Jim's grandfather has no beard, yet in the book, Jim talks about his grandfather's long white beard. The storyline itself in the film was so far out of whack; it did not follow the book very well at all. There were points in the film that occurred before they did in the book, quite a lot of them. In the book, Jim's grandfather seems to be jovial, but in the film, he is shown to be a wretched old man. Also, in the book, when the reader learns about Pavel being hurt and his imminent death, the grandmother encourages Jimmy to go, as well as making sandwiches. In the film however, the grandfather tried to persuade Jimmy not to go. At Christmastime in the book, Antonia's father stays for dinner with the Burden's, but in the film, says he must leave, and does without eating. By this time, I was starting to wonder where Jack was at. He was nowhere to be found in the film. In the book though, he comes with Jim from Virginia. Towards the end of the film when Jim returns to visit Antonia and her husband and children, the narrator states that it has been fifteen years since he last saw her. In the book, the time between when Jim last saw Antonia and when he goes back is set at twenty years. The film could have been much better, but the quality shines through a television film and keeps on going, causing dullness. The acting was mediocre, both by Jason Robards and Neil Patrick Harris who I have seen much better work from. The scenery and cinematography of the film were most likely the best part.


How many chances do you need? It seemed like Jimmy got so many possibilities, but he did not take any. I always thought/still think that true love is much stronger.

Overall the film was pretty disappointing. The aging process was like a bad comedy, no themes we have not seen before and the acting of most of them not catching. And why is a Rumanian girl pretending to speak czech, for Eastern countries this film is a joke! Only Jan Triska, the only real czech, shows how to speak the language. Was it so difficult to find native czech speakers, who was casting? But if you still decide to watch this film, the scenery is beautiful and Jason Robards sr. always a pleasure to watch.


I have seen the movie last week, and I enjoyed watching it more than the first movie, this one had more depth, more challenges, I believe at some point it reflected the life of fame for kids and teens who are seeking fame, that its not easy and that its takes hard work and dedication.

The music was inspiring and makes you want to jump up and down, sing along although you don't know the lyrics. Great footage of the beautiful country Spain was included.

I loved the sense of fashion in the film; girls dancing routines were great, some girls gained weight and it's OK, which I liked the most because it sends out a message to kids-teens who are pressured by the Media to loose weight and to be skinny.

Finally to people who did not like the movie so much, this is a Disney Movie directed to kids and teens so please don't expect Fire Works.

Ayesha


I thought overall this movie was pretty good. It had good settings, characters, actors/actresses, music, and a good plot. What I don't like though is the way the movie is set up. I guess I'm not a big fan of Kenny Ortega's works. It reminded me a lot of High School Musical. It was all good except for the set up. I don't like when the songs in the movie are set up to be like a music video. If I wanted to watch a music video I would watch MTV or BET. The songs numbers need to be more realistic. How could 4 people in completely different places be singing the same song at the same time. How could 10 different dancers be dancing the same steps to the a song they've never heard with dance steps they've never seen. It kinda ruined the movie for me.


I actually enjoyed the first Cheetah Girls Movie. But The Cheetah Girls 2 was promoted so much, it made me sick. Then when I actually watched it, it was worse. The plot is exactly like the first movie, with Galleria becoming controlling and the others go off and do other things. Then they all make up and everything is great. They all play spolied brats who cant sing. They make decisions too fast and the movie is rushed. Its hard to follow. Now I'm not against Raven's weight or anything (not all stars should be a size 3) but she has gained a few pounds in the last 2 years. Her hair looks like a mess too. Raven is a pretty person, they could make her look better than they did. The lines in the movie are fake and too rehearsed. The morals are pretty boring and stupid too. No one actually lives their life like that.


What a disappointment! And, if you're going to make a film this boring, at least make it a bit shorter. They should put "ideal for insomnia sufferers" on the cover. I can't believe I wasted nearly two hours of my time on this pointless film. At the beginning I thought "Give it a chance, it might be a slow burner," Once it got to the middle I thought hurrah! something has to happen now. I was sorely mistaken. Frankly, I have a mind to ask for my money back from my video shop. A guy wanders round Paris, following his missus and looking glum. More happens in Eastenders (and that was before the Demi/Leo storyline). Seriously, root canal work is less painful than this. Don't bother. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go and find some fresh paint to watch.


Even though I went to see the movie with great expectations, I didn't like the movie at all!!. I thought it was boring as it could be and except from the photography, everything else was worse than mediocre!! I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone!


Oh, my God. I can't believe so bad movie it can be made. Bad directed, bad written, bad cinematographered. The whole thing is garbage. After 112 minutes watching, I got nothing but one man and one woman. I can't imagine anything that the director want to tell. I really hate the movie. If you haven't watch it, do not take it. It's really bad.


As a film student, I have to watch a wide variety of films, both good and bad. This has to rate as the worst film on the first year of my course, and one of the worst films ever made.

If you like your drama to be slightly slower than normal, then this may be for you, but even those who appreciate thought provoking over action will still be bored senseless by this absolute tripe.

I have never seen a film slower than this one. The largely static camera barely helps, admittedly an intentional move, but I doubt intended to bore us that much.

Yes this film sucks, and you'll be wishing the lead character would drive his car off the road, just to make it end.

My Rating: 1/10


Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.

Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.

And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.


This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."

"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance."

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.


During one summer in the late 1960's, a treehouse in rural Mississippi becomes the symbolic heart behind a tug-of-war between a freshly-scrubbed group of school-kids and a bunch of bullying, junkyard teenagers. Predictable and somewhat overreaching family-oriented drama shoehorns in Kevin Costner as the father of two of the central good kids; he's just back from Vietnam and still hears the choppers, but we know he's in big trouble once he puts everything on the line to take a dangerous mining job. Mare Winningham plays his wife, who frets over every penny but tells her daughter not to badmouth her dad (the man has dreams, after all). There are lots of heart-to-heart chats, a visit to an old ramshackle house that might one day belong to the family, and a battle for that fort in the tree which never quite leads anywhere. Mostly, this is a noble, decent picture with precious few surprises, the exception being director Jon Avnet's decision to prolong the scenes of bullying, with the deep-seated anger eventually spilling over to the adults. It's like an episode of "The Waltons" crossed with "Stand By Me". *1/2 from ****


For a start I do not recommend watching this movie sober. The movie follows the battle for the "Golden Ninja Warrior" by three (quite girly) ninjas; with some random martial arts thrown in as well.

The fighting itself is alright, with some neat acrobatics, though there are clear shots where kicks do not make contact. The dubbing is just awful, even when the characters appear to be mouthing in English.

The directing though is a little weird, like the occasional slow motion shots that actually have little action in them, or the weird bit where about 2 minutes of screen time is devoted to choosing swimsuits and dresses for a catalogue that seems to have no relevance to the rest of the film. This could easily have been 20 minutes shorter if they cut out redundant scenes.

The second worst element though is the plot. I don't want to spoil it, but it would be difficult even if I could because the last 15 minutes (even compared to the rest of the film) made absolutely no sense to me at all.

The worst element though is the music, never have I actually heard music that has forced me to hit the mute button until this film; in fact, it may not be a bad idea to have mute on for the whole of the film (except perhaps for the apparently random sex scenes).

This is a movie to watch with friends, but only because it's more fun to laugh at this atrocious piece of budget movie in company.


A mildly laughable anti-marijuana picture, ASSASSIN OF YOUTH has some things going for it. The cast of ASSASSIN OF YOUTH is solidly capable for a roadshow production, and several actors have opportunities to shine in comic roles (in particular, the judge, the old checker-playing codger and the Margaret Hamilton "wicked witch" look-alike). Luana Walters is an appealing heroine, and a talented actress. (Her biography at IMDb suggests that Luana might have been better off with marijuana as her drug of choice.)

Today the old drug-scare films are played for laughs, but ASSASSIN OF YOUTH is an exceptionally competent production. The irony here is that truly terrible dope-soaps like REEFER MADNESS and MARIHUANA are much more entertaining, because they don't waste time with dramatic niceties.

The most notorious anti-drug movies of the 1930s were made by private entrepreneurs like Dwain Esper and Elmer Clifton, not by the U.S. Government. These gentlemen capitalized on the Government's anti-drug publicity, but they were not bound by any political agenda of the day. Their aim was to supply the public what the Hollywood studios could not provide under the Production Code - flashes of T&A, and graphic depictions of vice.


This is a bad movie that purports to be an educational film designed to warn America about the menace of marijuana use. However, like almost all the so-called "educational" films of the 30s and 40s, it was really a shabby little film designed to be snuck past the censors of the Hays Office. In 1934, the major studios all agreed to abide by the dictates of a stronger Production Code--eliminating sex, nudity, cursing and "inappropriate" plots in films (these had actually been relatively common in films in the early 30s). However, in an effort to sneak in smut, small studios created films to shock adults when they learn about terrible social ills, though they were REALLY intended to titillate and slip adult themes past the censors! Such films as CHILD BRIDE, MAD YOUTH, REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS were all schlocky trash that skirted past the boards because they were supposedly educational. Even though they were laughably bad, they also made money due to low production costs and because they offered nudity, violence and sordid story lines--all in the name of education!

ASSASSIN OF YOUTH is a bit more watchable and entertaining than the average grade-z expoitational film. While it DOES feature a brief glimpse of nudity and plenty of over-the-top scenes, it also occasionally actually has some decent acting (I love the old man who owns the soda fountain--he's great) and writing that make it rise slightly above the rest of the films of the genre--particularly towards the end.

It's the story of two sisters--one is wild and the other just really stupid. The really stupid one is the heir to her grandmother's will and she stands to inherit a lot of money--provided she stays out of trouble and is a "nice girl". If not, then the local drug-dealing skank (her cousin) will inherit it because no one knows that this blonde floozy is evil. So it's up to this rotten cousin to do everything she can to destroy the stupid lady's reputation. First, when the stupid lady falls in the lake (thus allowing the audience a cheap thrill when she flashes her boobs), the bad cousin pushes the stupid girl's clothes into the fire (where the had been drying). As a result, she had to go home in only a coat. Second, on two separate occasions, the cousin slips her drugs and makes everyone in town think she's an addicted slut. However, when a nice reporter gets involved, he is able to rush in and save the day at the end--convincing everyone that the lady is only a dim-wit, not a slut or drug user!!

So let's talk about the bad--because after all, that's why people today would approach this film--wanting to see and laugh at the bad. There is a very prudish character who at first glimpse looks a lot like Margaret Hamilton from THE WIZARD OF OZ. Again and again, they show the exact scene of this old biddy on her motor scooter and it's super-reminiscent of the scene of Hamilton riding her bike (all that was missing was the ominous music). Her silly performance and the frequent use of this footage became comical. Second, the dialog in this film by the dumb girl is among the funniest in film history. Here is just one example:

Dumb Girl taking a sip of a spiked drink--"Gee this tastes funny". Sleazy Guy--"Don't worry--just drink it". Dumb Girl--"Okay". (as she sucks down a mickey).

With dialog like that, is it very surprising that again and again this idiot gets in trouble and nearly loses her inheritance?

Now understand that the Dumb Girl doesn't get all the rotten dialog--there's plenty for others as well. Such as when the doctor is called because the Dumb Girl's sister is "in a bad way" after using pot. When her mother asks the doctor how the girl is, he declares "she's a hopeless psychopath"--all because of the evils of marijuana!!

Sadly, there might have been a good reason to make such a film--after all, drugs do make people really stupid and ruin a lot of lives. But this film is so anti-marijuana that is tells us that it is much worse than heroin or pills. This over-statement might have potentially encouraged kids to avoid the dreaded pot and stick with "safer" drugs, like morphine, heroin or god knows what!! My assumption, though, is that most pot-heads just watched the film for a good laugh.


Another dumb drug expose film from the 1930s.

A group of bad kids try to make a good girl a drug addict like them, while an undercover reporter tries to help her. According to this film, marihuana addiction turns you into a psychotic murderer! All the "teenagers" look like they're in their 20s or 30s; the story is slim; the pace is slow; truly horrendous comic relief; the dialogue stupid and it contains the worst acting I've ever seen. Obviously made by people who knew NOTHING about the drug. Not bad enough to be funny--just BAD!!!!! Don't miss the scene where two people are driving and the very obvious back projection keeps changing! For a good/bad one see "Marihuana" or "Reefer Madness".


Love at First Bite starts in Transylvania at Count Vladimir Dracula's (George Hamilton) castle. A female Government official (Lidia Kristen) informs Dracula that they are going to take possession of his castle and turn it into 'a training camp for our young athlete's' & that 'we will be back in 48 hours with trampolines', unfortunately this is about as 'funny' as Love at First Bite gets. Dracula feels he has no choice but to leave. So along with his very annoying servant Renfield (Arte Johnson) Dracula decides to head for New York to find a woman he has become convinced is the reincarnation of his lost love, a successful fashion model named Cindy Sondheim (Susan Saint James). Once safely in New York and checked into the Plaza, Dracula goes about trying to find Cindy by first sending Renfield to Cindy's agent (Susan Tolsky). Eventually Dracula discovers Cindy will be at a disco and makes sure he is there too. Dracula introduces himself to Cindy at the disco and with his strange quirky charms working their magic Cindy falls for him. They end up at Cindy's apartment where Dracula bites Cindy on the neck, and they have sex two and a half times apparently. While discussing her feelings the next day with her Psychiatrist Dr. Jeffery Rosenberg (Richard Benjamin) he finds out about the bite and says that she has been bitten by a Vampire & also that he is a descendant of infamous Vampire hunter Van Helsing. Rosenberg, along with NYPD Lieutenant Ferguson (Dick Shawn) sets out to stop Dracula before he permanently turns Cindy into a blood-sucking immortal Vampire! Meanwhile Dracula & Cindy fall in love with each other and decide to escape New York, but will this unusual love story have a happy ending? Directed by Stan Dragoti I must admit that I personally didn't find much to laugh at in this comedy/horror spoof. The script by Robert Kaufman tires hard with one-liners coming thick and fast but they just aren't that funny. The physical slapstick doesn't work either, someone being hit by a broom and then pulling a silly face before they fall over just isn't amusing as far as I'm concerned. Love at First Bite is the sort of film that thinks Dracula drinking the blood of a drunk and then becoming drunk himself and singing & a woman being shown a mouse who then runs away screaming is funny. It isn't. Having said that I did smile on occasion and the film definitely has a certain innocent charm, although the film does contain some bad language. George Hamilton as Dracula is great & extremely likable, I really wanted it to end happily for the guy! On the other hand I hated Arte Johnson as Renfield and Richard Benjamin as Jeffery Rosenberg who both play it so over-the-top it's embarrassing. Susan Saint James as Cindy the love interest is OK. On a technical level the film has a nice look throughout and obviously had a fairly handsome budget, I've no complaints about this side of things. Dracula's trials and tribulations while trying to survive a late 70's New York are mildly amusing but again nothing that really made me laugh out loud. There is a fairly fun taxi/police motorbike chase towards the end as well. Some of it is far too silly for it's own good too. Overall I don't regret watching Love at First Bite but maybe it's just not my type of film. I can't in good heart call it a bad film but at the same time I can't really say I enjoyed it when I didn't. I'll leave the decision up to you.


Many words come to mind when describing this film but, unfortunately, `funny' isn't one of them. Even though the cast is great and the potential is obviously there, the screenplay is overall tame and uninspired. Count Vladimir Dracula (George Hamilton with a sleazy accent) is forced to leave his Transylvanian castle and ships for New York. Along with his loyal slave Renfield, he tracks down the girl of his dreams, Cindy. Her boyfriend slash schrink happens to be an ancestor of Dracula's old nemesis Van Helsing. The few successful jokes in this lame spoof are limited to a couple of classic references and a goofy portrayal of Arte Johnson as Renfield. He constantly eats insects and his laugh is unvarnished but that's about it. The attempt to give a disco swing to Dracula's personality is embarrassing. The scenery and settings look way too cheap (not even charmingly cheap) and inexperienced director Dragoti clearly can't handle the material. It looks like the actors had a lot of fun while shooting this filmtoo bad they can't convey it to the audience. Good horror spoofs are very rare and hard to make. For a minute, I actually hoped this could be a reasonable effort but I was wrong. Better luck next time.


This is one of the most inane films I have ever had the misfortune of viewing. It was totally insipid; completely lacking in any entertainment value at all. The dialogue was written on a grade school level, the acting was unbelievably phoney, the story was non-existent. It was supposed to be funny, I know, but something went very wrong during production. George Hamilton was perfect for the part, however. He is a 2-bit actor, therefore, he was just right for this 2-bit effort. Richard Benjamin was pathetic, but maybe it wasn't his fault. Look at the lines he was asked to repeat. This movie was pitiful.


Somehow the teaming of Glover and Short didn't mix. There was not the special chemistry that is required to make this work. The premise was a great idea but it seemed so forced most of the time. The silly grin that Short kept though out the film, really made his charactor even dumber than it was suppose to be. Maybe I just was looking for something clever and witty. This wasn't it.


Martin Short and Danny Glover star in PURE LUCK, and the title plus Short should be a tipoff as to the quality of this obvious tax writeoff. Investigator Glover is assigned to find a missing heiress in Mexico and Short is sent along as someone who shares the heiress' constant state of bad luck (running into doors, falling down, etc.). Somehow this is supposed to mean Short will be able to find the lady, who has been kidnapped. I can't imagine anyone sitting through this inept, unfunny flick in a theater. I couldn't finish it on TV. Short has fallen a long, long way from his INNERSPACE days, and Glover simply looks embarrassed. He also mumbles most of his dialog. PURE LUCK makes THE MAN, with Eugene Levy and Sam Jackson playing similar roles, look like CITIZEN KANE. It is fair to say Short's auburn-dyed, permed hairdo in PURE LUCK outperforms Short at every turn. Avoid at all costs.


Though this movie is still watchable, it doesn't even come near the brilliance of the original. For starters: 1981 was a defining year in french popular-cinema. That was the year when "Le Professionnel" and "La Chévre" was released. "Pure Luck" is an American remake of the second one, made ten years later. I sometimes really hate way American film-making works: when they got so tired of their own clichés, they do a remake of a foreign film, which has foreign clichés. That was the element that made these two french movies great. European clichés. When they made those movies, they were totally aware, that they are only using the old recipes, which already worked well. The french humor in La Chévre is hilarious, and goofy. The scenery gives you a nostalgic feel, and the actors are just plain brilliant. Never over-acting, just plain funny. The strong, and aggressive Depardieu, and the always unlucky Richard made an unforgettable duo. NOW this movie... It doesn't have ANY of the elements listed above. Danny Glover and Martin Short are raging idiots, screaming through cities and jungles, acting so bad, it makes even your average stand up comedy actor look pretty sharp. The story is the same, almost word-by-word, yet the jokes don't work. Okay, I am a bit too hard on this one, but the original La Chévre was a generational masterpiece. And this is not. Just an average American early nineties comedy, with not too many things to remember for. Not that bad, but hey, if you take time to dig up this one, search for the original instead!!!


For somebody who has seen the French original with Pierre Richard and Gerard Depardieu, this is the worst remake of a movie for all times. Martin Short might be a good comedian and Danny Glover is a good actor, but as a team they are not even close to be as funny as the original team. I don't know, why American filmmakers always try to make remakes of French movies and fail on the attempt.


This movie, and every other remakes of french comedies by American directors are just awful (Father's day, Mixed Nuts, Three fugitives...). What makes "La Chèvre" an excellent french movie, is the acting of great actors like Pierre Richard and Gégard Depardieu, and the directing of great directors like "Françis Veber" which are by far more subtle than American acting or directing, especially in comedies. And as you talk about the goal of this movie, they bought an idea that was a big success elsewhere and they popularized it to make the movie accessible to a large audience. The result is a big load of tripe. I guess you have to be french to understand that, because it's just a matter of culture...


Why they did it was totally a dark artea for me but one of the most popular things in Hollywood were making Americanised versions from French comedies. The basic problem is that the original ones were mediocre comedies you will give two stars and a half, so you can imagine the American result... "Pure luck" is the "adaption" of "Le chèvre", a French comedy starring Pierre Richard and Gerard Depardieu. For the "new" version they found Martin Short and Danny Glover who will always be linked with his Lethal Weapon-roles. Everything starts when Valerie (Sheila Kelley), a daughter from a rich industrial, decides to go on holiday herself and as she is the typical dumb blonde who is born for bad luck, she soon get kidnapped. The kidnappers don't know what to do with her as she doesn't even remember her own name (it'd be better they'd dump her immediately so this movie wasn't made). After several searches tons of detectives haven't found a trace till some psychologist comes up with the idea to hire Eugene (Martin Short), a man who is born for bad luck as well as the theory says that through this way they will find Valerie, but as Eugene is dumb as dumb can be he got the help of a real professional Raymond (Danny Glover). Well the biggest problem is that the goal of this film is Martin Short doing slapstickgags and after 5 minutes you know when you see a staircase he will fell or when a door is closed he will bump into it. And it goes on and on, till the moment it really is embarrassing (see the moment when he is stick by a bee and his body swells...). Funny, no it isn't....and there is no magic between Glover and Short, and for some reasons it was a bit too much like Three Amigos which was a least tenthousand times more funnier!


The original French version with Pierre Richard and Gerard Depardieu is much more better.


As a big fan of wuthering heights, i was ready to give this film a chance. But i have to say, i hated it. Robert cavanah is not right for heathcliff. More importantly, this film does not follow the book. it kills the book in fact, and changes the plot. Cathy and hieroglyphs loveis more sexual in the film than in the book, and shows lust rather thanlove. i was very upset with this adaptation. as a stand alone film it would have been good, but as a novel adaptation - a very poor interpretation. The 1992 wuthering heights with Ralph fiennes however is an amazing film. it is very true to the book, very emotive. i cried 3 times throughout the film. Ralph fiennes plays heathcliff exactly as i imagined him. Juliette binoche pulls Cathy and Cathy's daughter off very well. Horton is portrayed perfectly too. i recommend anyone to watch the 1992 film, and not this television version.


I'm sorry, but I'm absolutely perplexed at all those people who claim that this is the most accurate film adaptation of Wuthering Heights. It is NOT at ALL! As a devout reader of Emily Bronte and beloved fan of the novel (I've managed to read it three times in less than a month) I can safely say that this adaptation doesn't even come close to capturing the spirit of Emily Bronte or the structure of the novel. To begin with, Nelly and Joseph's parts are drastically reduced.I mean, I was atleast expecting Nelly to narrate the damn movie. But she doesn't, in fact, she hardly appears in the movie at all. (by the by, they also chose a really old actress to play Nelly. She is supposed to be Hindley's age but instead looks 50 throughout the entire film). Robert Cavanagh delivers a decent performance as the conflicted and tormented Heathcliff. Orla Brady, however, just falls short from portraying the fiery and vivacious spirit of Catherine Earnshaw. Her defiant, mercurial, and headstrong nature that is evident in the book is not carried through in the movie. Aside from this, they also didn't put much consideration into the age continuity. In the novel, Cathy and Heathcliffe are both around 12 when they meet the Lintons. In this film, they skip 10 years altogether and introduce them as adults from the start. Other characters that were reduced included Hareton, Cathy Linton, and Linton himself. In fact, the entire second generation of characters in the film are as far removed from the context of the characters in the novel as possible. I dunno, it's just too many faults to list. All I know is that I kept grumbling and shouting "NO! that's not the way it went in the novel!" or "Hey, they said more than that!" I give credit to the director for atleast attempting to make a semi-accurate adaptation...even though he failed miserably. I'm beginning to think that Wuthering Heights really is an IMPOSSIBLE novel to film...or at least impossible to film in a way that can satisfy the true Wuthering Heights fans. Maybe if they made it into a mini-series/soap opera...


Not MY idea of the horror genre...maybe fantasy, in the form of the Silver Rider bloke, played by independant filmmaker Jim Jarmusch, who's far from a main character. Some of the actors appear to be speaking English, but that language from others (I suspect) is dubbed. The disjointed action involves a would-be member of The Cannibals (law-breaking motorcycle gang) being pursued by them. Mostly comedic, in my opinion. Really strained. Almost awful.


When I saw the DVD box it came in, I was excited at the plot summary. However, it did not pan out the way the summary said it would. The acting was stilted at best, costuming trite, music is not even there. As I read the credits at the end, I was surprised there were 8 or so songs - none recognizable. At one time, there was a band playing at a party, but no sound came out. Same for the bongos later. Bad Trip is aptly named; that's how you feel when it finally ends. Obviously, this film was a first for everyone involved. Not a horror film, and not a biker film either - not sure where it fits as to genre but would suggest somewhere around 3rd grade elementary school comedy. I wish I could get my 85 minutes back that I spent watching this wasteland of film and plastic.


Guardian of the Realm has surprisingly good production quality and special effects considering its low budget. It is the story of a couple of demon hunters who are about to face the biggest challenge of their careers - an ancient demonic power has escaped hell and rallied a small militia of demonic minions at a local night-club.

The overall cinematography and effects is comparable to the TV-movie work of the Pre-Battlestar Galactica Sci-Fi Channel, though the cast isn't quite as talented as the typical Sci-fi channel cast. Most of the effects involve people morphing into demons and some well-done wire work. The martial arts choreograohy is also pretty good.

Thankfully, Guardian does not take itself too seriously. Though Glen Levy and a few other cast members are competent actors, the directing and editing do fairly little to help them convey their talent. Many of the performances are somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and lend the film a cheap, exploitation B-movie feeling. This becomes more and more clear as the film approaches its utterly absurd climax.

This is definitely not a must-see, and whether you leave it on during a random channel-surf late at night is entirely your own decision. I suspect that most people will be LESS entertained by it than I was.


to say this movie is bad is an understatement. Guardian represents everything that's possible to be wrong with a movie, that's also its sole redeeming quality. The reason I gave this movie it's single star (aside from the fact that there is no option to put 0 stars) is because it has certain educational purpose. Robert Altman, when asked which movies influenced him the most, said: "the movies I hated the most," he'd see a film and think "I'll never make a movie like that." That's the case with Guardian. Watching it makes you understand how and why a movie can be bad (or oh-my-god-it-burns-my-eye bad in this instance). There is not single aspect I can start you off with, it's bad globally: every line is a cliché stolen from Buffy, Blade, or some other B vampire movie (and the ending is a word-for-word rip off from the first Blade -- I can't spoil the movie with this, it hits the bottom on the first line); the image is terrible, either they used magnifying glass for a lens or rented a wrong camcorder, because this is not shot on film with an HDCAM, not even on HDV or DVX from the looks of it; the cinematography is ...well, I don't think they thought about lighting; the set pieces and the makeup is admirably expensive for such a low budget, but the actors wearing the suits couldn't act their way out of a noose on the day of their sentence.

At first I actually thought I was watching a rerun of a Buffy episode, but then I realized that even Buffy wasn't that bad (and there weren't any commercials!). I watched further and I couldn't believe it was on a premium channel, on cable! But seeing this piece of s$@t make it this far, I now know that any film can find distribution...


Sigh ... another underwhelming Pooh product. I have extreme prejudice for the A. A. Milne books, which makes it very hard for me to enjoy any movie other than the original, but I try to set that aside to let my 2-year-old develop her own love of Pooh. She found this movie alternately scary and boring. Why, why oh why, must films ostensibly for tykes be so, A), amped-up and frightening, and B), based on the morality of sitcoms? You know what I mean -- if you reeely reeely *want* to do it, why, you *can* do it! And then then you all talk about the lesson you just learned! I miss the gentle randomness of the original. I also missed the look of the 100 Acre Wood. I did find this better than our last rental attempt, "Roo's Springtime Adventure," which was flat-out icky


My five year old did not enjoy this movie because Pooh and friends spend most of the movie scared and in perceived peril. Much of the movie looks like they are walking through the Mines of Moria. Everyone is scared, everyone is nervous and it translates right to the kids watching. The gang just goes from one bad situation to another. What is the point? At the end of the movie (which does end sweetly) my daughter exclaimed, "I never want to see that movie again!" As for the DVD extras, I've never been a fan of how Disney handles the heffalumps. Every heffalump sequence seems like an acid trip. The DVD includes an older episode featuring morphing heffalumps. It was just more disturbing stuff that my kid didn't enjoy.


Kits of the worst kind. Bad acting by virtually the whole cast. Highly predictable. Beauty of the lead actress is corrupted by her overacting. Cannot be saved by William - Marathon Man - Devane's method acting too.


AGENCY is another of those Canadian-made pictures posing as an American film, replete with big-name U.S. actors, and featuring Montreal unconvincingly standing in for Washington, D.C.

With a premise that is more intriguing and timely now than ever - subliminal messages in TV ads - one would have wished for a sincere, thoughtful approach. Instead, the wretched script is awash with bad dialogue and, in the second half, silly corporate intrigue scenes involving Lee Majors slinking about the ad agency at night, trying to get to the bottom of boss Robert Mitchum's nefarious political machinations. Mitchum's henchmen are so laughable-looking and inept that they appear to have been recruited straight from a Pink Panther film. Parts of the film border on outright comedy.

Still, the film is not completely without merit. The first half is promising; Majors makes an affable protagonist; Saul Rubinek is quite good as the harried eccentric who first discovers Mitchum's conspiracy (although his open contempt of his boss makes his continued employment at the agency another implausible factor). Valerie Perrine, however, appears in an entirely disposable role as the obligatory concerned wife.

Finally, all production elements are professional, and AGENCY at least turns out to be a diverting, if daft and disappointing, thriller. I was not bored.


This film starts out promisingly as you're treated to what seems to be a Disco Inferno, with wildly dancing devil-like creatures and a repeated "no sweat no sweat" chorus, which turns out to be a deodorant commercial produced by this particular agency that Lee Majors works for. Now, there's a new man that's in charge of this agency (Mitchum)and he's up to something, which may be somewhat devious, given that several people have quit and some have more than quit, they died or killed themselves. So Majors pokes around and finds something to do with subliminal advertising and also finds that Mitchum's background is not in advertising but with the government. Overall this film has a very scatter-shot feel to it and just seems thrown together, and given the subject matter it could have been a lot more sinister and creepy in the right hands, but alas, it comes off as no better than a TV movie of the week, which was fine back in the day of no VHS/DVD & nothing else to do. But not now. Performances were adequate but nothing more than they had to be, and Mitchum was far past his days as a actor that could give the viewer goosebumps. Mediocre at best, which is unfortunate. Could have used a few subliminal messages of its own, perhaps. 4 out of 10.


There's a not bad little thriller here trying to get out, unfortunately the leads aren't strong enough. Perrine is just awful and Majors is adequate but just not good enough, all through it I kept thinking 'this an Elliot Gould part'. The 'secret' that people are willing to kill for is so blindingly obvious from about the third edit into the film. There are a couple of nice moments (which I will not spoil for you) but be warned, it does contain the cat jumping out cliché.

I will be grateful to this film for one thing though. About half-way through I cottoned on to one of those weirdnesses that has bugged me for years about so many of the odd little thriller type films of this period. Why are they always seem to be set at Christmas? In this movie there is only one little touch of Christmas but it was enough for the penny to drop. There is a scene in a mall in which Perrine character escapes from the bad guys by pretending to be heavily pregnant and falling to the floor, one of the people who rush to help her, and get in the baddies' way, is wearing a Santa suit. That's it, the only mention, or hint of Christmas in the whole thing - but it was enough. This film was shot in Canada and it was snowing, and all the extras in street scenes are wearing heavy winter clothing! In Hollywoodland Snow = Christmas. Doh!


Agency is a film based on an interesting premise about subliminal advertising. Too bad the production was so shoddy, even with Robert Mitchum in a juicy role as the mysterious millionaire who buys an advertising agency for his own nefarious purposes.

I remember seeing this exact same premise on a Saved By the Bell episode where Zack and Screech plant audio subliminal messages in tapes of favorite rock group so that boys can present these tapes to the girls of their dreams hoping for a match. It actually does work for a while.

Mitchum's after much bigger game, in some commercials that saturated the state of Arizona a noted liberal Senator went down with subliminal visuals placed in some ads about some product. Saul Rubinek catches on and he gets killed for his trouble.

Rubinek's friend Lee Majors also catches on, but he proves a lot more difficult to deal with.

Mitchum is deliciously evil in this film, unfortunately the film itself is just not worthy of him.

And the premise is kind of dumb. Who's to say the other party won't start using it. It's hard enough to get people to the polls in the USA let alone vote for the candidate with the best subliminal advertising.

And if they could use the plot on Saved By the Bell..................


In 1981 whilst visiting California I had a vacant evening. And so free from visiting friends and amusement parks and not wanting to waste the evening looking at four walls of a motel room or watch the novelty of 24hour TV (remember this was 1981 and TV in the UK still closed at around midnight) I ventured out to the local Cinema to watch "Agency". From the TV trailers this promised to be an exciting story of the deceitful nature of advertisers who manipulate and lie so as to entice us, the unsuspecting general public towards the products. The trailer certainly worked; unfortunately the movie itself was as far from the mark as I was from home. The whole of the story had already been told in the 30 second trailer and there was nothing added to it. Robert Mitchum's character was not given anywhere near the scope to fulfil the potential that such a Hollywood movie idol deserves and the character of Philip Morgan played by Lee Majors could have been played by any of a dozen or more actors.

To sum up - this is without doubt the worst movie I have ever endured at a cinema. Having suffered the 94 minutes (are you sure it was only 94 minutes - it seemed like an awful lot more to me), the four walls of the motel suddenly began to have a certain attraction - and as for 24 hour TV!!!

If you ever get the chance to see this film do yourself a favour - lock yourself in your house and throw the keys out of the window, tape up your eyes, plug your ears or better still stay in your room and look at four blank walls. The overall effect is the same but without the hassle and expense of going out.


The eighties were notorious for great and goof-ball movies! This being a funnier story than a lot of others that I had seen, it's in league with "The Secret of My Success" "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" a lesser talented "Tootsie" but still very much a fun and wacky teenage tale of ' investigative mischief '. This is an Arizona filmed 'gem' movie. There are many shot in California and other places but, since I have lived here it's great to see familiar territory. Arizona is a great place to shoot certain films anyway. This being one of them.

I hadn't seen the lead female or Sherilyn Fenn before, much less Billy, and barely knew Clayton Rohner the love interest of our lead fem-reporter, 'Terry'. Despite any of this, who cares? They did a fairly wonderful job as teenage curious trouble makers and one aspiring for 'greatness' in reporting. This won't take home any awards but it will entertain most viewers. William Zabka was the only one that I truly was familiar with since "The Karate Kid " (1984) which of course hit big at the Box-Office!

With so many new comers in this, it is kind of cool to be in the story because it seems more real to me. I think, due to the fact that they are not famous-famous, yet. This wasn't a huge story line or amazing plot with twits and turns, it was an uncomplicated story of high school interaction and of those that are just starting to figure out a life path and begin the coming of age process.

This is fun and will be loved by some liked by others and not thought of still by some more. Any way you slice it though, it will come out amusing. The one little thing that I wish the director would have done is have the two 'alien' nerds from homeroom, standing on the curb as they all ride off (Teri and boyfriend & younger brother with biker-gal)and the mother ship 'arrives' and the two nerds look up, smile, a light shines down on them and both turn to glittering matter swirling upward to the ship and then head back into the cosmos.(**)


Tootsie was very funny in it's time. But this that is sort of like Tootsie in reverse, was not as funny. And listening to some of the jokes make me wonder why was this movie not rated R, I mean some of the jokes make the American Pie movies seem Nc-17. It was not all that funny, through most of the movie, I laughed for putting in the effort for trying. The story begins with Terry(Joyce Hauser) is very upset when she does not win a Journalist contest. Feels she is not taking seriously because she is a pretty female. And is pretty annoyed that her brother Buddy(Billy Jacoby--William Jayne now) has pined up several naked women in his room. So she pretends to be a guy, and changes schools, in hopes to get some respect. During that time she befriends Rick Morehouse(Clayton Rohner, you remember him from G vs E), keeps getting crossing unpleasant paths with the School Bully(The Karate Kids, William Zabka), and his pursued by Sandy(Then unknown Sherilyn Finn). It was not totally bad, Billy Jacoby seems to steal most of the movie has Terrys sex crazed brother. It was an alright 80's flick, but not a classic.


I won't waste my time reviewing a piece of bubble gum like this suffice it to say that bubble gum, every now and then, is kind of fun but gets stale quickly.

4/10 for oft mechanical writing, visual gags that never work, and overall bad acting (except for CLAYTON ROHNER: he sold his character well).


I beg to differ with an earlier poster who thought this movie was a 'wonderful little flick'. Neither myself, my wife nor my two teen daughters thought this movie rated even a '1' on the scale.

The acting can only be described as amateur at best. The lines given the actors aren't up to the task either and the situations, which are supposed to be comedic, are not. I noticed just one small smirk each from wifey and one daughter. The other daughter and I just thought the whole movie stunk.

What could have been fodder for an uproarious comedy was wasted in this stereotypical teen high school farce having all the requisite players; jocks, goofs, hairballs, goons and mentally-deficient teachers. Just what purpose was served by the "reptile guy" and the "trekkies" I'm not sure. And the relationship between the two main characters seemed to suddenly appear without any basis. Instead, we get treated to scene after scene with the "goon" pulling pranks on underclassmen - oh, how cute!

I'm glad they left some production money in the Valley because they sure didn't leave any laughs.


The kind of film that earns "European films" the bad rap and bad rep the get from a lot of people these days. I had the feeling the film was written to showcase the music, not vice versa. And since you can't write a terribly compelling film about training vocalists, we're trapped into watching seemingly endless camera pans of trees, birds in them chirping ad nauseum, pseudo-profound, meaningful stares between people who have nothing to say to each other, and a Mahler symphony on the sound track that just simply won't go away. A terribly tedious film.


What a good movie this could have been. The only reason it is interesting at at all is that there are no other movies covering this period in the Beatles history, but please. The historical inaccuracies alone just kill it. But worst of all they just don't sound anything like the Beatles. Just listen to the Cavern Club stuff on the Anthology DVD's and you will see what they sounded like just a year later. OK I know the Beatles had a ball in Hamburg, drugs, girls, etc but this is so far off the mark it's just silly. Lennon comes off as a complete dick head with no artistic qualities and Stu as some sort of genius while he could hardly play bass. Stu was about 5ft4in tall in real life but here he's as tall as Paul. This is one of those movies you can watch over and over because it plays like a TV movie of the week, but I always feel a little used afterward, this was really just a rip off and a money maker on the Beatles name. Oh and Stu was already out of the band when they recorded "My Bonnie".


This movie is the Beatle fan's worst nightmare: 1. Ian Hart doesn't resemble John Lennon 2. I don't believe that John had an affair with Astrid, he was in love with Cynthia at the time. 3. The movie showed the band going to Hamburg twice, neither of those visits involved Brian Esptein, who met them in Germany. 4. George Harrison, 17 at the time, looks about 25. 5. As you already may have noticed, the movie doesn't contain a single Lennon-McCartney composition. It also never portrayed the conflict of Rock 'n' Roll music: jazz music was still popular at the time. 6. In Hamburg, the audience was hard to please. In one club, the German audience threw chairs at them, in another, drunk men got on stage and took over the mike. 7. Also,Backbeat didn't quite capture John's abrasive behavior on stage. In the movie, neither of the band mates appeared drunk, nor did they swear/yell profanities at the audience; which is whatreally happened according to one biography on the Beatles.

A Hard Day's Night is much better. If you are looking for an accurate film, you've come to the wrong place, mate.


This dreadful movie suffered more than anything from poor production work and the slip-shod work of the extras.

It's hard to imagine that a hand to act badly but at one stage a hand appeared on screen (deliberately) and managed it. It was like watching a hand shaped Madonna appear on screen and ruin the movie.

I would never watch this movie again, I watched it and another couple of turkeys, The unlucky leprechaun, warlock 3 and knocking on death's door. All of which suffered a similar affliction, whether it be an implausible scream and wooden man in crowd or obvious stunt double i am sure there is a common theme.

Whoever is behind this would do well to give it up, take a job in sales and hope to one day hit the heady heights of their own car parking space rather than director chair.

Good riddance


Save your money if you're looking for a good haunted house flick. This isn't even a bad haunted house movie... it's just a bad movie. I was bored 15 minutes in, and it never got any better. First of all, the direction is poor, as is the cinematography... it looks poorly done and cheap... there's a story, if you stay awake to follow it. It sure doesn't move quickly. If you're looking to be creeped out, stay away. If you're watching because your class is reading the story... well then tell your teacher that the class should read a more interesting Henry James story.


Either this was written and made by three 15-year-olds or they were targeting the double-digit IQ audience and spending the minimum required to somehow show a profit at straight-to-video. It's a cynical attempt to get some product out there without too much effort or creative ability.

There are holes in the script large enough to fly a dozen jumbos through. The acting is ordinary, but not helped by the stupid script, so I wouldn't condemn these unknowns, who probably worked for peanuts. But pay peanuts and... you get flicks like this.

Then there's this attempt at a twist ending that's so ludicrous you wonder if perhaps it was supposed to be a satire all along!

Maybe I got the maker's ages wrong, they could be younger - whatever, they're certainly not the sharpest knives in the drawer, pardon the expression.

Avoid if you've got any taste and a life.


What is the use of watching a thriller if you already know what is going to happen. Well,there could be some surprises thrown in that make it worth wile. Apart from a couple of creepy moments this movie has nothing interesting to offer. From the start you know how everything will play out. This could have been just fine if this movie delivered on other fronts. Apart from one element there are no redeeming factors. I can't talk about this element without spoiling the movie. But it does gives a bizarre twist on matters. Warning: Don't expect too much from this twist however since it is the most ridiculous twist I have seen. Some explanation could have made it more acceptable. Is this movie a waste of time? If there is nothing on television and you have nothing better to do than you won't be sorry. As long as you don't expect too much.


I know how difficult it is to make good and reasoned thrillers these days. It seems all the good plots and ideas are long ago taken.

Yet, although this film was formula in some ways, it did escape some of the non sense of a slasher and chase, kill em all dead and bleed em dry blood feast.

It always amazes me how stupid some people can be. For example, they rent a lodge, talk on phone to owner before, and are not greeted by him when they arrive. Bad MOON rising? Then the poor couple find nothing amiss with no key, an open door and finally a kitchen as if somebody had just run away from frying eggs and bacon?

Come on, any average intelligence person would smell something very wrong from the get-go? Further they are careless with the cells, careless with their travel bags and act as if they are so dumb, Darwin and the audience is there hoping an ax will fall and out of the gene pool they'll be.

However, on the bright side, this film was dumb and unrealistic, but at least when somebody is dead, they stay dead.

Please don't buy this flick at the video mart, just rent it for a few good laughs.


A good horror movie should contain at least the following ingredients, suspense, shock, nudity, gore, an insane character, and if you're lucky a good plot. None of it in this movie. The beginning of the movie is worth an 8, from then on it's all down the hill. First of all, the begin credits makes one insane, text, 5 seconds movie, text, movie, text, and then movie finally begins. Almost made me stop watching this movie. Then 20 minutes of boredom, no suspense, no sex (to be seen anyway), no killings, nothing. Would you hire a lodge for the weekend with your girlfriend, while the one who rents it to you stays in it during that weekend as well? Not me. Finally the horror starts, the guy gets tied up, and the girl gets raped. Well, you have to assume that, because you can only hear her scream, sort of, but it is not shown. Not that we need to see such a thing, but it would be nice, if at least we saw the madman shred her t-shirt to bits. None of it. Even worse, her t-shirt gets never stained with blood or dirt, it keeps clean until the very end of the movie. Needless to say that the only one who gets killed is the madman, who claims to be killing people for 16 years already, by the wounded girl. Even the last scene didn't save this movie. No plot, no nudity, no suspense, a bit gore, and just a little bit insanity. That's the real horror of this movie, a complete waste of time. Don't bother to watch it, even it is a rental. Don't say you weren't warned. Shudder...


There is nothing in this movie that I already haven't seen. These two people go to this lodge in the middle of the forest and there is some creepy guy and then he ends up being more than a creep. It is so predictable that I could just say what was going to happen before it ever happened. It was pretty cool that the little girl ended up being someone unexpected but I've seen that in other movies.

The end was just like the end of "House of 1000 corpses." It was pretty cool but, again, I've seen it already. It was a very boring movie and predicable and there are other movies out there that are so much better.