You are a SEEKER Will! Don't you know what that is?!? This movie is pretty much all that you hate in a movie. The premise of the film is that evil needs five days after Will's 14th birthday to destroy the world.

The script is inanely two dimensional. Each character has his or her own theme and that's that. There are no character developments or even a care to it. It just seem that they had a cool outline for a movie and decided to put them in without any consideration to a story.

Just so you know, it's not very hard to be a Seeker in this movie. He goes back in time when he sees a sign. He doesn't even need to know what time period, his seeker abilities take care of that for him. Not only do they take him back in time, but he hallucinates the symbol for the "light" wherever a sign is located. So his job is to be involuntarily transported back in to to an empty room, see a transparent symbol and put his hand where it was. That's it. "I never thought you would get this far." You've got to be kidding! This movie plays out like a little kid's video game!

The villain is the complete opposite of intimidating, every time he is on screen I chuckled. His weapon of choice? Crows. Yes, that's right, you read that correctly. He uses crows to attack people. Yeah, he's here to destroy all light on the planet and he uses crows to scratch people. Yes, this makes me very scared indeed.

The camera tries to make the movie seem like there is action about to happen, but after the third time of these "action" sequences that end in a protracted dialog that was, "Give me the signs boy!" "No, I won't!" "Fine, Have it your way" you laugh at the bad guy for his terrible aptitude for being a bad guy and how easy it is to defy this evil power. Then the villain rides off into the distance. It just never made ANY sense. This movie is probably the worst film of the millennium.


Movie adaptations of much-loved books can rarely satisfy the fans, but even making allowances for that, this is a deeply disappointing film. People not familiar with Susan Cooper's "Dark is Rising" cycle will find this simply another lackluster and occasionally bewildering teen fantasy film, while anyone who read and enjoyed Cooper's books would be well-advised to steer clear of the film altogether: it will simply make them angry.

The attraction of Cooper's books is that they are both mythologically and psychologically powerful. Her characters are well-drawn, complex and believable, and the story is deeply rooted in British mythology. The film has none of that: the mythological aspect has been entirely excised, and the psychology reduced to the lowest common-denominator of teen alienation. Even the quintessentially English character of the stories was apparently judged too threatening or complex for American audiences, so the protagonist has been Americanized and the setting reduced to some cutesy chocolate-box Hollywood vision of rural England.

Probably the only bright point of the movie is Alexander Ludwig, in the part of Will Stanton. He isn't Cooper's Will Stanton, but he turns in a respectable performance. In this, he's in marked contrast to the adult actors who seem mostly to have phoned in their work.

Granted, the script writer hasn't given any of them much to do. Ian McShane's Merriman, a pivotal character in the books, has been reduced to intoning portentously "... for you are the Seeker ..." at regularly-spaced intervals. Naturally, in a film that assumes that the audience must be spoon-fed, everything has to be telegraphed, repeatedly if necessary. It's not enough to have fancy visual effects and abrupt changes of season; someone has to actually announce that the characters are traveling in time. Apparently, the film-makers don't think the audience are going to be able to figure that one out for themselves. It's educational to contrast the subtlety and effectiveness with which Cooper reveals her world in the books with the kind of ham-fisted lay-it-on-with-a-trowel exposition that the makers of the film considered necessary.

The result is a rambling mess where the hero stumbles through his required tasks - all of which fall more or less into his lap without any great dramatic tension - until the predictable last-minute rout of the forces of darkness. Even someone with no prior exposure to Cooper's work is likely to find it dull. It can't be judged good or enjoyable by any standard.

Quite how the movie came to be such a travesty is difficult to say. The source material, had anyone associated with the movie bothered to read it, is compelling and well-structured, such that simply following the story faithfully (and preserving some of Cooper's dialog) would have made for a much better movie. In the hands of, for example, the BBC, it could have made an excellent mini-series. Screenwriter John Hodge must take much of the blame for his insipid and amateurish screenplay, yet his track record - including the excellently- written "Shallow Grave" and "Trainspotting" - makes me wonder if he contrived this disaster all himself, or if he was under pressure from director Cunningham (whose own resume might have led one to predict that he would make something like this) to dumb everything down for the benefit of some imaginary audience of American teenagers with single-digit IQs.

There's no reason to waste time on this film (I saw it on an airplane). If you know how to read, you'd be vastly better off spending the time and the money on the original books.


In the Christmas holiday, the seventh son of a seventh son Will Stanton (Alexander Ludwig) finds on the day of his fourteenth birthday that he is a powerful warrior capable of traveling in time that must seek and find seven hidden signs to defeat the forces of the Dark and keep the balance with the Light. The Rider (Christopher Eccleston) tries to lure Will, who is guided by his protectors in his quest.

"The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" is a boring adventure, with an awful screenplay supported by special effects only. The characters and situations are badly developed and I took a ten minutes nap along the story, but I did not rewind the DVD because I noted that the part I had missed was also boring. My family and I like fantasy movies, but this one is a complete waste of time. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): Not Available


Gutted, completely gutted. Completely the worst adaptation since One Flew over the Cuckoos Nest " The Musical ".

In fact, the book - to - screenplay adaptation was so mangled that 20 minutes into it I wondered if it was actually based on Susan Coopers book - maybe I had misunderstood ? I am a HUGE fan of the books - but even with my many readings and understanding of the plot - it was still at least 45 minutes in before I figured out who Merriman was :( Some good actors in there - I often wondered how they must feel, locked into a contract and just KNOWING that they are involved in something truly awful.

The saddest thing is this could have been a good franchise - maybe even a great one - since in my opinion the Dark is Rising series is at lest as good as the CS Lewis stuff.

Bad studio ! BAD !


As one of the people who had already read the books, and loved them, I was enthusiastic about going to see this film. I had been quite pleased with The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and think the Harry Potter adaptations were fairly good. To my utter disgust the movie started with a young boy with an MP3 player. I was ready to walk out then but decided to stick with it. Then came a long drawn out boring introduction to various family members I can not even be bothered to remember. When things started to happen the special effects were fine, but the whole way through I kept wondering if Susan Cooper was dead to allow this to happen to her book.

I am sorry but if people think that unless a film is set in the current day people won't be interested in it then we are letting ourselves sadly down. The setting for the book held half of the mystery as did the time when it occurred. Is anyone really going to believe that a missing twin brother is going to suddenly appear and no one is going to question it.

If this was an attempt to enter the market the Potter and Narnia series have created then it is very poorly done. Unfortunately it sets the scene and tone for the rest of the books and if they try to set them correctly people are going to get confused. I doubt I will be going to see any of the others.

Cnarla


I've just watched this film and I have to say it was downright bizarre. Not the plot - I like fantasy stories and will try to get hold of a copy of Susan Cooper's book now I've read such great things about it on here. No, it was something else that ruined the film for me; the sense of it being totally disembodied. And it wasn't just about the director having parachuted an American family in to please US audiences.

At one point I turned to one of my companions and said "that's the most un-English of English villages I've ever seen." Given that I live in an English village, I kind of know what it should have looked like.

Watching the credits, it all became clear: the film was made in Romanian. Note to film making people: Romania looks nothing like England. Not one bit. One of my friends almost guessed it during an ariel shot of the 'village' when she said "it looks a bit German doesn't it?" It seems picky but it's one example of how the character of the novel was sucked out of the film. I'd sat and watched the DVD of 28 Days Later the previous night: now that's a film not afraid to be British that still went down a storm in the States. It can be done.


This movie is a total joke in my opinion. From the lame story line to the absolute stealing of ideas from other movies such as "Harry Potter", "Lord of the Rings", "The Matrix" and "The Goonies". That would not be so bad had it been executed well. I couldn't find anything good about this film at all if I am being honest. Perhaps some of the special effects were okay but that is very easy to get done properly these days I think. I thought the story was bad, the music was the bad and the acting was terrible. Probably the first time I ever felt I wanted to leave the cinema during a film. I cannot understand why this movie made it to the cinema if I compare it to other ones which do not. This movie simply insults the intelligence of the viewer and that is made worse by the fact that it is more aimed to children. Absolutely awful and a waste of time.


Well, I have to say i wasn't expecting much from the movie when I saw the trailer. I wasn't wrong. People should beware when movies of the same genre appear in big numbers; it will mean that at least 3 of 4 will be mediocre,bad or no redeeming value,whatever.

***Spoilers..maybe*** While the "adventure" focus the most part on the "growing" and "surprinsing"(because nobody can actually explain how many powers Will has or how did he get them)of Will Treston, it also points the relationship of him, with his family(BIG family, by the way), and maybe love-wise. Yet, the prophecy from which he was unaware, suddenly takes part over his life, when he mets "The Raider";he pursues Will,with some dogs you wont see again, he babbles something like "Give me the signs" and runs away scared of some people that calls themselves "Old Ones".

Probably, its seems like the "normal" Fantasy-Adventure plot. Boy.Prophecy.Hero.Mission.Some Help.Dangers.Perils.Plot Twist.Final Battle.End...Wow that sounded Like Ocarina of Time. But i was not satisfied by the plot...Will finds the signs...for example,on a Tomb(on the local Church),on her sister birthday present,OK totally unexpected and the SUPER predicted and most obvious sign(The Soul)...but for that, Will didn't even had to walk a mile from his home. His powers...Angered Explosions, "Super Strength"(Sometimes he was a pussy, actually), and Telekinesis( which he didn't care to use it, more than once). But, since all those powers were shitty, many characters actually didn't care to react at them(Will's Sister,Brother) or he was willing to keep them has a secret(Let me tell you a Secret...I have Super Powers). All this...i could easily forget it...but what destroyed me completely...was the "Disco Battle"(Final Fight Between the Old Ones and the Raider)or the Final Fight Between Will and the Raider( The effects of the Light and Dark Energies looked so crappy, a White and Dark Blankets, would have worked better) ************************************ So, Ill give it a 3, because it was not the worst movie i have seen yet...but because of the many plot holes and ...why to put Maggie and Stephen on the promotional poster if they barely acted on the film? Bad advertising


This is the worst film I have ever seen and I have seen the Avengers with Uma Thurman etc *and* I have seen Glitter *and* Crossroads *and* quite a few Madonna films. This was awful!!!! This is my first comment on IMDb and I felt I had to do it as a public service. It was entertaining watching it at the cinema as we couldn't stop laughing at how bad it was. It made no sense and just jumped from one random, badly acted scene to another. I loved Christopher Eccleston in Dr Who but I really have no idea what he was doing in this. Don't waste your money seeing it at the cinema or hiring it on DVD. Wait until it comes on TV and you have absolutely nothing else to do before you bother watching it.


I almost feel bad about writing something bad about this, considering the other comments made, but I feel I should carry on. No, I haven't seen this film but after watching the trailer for it, I think I have enough reason to hate it.

Firstly, I have no recollection of this being set in America (in fact the first book in the series is set in Cornwall... ENGLAND.). I can understand why it is set in America, so 20th Century Fox can make it sell there and they can get more money. I don't care, that is the first thing that has ruined it for me.

Secondly - and in relation to my first point - This is set in the country side, in a little village (again in England) which gives it that fantastic air to it, of seclusion and intensity. "Will is like any other boy" doesn't cut it. He goes to school in what looks like a big city, has stupid brothers who don't seem to care about him as they do in the book. Oh, and the part in the shopping mall? Stupid commercial idiots.

All I can say is, that I don't want to go and see a film about a barley pubescent boy who "can barley talk to girls". That's not what the book is about. The only good thing to say about this film is, it has Christopher Eccleston in it, so maybe next time when they re-make it better, set in England with out the stupid commercial, American-ness they'll have him again.


As a big fan of the original Susan Cooper series, I had some hope for the movie. Naturally, I was expecting some adjusting, and to not be AS satisfied as with my original read, but the degree to which this movie let me down was a surprise.

As an adaptation, I found there to be a distinct lack of magic found in the original story. It deviated perhaps a little too far from the original plot, and included some extra sub-plots related to the family life etc which really did it no favours. Additionally, if they are hoping to work with the rest of the series- which is doubtful- they've shot themselves in the foot with all the plot adjustments, and by losing much of the legends etc involved.

As a movie on its own, it was, to be honest, boring. The script was flat, and featured far too much repetition. I can only handle hearing Ian McShane bellow "YOU ARE THE SEEKER" so many times. Much of the film felt rushed, without adequate explanation, leaving many an 'eh?' in the air. I felt Will Stanton was miscast, but Christopher Eccleston was definitely a highlight.

Overall? A big mess of a beautiful piece of writing.


The makers of this film completely destroyed all the magic of Susan Cooper's beloved book. They turned it into a horribly made teeny pop movie attempt. The characters are weak with no development and the acting is just embarrassing to watch. They barely have any scenes from the actual books and the legendary dark epic feel is completely lost. The character of Will was the young boy who found out he was endowed with magic before Harry Potter was even created and I'm sad to see them throw away these books with a quick production to try to catch the coattails of the Potter craze. (Don't get me wrong. I'm a big Harry Potter fan.) Even the special effects and visuals are poor and the editing is totally disjointed. Ugh, I can't even list all the problems with this movie. Even the camera work is sloppy and seems to be desperately trying to make something out nothing. Suffice it to say I have nothing really good to say about this movie at all. I had to force myself to watch the whole thing and it was quite painful. I hope Cooper allows another remake in the future. I'd love to see these books done properly.


"Dear Director, What movie you've just created is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in its rambling, incoherent poorly adapted story were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone who saw this movie is now dumber for having seen to it. I award you no good review, and may God have mercy on your soul."

Honestly I would have rather watched Step Mom. Honestly. There was never any sense of what these signs even do. I still don't know. Why is the so called insanely evil "Dark" so harmful? Never once during the entire movie was there even a hint of wonder.

What about the old ones? At the end of the movie I just though they were there to talk cryptically and pretty much do nothing.

I think I just saw the worst movie ever made. I do have the sense that the book was probably great (I never read it)... it is a pity it wasn't realized in film.

Save your money...don't rent it or buy it.


I know the trailer shattered everyone who ever read the book(s). It was clear that they had done something to it (them)...and it wasn't good.

Having seen the film I've got good news and bad news.

The good news is that the cast (sans the woefully miscast and actually quite terrible Christopher Eccleston) is actually quite good. There is something warm and fuzzy about the bunch that some how lifts the rest of the proceedings out of the muck and mire.

The bad news is that the film is still covered in the muck and mire. Oh please don't ask me how the film compares to the book, its just not worth it. The problem is that they have refashioned the film to be a family sort of movie. It reeks of being the sort of thing thats good for kids, not too scary, not too taxing. the result is that everything suddenly becomes clichéd. Actually the first sign that we're in heavy cliché territory is the score which could be swapped out with almost any other similar film with no loss whats so ever. Its so generic as to be white noise. The look of the film is almost as generic. the result is that what ever worked in the book is laughable here.. Okay bring in plot twist A now B now C. Only the cast (as I said) makes it at all watchable.

Do I ever need to see it again...no. Do you need to see it? Not really, though I'm sure you'll see it when it hits cable..


The version of this Film that I have is Called "Dark Tales of Japan" Which actually features 5 short horror flicks not 8, and they are all well over 5 minutes long. They include "The Spiderwoman (Kumo Onna) Directed by Yoshihiro Nakamura, "Crevices" (Sukima) Dir by Norio Tsuruta, "The Sacrifice" (Onamakubi) Dir by Koji Shiraishi, Blonde Kwaidan (Kinpatsu Kaidan)-Directed by Takashi Shimizu,& "Presentiment" (Yokan) Dir by Masayuki Ochiai I'm not sure what versions that have in Japan of this, but once again the American title out here is "Dark Tales of Japan. And if you bother to look at the list of directors on this movie, you will see that there are 5, who directed five episodes, so I feel the main review of this film is a bit inaccurate.

Either way, all of the films are very low budget, and silly for the most part. I actually found the last episode in this series "Presentiment" (Yokan) to be the best and most interesting. One thing the review does have right is, if you are looking for a genuine Japanese horror flick, look else where, this will only turn you off from the genre. Its almost as if the directors got together just to poke fun at some of these urban legends. Though there are still some scary parts, and a few jolts here and there.


Dark Tales of Japan is a collection of made-for-TV J-Horror stories, shot by popular Japanese directors. The result is a Twilight Zone style anthology that aims to please those who can't get enough of Japanese ghost films, but unfortunately it fails due to rather cheap production values, poor effects and a lack of genuine scares.

In 'Would You Like To Hear A Scary Tale?' (directed by Yoshihiro Nakamura), which acts as a 'wraparound' story for the whole anthology, a creepy old lady boards a late-night bus and proceeds to tell a scary story to the driver (despite his not being too keen on hearing one). She's obviously a ghost, but isn't the slightest bit frightening.

The Spiderwoman (also by Nakamura), follows a couple of magazine reporters who are writing an article on a mysterious monster that has been repeatedly sighted in the town of Ibaraki. The intrepid investigators track down the creature... and soon wish that they hadn't! A couple of creepy moments and some rather fun dodgy CGI make this tale just about watchable.

Next up is 'Crevices' (directed by Norio 'Ring 0' Tsuruta), in which a young man finds out exactly why a missing friend has plastered his apartment with red tape: it's to keep out the creatures that lurk in the crevices! Lots of creepy atmosphere make this the best of the bunch.

The Sacrifice (directed by Koji Shiraishi) is the title of the third story, and although lacking in scares, it is made watchable by the presence of the gorgeous Yû Yamada who stars as a young woman cursed by a creepy workmate, but who is ultimately saved by her mother (who sacrifices herself to a giant disembodied head with strange eyes!).

Blonde Kwaidan, the low point of the whole film (despite being directed by perhaps the most well known of those involvedTakashi 'The Grudge' Shimizu), is a (mercifully) short story which features a Japanese businessman in Hollywood, who comes face-to-face with a blonde ghost. Yawn!

Before the film is rounded off with another 'scary' story from the ghostly bus-lady seen at the beginning of the film, Masayuki Ochiai (director of the upcoming Shutter remake) delivers the fairly enjoyable Presentiment, in which a trio of ghosts scare the hell out of a poor man trapped in a lift.


While the style of this cartoon was unique (enough to help it get the Oscar for Best Animated Short), this cartoon signaled to me the death of animation. It wasn't until the 1980s that a resurrected respect for decent animation occurred and fortunately today animation is once again respectable. In the interim, studios like Hannah-Barbera, Trans-Lux and Lou Scheimer reveled in horridly low frame-rates, cheap repetitive backgrounds and simplistic animation. Heck, to call some of this animation is a joke--it was more like a fast slide show since the frame rates of 24 fps were reduced in half or worse! While I can't blame MOONBIRD completely (after all, Columbia studios, Creston Studios and others produced cheap animation well before MOONBIRD), it is shocking when you compare the ultra-simple Eric Carle-style cartoon here with gorgeous MGM or Looney Toons cartoons in their heyday.

However, MOONBIRD manages to do something these other hack studios didn't. In this film they basically let two toddlers prattle non-stop and they animated it. The problem is that 2 and 3 year-olds aren't that interesting--at least not for 10 minutes straight!! Watching this film is like being locked in a room with an obnoxious small child who has always been told by his parents that he/she is the next Judy Garland or Marlon Brando. To me, this was about as welcome as a year-long migraine. Do yourself a favor and don't watch this film.


I just watched this on Sci-Fi last night. It's about a group of Navy SEALS who are sent to rescue some sort of CIA operative from a ship, where she's being held by terrorists. Afterwards, the terrorists flee to some island, still with their prisoner, and the SEALS pursue. The SEALS get the CIA person back, but by then they've discovered that the island is overrun by raptors.

Much bad CGI and firing of ammo follows.

Actually, there is some good CGI in the movie, like when they're in the cave which is the "incubator" for the raptors. That looked pretty cool. But most of the raptors that are running around in the woods, well, they look a little worse than the ones in The Lost World TV show, and when the SEALS shoot at them and blood starts spurting out, it's straight out of a video game. You will not be able to stop laughing at some of those scenes. And the raptors just stand there, totally oblivious to the fact they're being shot. One of them takes about 50 rounds to the butt, which is really hilarious because you'd think he'd turn around and see what's going on back there, but he doesn't.

Another thing that's annoying is that the SEALS suffer from a complete and utter lack of peripheral vision. A terrorist can be crouched behind a small tree as a soldier walks by, then the camera pans down and you see the terrorist, and realize there's no possible way that the soldier could have not noticed him. And, since they chose to call these guys SEALS, which makes one think they're highly trained, why do they never aim their weapons at anything? A raptor can be right in front of them and instead of aiming at it, they spray rounds back and forth in a wide arc.

The whole movie is full of such silliness. After being instructed to conserve their ammo, they fire an extra fifty rounds into a raptor that's already dead. It's all this inattention to detail that makes it abundantly clear throughout the film that you're not watching a "real" movie.

But, the last one minute of the movie almost makes it worth it. Some pretty cool CGI, and the best line of the whole movie is the last one.


Went straight into my bottom 10 movies of all time.

It's not even so bad it's actually funny.

It sets whole new standards of how bad a movie can be. Horrible pacing, awful editing, bad acting, and that's without mentioning the "Dinosaurs". I've met 16 year olds who could do better CGI & compositing than exhibited in this stinking mess.

It has no artistic merit, and wound me up so much I actually finally got around to registering after using this site for years simply so I could post this dire warning..

Avoid at all costs.


This move was a 10.5 on our Cheez-o-meter, the highest ranking possible, thanks to the earthquake movie of the same name. We knew we were setting ourselves up for a lambasting with "Raptor Island", we just didn't realize how badly.

OK, so the movie is made on the super cheap, with crappy CGI, models that scream "REVELL!!" and an utterly ridiculous plot scenario. I can get past a lot of cheapness necessitated by TV movie budgets, but what I cannot accept is the flagrant carelessness of the director. C'mon, people, the story takes place on an island in the South China Sea: so why are we looking at boreal forest, replete with ivy-covered trees, in what is obviously fall? During the scene where Hack and Jamie are holed up in the plane wreckage, their breath is clearly visible when they speak. Sorry, folks, no matter how you slice it, British Columbia can never stand in for a tropical island.

And what was with that weather at the end? The captain says their "socked in" "in this pea soup", but the island is having a lovely red sunset. Cut to helicopter pilot guy, shown in the cockpit with a raging ocean behind him. Cut to island sunset. Cut to helicopter flying over wrecked zodiac - it's night. Cut to Hack and Jamie, fighting off the bad guy, in full daylight. Cut back to pilot, shown in cockpit with that same raging ocean behind him. Cut to sunset. WASN'T ANYONE PAYING ATTENTION? Could they have at least TRIED to seem as though they were trying to be credible? Though this one was ripe for Joel and the Bots, we had plenty of fun of our own. Sublimely silly and purely ridiculous, there is no excuse to watch "Raptor Island", unless you're socked in by pea soup. Which we were.


-MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS-

This movie was a horrible film by any standards, But what got me the most was how bad the special effects were. Now when I say bad I mean by today's standards, if the film was released 25 years ago it might have been received better. But still with a little help from my buddies I could have made the films digital effects three times better! other then that the film was still one of the worst films I ever saw Sci-Fi channel produce, (and they have made some bad ones). The raptors were funny to watch simply because when ever they would get hit with a bullet it would make a really unrealistic blood splat and then just disappear without a bullet hole or any mark at all. I believe in a couple scenes the raptors would actually ignore getting shot, which at that point the film turned into a comedy for me. However the film (at least to me) was so bad that it made it enjoyable to watch.


I mean, come on! The CG is terrible. An amateur on his home computer could make better dinosaurs. The actors are horrible as well.

First off, I'd like to give some reasons as to why the story sucked.

(SPOILERS!!!!!)

First off, two forces from different nations, caught up in a fight next to the island was a poor way to get a few people killed by dinosaurs. It lacked creativity.

Second, a plane crashes, causing radiation to spill on to the island, turning the creatures on the island into these raptor creatures. I would like to inform the makers of this film, that nuclear radiation in 40 years will not turn back time. Lizards will not become Raptors of the dinosaur age. Therefore one of two things has happened here. A) The idea behind the story defies evolution, or B) These aren't real Raptors.

Whoever told the actors where to shoot, obviously didn't speak before hand with the FX guys, because the actors shoot all over the place, and never hit the raptors. I saw a shot, where 5 raptors were directly in front of a guy, and he shot the tree to the side. He constantly shot the tree, and never the raptors. Also, whenever a raptor is shot, red gas comes out of the hole, then a bit of blood drips out. What are these things, balloons?

One more thing. Whenever the raptors bite or slash someone before eating them, the person disappears, and there's only a few drops of blood. Not bodies, and gushes. Totally un-realistic. Bodies don't disappear.

I hated this film. I went into it hoping to see a movie with dinosaurs that did not steal from Jurassic Park. I was very disappointed. The raptors looked like the Jurassic Park raptors, and the big raptor looked like the Carnotaur from Disney's Dinosaur.

I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It down right stank.


I happened to have just finished watching Raptor Island, and my god it was awful! Now I'm usually very glad to watch horrible B rated movies(Frankenfish was my favorite) but this was crap! CRAP! The acting was terrible. There was one part where one Navy Seal TRIPS OVER A LOG AFTER HE LOOKS BACK AND SEES IT only to be eaten by the raptors. Oh what they aren't raptors! They're mutated dinosaurs! Not only are they the fake st things i have ever seen, they get shot and ignore the bullets! Its like a video game. They shoot the "Raptors" an the bullets disappear to leave no wound. And when a "Raptor attacks someone, in less than two seconds there's nothing but a blood stain! Way to go Sci Fi! Way to go!


I have seen several movies that involve "dinosaurs", and I have to say this movie had the worst special effects ever. Why would anyone waste their money on such a bad movie? I agree with several of the others who have posted their comments that the plot, the acting, the scenery and especially the graphics were so bad that it was worse than a B-movie. Don't waste your time watching this film. Usually what I have seen on Sci-Fi, has been worth my time, but this time I should have watched the news. Lorenzo Lamas was the only part of this movie with any redeemable quality and that was his good looks,not his acting. If they ever decide to try to emulate another dinosaur type movie, get a better CGI group to work for you.


Well honestly i didn't expect too much from this movie. The previews for it didn't even show the raptors for obvious reasons. This movie is just plain terrible, probably the worst movie i have ever seen. If you are looking for a good comedy movie this has to be it. the acting is bad, (just watching the guy struggle to trip over a log thta was on the ground took awhile), the lines are just as bad. I feel bad for the actors, they will never get another job again. Now for the worst part of the movie,the CGI. It looks like a Nintendo game from the 80's. from the beginning to end the cgi is terrible. just terrible. honestly horendous. the raptors look terrible, especially when shot at, apparently the effects are similar to the video game DOOM where the blood splats occur for a second and disappear. don't watch, please spare yourself, unless you want to laugh the entire movie


Decades ago, a crate filled with weapons grade plutonium crashes on an island and soaks into the ground. Today, a team of military men are sent to track down a notorious terrorist (of ambiguous national origin) and they track him to this polluted island. When their raft is destroyed, the team must spend the night on shore, but soon discover that the plutonium has done something awful to the island -- it has called forth hundreds of bloodthirsty velociraptors.

Let me start this with a lesson: don't lend a movie to your friend before you've seen it, especially if you are supposed to be reviewing it for the internet's finest horror movie site. It took me almost a year to get this film back, and the person who borrowed it still had not watched it (though we ended up seeing it together). And a second, more important, lesson: when you do watch this, keep your expectations as low as humanly possible. Because this film ranks among the worst I've ever seen.

My acting in 8th grade was more convincing than the seasoned actors who appear in this film (Lorenzo Lamas, Stephen Bauer). Line delivery is very fake, and the words themselves are poorly scripted. The opening words come from a man checking out his gun's scope: "Boom. Dead bad guys." Yes, that's pure genius at work. The only conversation with any depth has two main characters explaining their histories. But it, too, seems unnatural and a poor attempt to provide character background and to fill time. We didn't need to know anything about their histories, so why bore us with it? And if you think the conversations are bad, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The lighting is atrocious. I generally don't notice lighting, but my friend (a former film school student) was practically vomiting in rage at the way more often than not shadows fell on the actors' faces and the light would be in the background, focused on nothing in particular. Most lighting looks like a spotlight in a dim room, and many of the scenes involve a deep, subterranean cavern -- which you'd then expect to be poorly lit, but had lights coming from all sorts of random angles. Don't ask me why.

The plot was pretty bad. Some films can take the idea of military men chasing a terrorist and make a convincing film out of it. Cat and mouse stories are riveting. Well, not here. The terrorist is really not even part of the story, just an excuse to go to the island. And the raptors? And the allosaurus? Sure, they came from the plutonium that soaked into the ground. But if that makes sense to you, please explain it to me because I have no clue how radiation brings dinosaurs back from millions of years of extinction.

By far the worst part of "Raptor Island" is the animation of the raptors. That's right -- the selling point of the film is the worst aspect. The animation isn't just bad, it's subpar. I can't even express the hilarity of cartoons this cheesy. And when they get shot? Red splats like one would see in an old video game. Even the airplane, helicopter and Navy ship are cartoons... how hard is it to get a model plane? Please don't see "Raptor Island" unless you need a good laugh or want to get sickeningly drunk. Sure, you probably want to see it before you see "Raptor Island 2" (which seems to be getting better reviews). But just avoiding it entirely is your best bet. The closest thing I can compare it to is "Pinata: Survival Island", and unfortunately this film makes the pinata look good by comparison. You have been warned.


...but then what is? Here it is 2006 and I've just gotten around to watching this "movie." Yes, it was high on my "must-see" list. I kid! I kid! Just bored on a Saturday afternoon and during my channel-surfing I come across this flick and decide "what the heck!" It should have been "what the hell?!" The fact that Lasagna, er, Lorenzo Lamas was the star should have warned me, but I'm a glutton for punishment.

I agree with every other review about the horrible effects. The things that made me laugh the most was the NAVY S.E.A.L.s' poor shooting ( the trees in the woods come out on the bad end of that ), Lorenzo throwing his machine-gun about a quarter-of-a-mile across a lava chasm to the CIA girl, the Russian agent and Lorenzo shooting at each other with machine-guns at POINT BLANK range ( Lorenzo on the helicopter, Russian on the ground ) and missing each other! This movie is full of wacked-out jollies like this. But still, I could not look away. Something about the Sci-Fi Channel and their crap movies compels me to watch. Watch, but only if you want to make fun or truly enjoy cheese, which I admit, I do. "Frankenfish" is still the best Sci-Fi movie yet, IMHO.


Spoilers omg its like a video game man like sum of the other reviews its so fake i laughed my head off when 1 of the raptors ran up and killed the bald headed seals dude lol!!!!!!!!!!! that was so fake but it was hilarious man some wannabe jurassic park creators trying to hit it big with this movie ...... . and when the dude get chewed up at the end . is that suppose to gross somebody out?? lol and when the raptors follow the helicopter into the water man what does that even suppose to mean i mean how can they follow when their that small and the ocean is that deep???? it don't make sense i mean I've seen some goofy special effect tricks in my day but this has to be 1 of the worst ones I've ever seen man its just stupid i mean even i could tell it was fake when i saw the first Raptor man i mean i know all effects is fake but when u can even tell its fake first off then ya thats bad

another thing that i laughed about this movie is wat one of the other guys said about SEALS pose to be a crack shot and then in this movie they don't even aim at nothing and half the rounds they fire r misses man ? whats up with that and the lava and stuff i mean that doesn't even make sense .. alotta stuff in this film didn't make sense so i basically wasted a hour ina half of my social born life on this movie man !!!!!!! booooo well my advice is if ur blind and cant hear this movies for u.. get it ? get it!

anyways I'm outtie later and don't watch this movie ... "Advice of wisdom!


Man, seeing the previews of the movie hyped it up, but when I clicked on it to watch it it was painful to watch. First off, the guys who produced it were too cheap to get a real aircraft or even use CGI for the plane, instead they used a poorly made model of it. Then, without warning after the crash, it went all down hill from there. The Raptors, which looked to be CGI, had like really poor intelligence. They stood there being shot, and didn't even move to kill the person shooting them. Instead they stood over the body, which they killed in a Tyrannosaurus or big hunter sort of way(never once did they use their Terrible Claws). The only good CGI Dino was that Tyrannosaurus look alike, which looked like a amalgam of T-Rex and Carnotaurus. The acting, if you can call it that, was just plain horrible. Huge plot lines in the story, you could drive the Titanic through them. Even the location was wrong for a Dinosaur flick. This movie was just as bad as the Carnosaurs trilogy, and that is saying a lot. Jurassic Park III was a low point in the Jurassic Park series, but no Dino flick is as bad as Raptor Island in my book.

3/10, stay far, far away from this movie.


Horrible CGI, horrible effects, and horrible acting. When I first saw the raptors, I was immediately reminded of Turok. When the raptors got shot, I was reminded of horribly crude video game violence and paintball combined, and then their wounds magically disappeared. When a guy got eaten, their bodies became puddles of blood and a few clothing fragments... no bones, no organs, no nothing. And they sounded like the lions in Zoo Tycoon.

Another thing I hoped was that they would make the raptors smarter than this... when hunting, they stood there and watched the people as they fired at them.

Dinosaur fans and raptor fans... go watch JP instead. A 4/10 movie.


Like others have said about this movie, I think this has to rate the worst I've ever seen. Well, maybe it's tied with another worst one about some Leprechaun. Both movies have terrible special effects (which aren't so special at all). My son does stop-animation on his home computer with Playdough figures that are more realistic and entertaining than the dinosaurs in this movie. And when there's a fast-paced action scene, the cameraman shakes the camera wildly to try to give the effect that the action's more realistic and scary than it really is. And Navy Seals? You've got to be kidding! I'd be really ticked off if I were a real Navy Seal and saw the shameful way these guys were portraying the Seals. And the fantastic "hunks" that other commenters mentioned that give some merit to the movie don't impress me at all. I fell asleep watching this thing and don't know how it ends, but I'm sure the last half hour was as bad as the first part of the film. Don't waste your time on this. The bad CGI isn't even funny to watch (like the old dinosaur movies pre-Jurassic Park period), and the acting on the part of the humans in the movie is, like I said, just plain awful.


This movie was horrible. I couldn't stand it. The computer graphics looked like they belonged in a cheap video game and the fight scenes were the worst i had ever seen. The people couldn't shoot worth crap and when they did manage to get some hits on the raptors, the corny blood spat out and there wasn't even an entrance or exit wound. In the scene where Azeer was killed by the three raptors they ate his entire body, bones, organs and all, in about 2.73 seconds. I think that's a record. Also whenever the people would start shooting the raptors the raptors just stood there like nothing was happening until they decided to run away. The acting was bad but the plot was okay. I rate movies half on how much I enjoyed them and how well they were made. I give this a 2/10 and that is the worst i give. Go watch a better dinosaur movie like Jurassic Park or something instead of wasting your time watching this.


From beginning to end, there is absolutely nothing to like about Raptor Island. The acting is terrible, as not one performance is worth highlighting. The special effects are pretty terrible, but the worst of the bunch is the bigger dinosaur at the end of the movie. The writing is terrible mainly because the subplot of the soldiers trying to capture the bad guy, but where the film really fails is when it takes an entire magazine to make the raptors stumble. These soldiers are the WORST shots ever put on screen, as bullets hit twigs and branches 50 feet in all directions and occasionally clip the dinosaurs themselves; when the bullets do hit the raptors, it takes nearly a hundred shots to put them down. The gore-factor for this film is, as usual for a Sci-Fi production, very high and adds nothing to the movie's atmosphere.

All in all, I didn't have any expectations for this film, and only listen to this for background noise. I could only recommend it for that.


Small Spoilers. I was formally EthanDirector and I'm putting this up again with my new account.

Raptor Island is a Sci-Fi Channel movie. It's very funny because it has a dumb story,bad acting,bad visual effects,bad direction,and enough plot holes to make a small cemetery.

It starts out with a fake looking Chinese Aircraft getting struck by lightning. The movie is about A Group OF Navy Seals that are on a mission to rescue an agent from terrorists led by Steven Bauer who was in Scarface with PACINO. They follow the terrorists to an island with Raptors. That's where the bad visual effects come in.

This movie is hilarious in its awfulness. Oh and the Plot Holes "I don"t think he'll make it through the night. In the next scene that man is up running around. Why was a Chinese Aircraft holding American chemicals Was the above comment useful to you?

Final Verdict 1* out of 10*


I consider Lorenzo Lamas to be one of the top 10 douche bags in Hollywood and I STILL felt sorry for the guy being in this horrible flick. It's one of those typical God awful movies they play on Sci-Fi channel when it's "Dinosaur Week." Terrible on all aspects- script, acting, CGI effects (on par with the Xena or Hercules TV shows from a decade before). Just all around BAD. The next time it's on TV you may want to watch a few parts just for a laugh but trust me, you will quickly be flipping the dial to the Home Shopping Network or some such dribble. Probably best just to stay away from this one... Seriously, anyone giving this film more than a 2 (and that's just for the unintended comedic elements) needs to see a shrink fast!


Raptor Island is a Sci-Fi Channel movie. It's very funny because it has a dumb story,bad acting,bad visual effects,bad direction,and enough plot holes to make a small cemetery.

It starts out with a fake looking Chinese Aircraft getting struck by lightning. THE FILM IS ABOUT A GROUP OF Navy Seals that are on a mission to rescue an agent from terrorists led by Steven Bauer who was in Scarface with PACINO. They follow the terrorists to an island with Raptors. That's where the bad visual effects come in.

This movie is hilarious in its awfulness. Oh and the Plot Holes "I don"t think he'll make it through the night. In the next scene that man is up running around. Why was a Chinese Aircraft holding American chemicals


Some of the cheapest looking CGI creatures you'll ever see attack some of the most poorly trained mercenary troops to ever brandish fake looking weapons on a bogus "South Sea island" set (in Canada). The goofs are endless, the script resembles mangled Swiss cheese, and the story is pretty much a chaotic maze of nothingness.

The Raptor attacks are priceless. Usually they stand around, hanging out in groups doing nothing, as nitwit Green Beret wanna-be's pepper them with hundreds of rounds, and they just kind of stare in stupefied apathy as the useless bullets shower them. One of two things always happens: Either they get sick of being shot at, and they gang tackle the victim and then some animated blood spurts around; or a poorly done CGI red blotch appears on the poor confused Raptor and it drops over in a heap, never losing that silly grin they always seem to have. The chronological order for the victims-to-be is so obvious, they might as well have had numbers painted on their faces.

Viewers definitely need to "turn off the brain" for this material. The writer, director, and cast certainly did.


Raptor Island was possibly the worst movie i have ever seen. Characters suck and so do the actors who play them. The visual effects look like animated cartoons. the story is terrible and ending is stupid. All the commandos suck at aiming. And the black guys dies, which pisses me off. I would watch it for a good laugh.

It stinks.

The ending stinks

the actors stink

i would rather eat my own vomit then watch this movie again.

Only watch this if you wanna laugh


...and believe me, a 3 is very generous and based solely on my affinity for all things dinosaurian. First of all, these "raptors" look pretty lame. They are hardly raptorian, in the strict Velocirpator sense. I don't see any of the Velociraptors' infamous toe-claws on any of these things. They look like your typical, run-of-the-mill small predatory dinosaurs that would be more likely to attack small lizards and birds than human beings. To be honest, the Navy SEALs really should be able to beat these raptors senseless. Or just shoot them once and kill them. Lorenzo Lamas gives a typically bad Lorenzo Lamas performance. Not only is he a really bad Navy SEAL, he's a really bad actor. The girl Hayley Du Mond is attractive and keeps your interest for awhile, there's some sort of Allosaurus-type beast that appears from time to time to lessen our boredom. Overall, this is a pretty bad movie.


In the words of Billy Bob Thornton this movie is funny, but I don't know if it's funny ha-ha! Or funny Queer. Lorenzo Lamas is queer to begin with, then you add sorry effects and a lame story line and you have for a cocktail of queerness all around. If your a Sci-Fi fan you can watch this movie because is Sci-Fi but I warn you, you could develop some funny feelings (I don't know if funny ha-ha or funny queer) in the pit of your stomach. Over all this movie sucked like all of Lorenzo Lamas movies. What was that show he was on anyways, oh well I don't care I am just trying to fill the 10 lines so I can post this comment on a all around queer movie.


Wow this movie has the worst special effects I have EVER seen! In the opening sequence I was looking for the strings on the airplane. The raptors getting "shot" was a joke. And the shooters were so freakin' stupid!! Haven't any of these people ever even held a real firearm? We're supposed to believe Seals shoot from the hip? I guess you could expect that from the untrained "bad guys", but any 12 year old with a BB gun knows better. And the spray and pray was just as bad. I won't even talk about how fake-looking the smoke and flames were. We're talking 1950's technology here.

The whole thing was pathetic. Whoever did the technical advising on this film should look forward to a great career in the food service industry. "Want fries with that?" I'm going to have to go look up the director's name so I know whose films to avoid in the future.

I think I've voted on over 100 films here, this is the first time I ever gave a "1".


Raptor Island is a Science Fiction channel revival of all those dinosaur films from the Cold War era where radiation is responsible for all kinds of strange beings.

In this case a cargo plane crashed some time during the sixties on a volcanic island in the South China Sea, spilling radioactive material on the island.

Fast forward to the War on Terror and a Navy SEAL team group headed by Lorenzo Lamas is trying to rescue a CIA agent Hayley DuMond from a group of Moslem terrorists headed by Steven Bauer. The terrorists, the SEALS and the CIA agent all wind up on that same island where in thirty years, raptors have returned to life and are multiplying exponentially.

All the clichés from those Cold War films are carefully preserved and recycled for the War on Terror. Despite the even more sophisticated weaponry of 2004, I can't believe how any of them survive. They should all have been raptor puppy chow as Lorenzo Lamas puts it.

In terms of special effects, Jurassic Park it ain't. And the players can barely keep a straight face. Raptor Island is worth a few laughs.

And if you can believe it, the Science Fiction channel has a sequel for this film, Raptor Planet.


Ouch. I find it very rare that a movie comes about that has no apparent intention of being good, nor pulling in a crowd for that matter.

Of course this could be because it's a TV film.

We join our heroes, the Navy Seals as they pursue some rather naughty terrorists to a lush volcanic island in the middle of nowhere. Soon after arriving on the bit of land we are introduced to a lame one-liner leader and a group of passive raptors that only strike those who scream very loudly and fire their guns inaccurately.

The terrorists soon garner pity and then sad looks of disgust as one by one they are devoured and reduced to small piles of stained leaves and shoes. Sometimes not even that! The raptors have grown so hungry that clothing and combat boots seem just as appetizing as flesh.

Then there's the fact that they aren't raptors at all...., but actually small lizards exposed to chemicals that have made them big and immortal against the 70+ rounds that barrage their bodies, spraying up fun amounts of CGI gore.

The already stinking pot of this film gains more ingredients as the stupidity progresses. Raptors stand and take the abuse of hundreds of shells without so much as a flinch and people act like abandoned infants that need their diapers changed.

If you are a fan of terribly produced horror flicks like myself, you'll enjoy a campy romp through a somewhat engaging atmosphere chocked full of jokes and MSTing.

But, fairly ye be warned if you've come across this film looking for decency.

2/10


This is one of those "slick" Italian movies where the world is populated with easy-to-bed don't ever wed women, well-heeled "where is my next lay"? wheeler-dealer men who are all connected to each other trying to pull off the big "heist", a dialogue that is fleshed out with the serving of drinks and the lighting of cigarettes, cinematography that looks like it was captured from an assortment from the airport post-card stand and music that is meant for the tourists.

The acting is uninspired, the action scenes do keep your interest and the scene at the windmill is a hoot since all of the nefarious parties become conglomerated like a row of pins that get knocked over in succession. Then? Ta-taaaaa...the police arrive to tell the still non-sleeping members of the audience that they knew what was going on all the time. As usual.

What is an endless fascination to me is these movies are usually starring some actors who had at one time some momentum in their careers but then fell flat. Two of these such performers are Caroll Baker in The Carpetbaggers & Stephen Boyd as the baddie in The Ten Commandments who tried to slice Chuck Heston's chariot in the Coliseum. Stephen Boyd went on to bigger and better things but never made it big on a consistent basis but his career lasted much longer that Baker's, who had a kind of unbuxsome Mae West/Jean Harlowe kind of thing going on.

This film is for the videohounds only, since you never know what you are going to find.

F.Y.I Never select an old movie title with two recognizable actors in it on the basis of the title since it RARELY has a connection with the film but is usually a loose translation of the original title name that is stylized to entice the American audience!


While watching this I began to think that "Il diavolo a sette facce" might be Italian for "women in goofy wigs" when it became more apparent that it probably meant "waste of 90 minutes". To call "Devil with Seven Faces" a giallo would be akin to calling "The Garbage Pail Kids Movie" a drama. There is nothing in this movie that is even remotely close to the genre as this is standard television movie of the week fare. Playboy lawyer Dave Barton takes the case of Julie Harrison who is concerned about her twin sister. Turns out her sister Mary was involved in a diamond theft and double-crossed her husband who was also her partner. While under Barton's representation Julie falls for Dave's sidekick Tony who likes to bag multiple women like his boss. Can't say I disagree boys. Things move pretty slow as the various car racing scenes and mindless backstabbing provide little thrills and even less enjoyment. For some inexplicable reason Julie's hair keeps changing lengths as in one scene she'll sport the Mrs. Brady look and in the next her flowing locks are down her back. She even wears a ridiculous blue wig on the beach. The woman that Dave philanders with does likewise. At one point in the film Julie's landlady is found dead yet nothing ever comes from this. What the hell happened? Don't let the sexy cover fool you as this is a sex free flick. One naked backside and a sideshot of the curveless Carroll Baker are all the skin in this film. Let's see, convoluted plot, dull characters, no gore, no nudity, why did I give this a four? Oh yeah, Stephen Boyd does a decent job as the ladies' man lawyer. Where did they get the awful idea to name this "Devil with Seven Faces" to begin with? Skip this boring diamond caper and steal yourself a better movie.


Though I viewed a terrible DVD transfer from Eastwest Video, it is hard to believe the most sumptuous "Criterion" edition treatment of this film would raise its ranking to more than 3 or 4 out of 10. Sure, the Eastwest "pan and scan" person probably was asleep when this cropping atrocity was perpetrated, but that doesn't explain the poor dubbing, poor acting, poor plotting, silly exploration of the landlady's attic by first a cigarette lighter and then a struck match (what DID happen to Julie's landlady, and, more importantly, WHY?), cheap sexual teasing (there is NO scene in this movie that resembles the DVD cover used here at IMDb), and silly denouement confirming the movie-watcher's suspicions that the whole heist caper was all a bunch of misguided hooey from the get-go. Dave Barton (Stephen Boyd) must be the dimmest lawyer in the history of the profession, and the bimbo who bamboozles him (Carroll Baker as "Julie") is only a watt or two brighter. Fortunately for them, the other eight bad guys crossing their path have intellectual capacities which do not even register on the IQ scale. If you want to spend 90 minutes to see a few moments of punch-pulled action atop a windmill, go ahead and take a chance on this cheap flick.


What I saw was a throwback to cliché-cluster flicks of decades ago, but the soundtrack puts it firmly in the eighties.

It is thumpingly and enormously awful, as wretched and phony a film as could be conceived. Tittering harem ladies a'bathing, stern Turks delivering script bits from the 100 Most Popular Stock Lines for the genre. They might as well have gone beyond the scattered skin peeks to a fuller soft-core intention -- all pillow-plush and pleasures in the sultan's palace, because that's already the quality/ambiance/performance level of much of this thin 'n cheesy production.

The producers may have scored the perfectly suited shooting location, but much else in the movie seems to be reaching for the furthest reaches of inauthenticity.

Admissions: There is amusement, even delight, in encountering something so consummately lame, in wondering who could work on it and think for a moment this embarrassment should be taken seriously. I really did laugh out loud a few times at this painfully acted, double-dreadfully written, obliviously directed caricature. Maybe I WOULD view a portion of it again, preferably with someone else. "Look!...watch this! Watch!"

And..I only made it through the early half. Turned away easily without even the tiniest rhinestone of regret. (A bug buzzing by in the living room could be diversion enough from this bungle.) Could be...could be that when it moved deeper into violence and intrigue, into dramatic seizures(!) of fate and steering of history, it took a turn toward something more engaging and more plausibly presented. Could happen...right?


Fascinating story but except for F.Murray Abraham this movie had some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I have seen children in school plays put on more believable performances than Amber O'Shea and James Michael Gregary. With the lacking script and C movie performance (I thought at first it might be a porno film) it took me 3 days to watch. I was so intrigued with the story line I wanted to see the ending but again because of the scrip and acting I could only watch it in small doses. I'm hoping someone will take this wonderful tale and make a real "movie" about it. Probably watchable if you have allot of paperwork or crafts or something to take your mind off the performers and their flat delivery of poor lines.


I have never seen such pathetic acting. I have never seen such a pathetic script.

I cannot figure out how someone could ever pay to have this movie made.

It was horiffyingly bad in every aspect.


There is a leech-eating scene.... need I say more? At one point, during the requisite prison cafeteria food-fight scene, several of the actresses literally crack up and start giggling during their lines.

One of the actresses, a doctor, was actually not half bad (in comparison), and I felt very sad for her; the rest of the actresses didn't seem to take the script seriously at all, and who can blame them? They were probably coeds promised free beer if they showed up and read from cue cards.

This movie is so very bad that it's actually hysterically funny.


I saw this film when I was a student back in 1988 or 1989. A friend and I hired it on video.

It has got to be one of the most dire films I have ever seen. Totally derivative, unoriginal, cheap, tacky, badly acted, buttock-clenchingly bad.

The special effects for the space battles are lifted directly from Battle Beyond The Stars. Strangely enough, I've seen another film that has done this, so maybe the makers of BBTS sold the rights to that footage to make some money.

Bearing in mind that I am writing this review 11 years after seeing the film, I'd give it a huge thumbs down at 1/10.


This is a tough one to review. There are bits and pieces that are really striking and a dreamlike quality to the whole proceeding. Actually the film resembles a bizarre dream one might wake from and go, "what was that about?" and then when you try to remember it later you can't.

A strange futuristic city not unlike other anime future cities. Weird mutant humans who can shoot rays from their hands. Mysterious moody strangers with super-powers. Cute teenage girls with mega-fighting abilities. Sound familiar? Well it is but it's not as derivative as it could have been. The design is very good and the characters are all fascinating but...

I watched it with the hope that it would all somehow come together but it never did. A number of important plot points are hidden in vague dialog references. As other reviewers have mentioned, it's like we are in the middle of some larger story. It's an interesting world that deserved better treatment. However it's not as bad as a number of other pretentious animes and you might enjoy it, just expect a disappointing ending.


Oh my God.

What a pile of unexplained crap.

This movie is one of those where I'm sure the creator knows the secrets and meanings behind everything...and he think he can get away with leaving the unexplained to people and that maintaining their interest...but he's wrong.

Darkside Blues begins in a state of confusion and while you expect an answer, it ends in exactly the same point.

It's like watching the middle of a movie. You get the meat...but you never know how it started or what ends up happening.

Maybe the MANGA is better. I'd try that.

Avoid this movie. It is a waste and just utterly useless.


Other viewers have summed it up perfectly with the word vague, but ambiguous can be applied liberally when describing this movie.

An excellent point is that the movie begins and ends in the middle, so while the plot is interesting to look at, it is completely secondary to the message being conveyed by the animators. Once you strip away the distorted lense that Japanese culture comes to us, this film is full of messages. If you see past the wormholes and mutant people (no giant robots here though) there isn't enough plot to disguise the fact the animators are trying to tell us something. What that message is, could be just about anything. It is most likely a political or social commentary though. I'll give some examples, but I warn this could become potentially dry and/or thought provoking so skip down a bit if you don't want to think too much.

There shouldn't be any spoilers here, just an idea of what themes you might make out of it.. which frankly could come from any orson wells+cyberpunk plot.

A cry against globalization. 1994 was around dawn of the internet; the increasing interconnection of knowledge and people. The trade disuputes between japan and china going to the WTO(GATT or whatever it was called then) and about 10 years of the US hating on Japan for having an export heavy trade balance. I don't remember if the Asian market crash was before or after this movie. Probably after, but if it came before this movie I would point at that as a source of resentment towards globalization. Generally international trade creates losers only of those not taking part, but when your currency goes down the pipe you might not be so happy.

An Orson Wells approach against unified power. We have the UN becoming a leading world authority by picking up members at a rapid pace, and the Cold War has been over for a few years, leaving the US with a superior economic and military power(Political scientist dub this a "Hegemonic" or "Unilateral" distribution of power, where there is a clear leader, as opposed to the "Bilateral" distribution between the Cold War superpowers, or the "Multilateral" distribution of the many warring countries prior to the modern age) This argument is a weaker one though, since people didn't commonly hate the US until this decade, where we start using that power in the middle east. Oh, Japan had been feeling heat from the US congress in the form of trade barriers, threats of tariffs and whatnot since the 80's, so that could spark a theme against overwhelming economic power. Google a synopsis of the book "No More Bashing" to find out more about anti Japanese sentiments during the 80's. I'm sure there are other ways of finding out, I'm just more familiar with that book.

I'm not thinking too hard about it so don't rail on me if you disagree with anything political or possibly even factual that is coming out of my keyboard. I'm getting out of my specialty but it is ambiguous enough that I'm sure anyone with some high school liberal arts can spin some kind of theme about feelings and society. I'm sure if we look hard enough, we could find Christ figures aplenty, and a few characters seem to have little or no plot importance and exist only to be icons or symbols of something or other.

Because this media comes from overseas, there are probably references and parallels to Japanese pop culture, history, or old stories that I will never know, contributing to my inability to understand what is going on, but this is a risk that comes with anything that has to be translated to be understood.

Anyways, I watched it to see people struggling to survive in a bleak future possibly full of badarse people. While there was some of that, I can only say I was disappointed and unfulfilled by the plot. If I wanted something thought provoking I would watch something else. "Akira" is the closest thing that I can think of off the top of my head and it probably beats this title on every level so go watch that before you resort to watching this.


Viewers preferring a straightforward story and/or closure may find this movie tough to take. Conversely, those who dig hidden meanings and symbolism might enjoy rooting through this film's convoluted nature.

Being a lover of both when done well I found Darkside Blues yo-yoed from obvious imagery to ridiculous obscurity. One viewing was enough to tell me I lacked the patience to sit through another attempt to clear up some minor confusion. This film tries hard to be profound and almost hits, but something within the deliberate obscurity falls short. The one saving grace to this film is its support characters. While protagonist Darkside is an empty focal point who is easily disregarded following his first few lines, the growth and depth of Mai, Selia, and Tatsuya is relatively decent given the plot's short time span and this almost balances the story's lackluster qualities.

In the end many plot holes are evident. Most questions are left unanswered. And, there's no true conclusion in sight. What one is offered is the turning point for a new era, not a resolution.


Being a huge fan of an anime and always desperate to watch as much of it as possible, I must say that this one was lame. I didn't like animation, didn't like the plot and didn't like the characters either.

The plot is a one enormous hole: you can figure that something is definitely happening, but you cannot say what and for what reason. The characters are one-dimensional and have absolutely no development along the movie. The initial conflict is somewhat interesting and even intriguing (a huge corporation controlling 90 percent of the Earth and a bunch of free-thinking teenagers opposed to it - plus some mysterious Darkside planning some 'renewal'), but it leads to nowhere: the protagonists talk a lot, but in the end you get none explanation.

So, I was left utterly confused and therefore irritated. They could at least have made some cool blues soundtrack (for which you could hope having read the title), but in fact the soundtrack was colourless and boring as well.

I don't think that this one deserves to be called an anime. A really frustrating disappointment. If you want to watch something really exciting about some Utopian city and its dwellers made in an anime style, go for Necropolis.


This is going on my list of movies that I want people to avoid. No way am I ever going to recommend it.

Basically, this character called Darkside comes in to a 1984-style Tokyo through a hole in the ground, causing...umm...errm.....ahh...ummm....some things to happen. None of it is fully explained. However, unlike 2001 and Blair Witch 2, where some of the appeal comes from the unexplained, this movie is a confusing waste of time.

We are given potentially interesting stuff that just sits there inert for the whole movie. Never once do we hear a basic explanation of the impact that bad dreams have on our life. And we'd like to. And what on earth does it have to do with the movie? Nobody knows, and by the end of the movie, nobody cares.

Watch Evangelion instead. At least that can be explained.


A cigarette takes away 6 min of your life, this movie takes away 80 min of it. I cannot believe I watched this movie till the end, hoping the story would develop, it did'nt. Basically darkside blues takes place in the future where some corporate evil is up to their no good doings, and there are a bunch of rebels against them, and some mysterious guy appears out of nowhere, the end. I don't remember all of it, since I am trying to forget about this disaster. I would recommend anything else over this, yes even garbage pail kids the movie!


Terrible script for perky songbird Ann Miller (looking like a grown-up version of Shirley Temple), doing her best with a ridiculous, derivative plot and lukewarm ballads. A radio singer on vacation in Las Vegas attempts to escape her swarming managers by hitching a ride in a guy's car; turns out he's a reporter for the Los Angeles Bulletin, and he thinks she's an escaped murderess. Even at 64 minutes, this thing's a long haul. Miller's character seems much too busy to have a social life, but then we suddenly discover she's been promised to a man named Walter W. Walter, II. She really loves the reporter, named Ward Williams and played by William Wright. Her managers are played by Robert Williams and Ray Walker. These "Apples" are 'W' crazy. Ann's a peach, and she has a funny scene where she's cooked some beans for breakfast, but this vehicle for her is just a quickie product from Columbia--unworthy of Miller or anyone else. * from ****


Ann Miler (as Eve) is a popular radio singer who wants to vacation after a successful season; but, her handlers want her to film a movie. She leaves anyway; then, her handlers give chase, forcing the star to hide out with William Wright (as Ward), a traveling newspaperman. A series of misunderstandings threaten their chance for romance.

This film was re-made as "You Can't Run Away From It" (1956). It does compare favorably to that version; I think the situation works better in an older, black and white film from ten years earlier and, this version is a re-make of an even earlier version, "It Happened One Night". This one, "Eve Knew Her Apples" is really just okay. Ms. Miller is pretty. The production is weak, with the editing its most obvious distraction.

**** Eve Knew Her Apples (1945) Will Jason ~ Ann Miller, William Wright, Ray Walker


What's this? Ann Miller playing a singer (with vocals obviously dubbed, I've heard her singing voice in MGM musicals, and this ain't it) instead of a dancer? Seems like an odd casting choice. She plays a runaway singing star on a wacky road trip with a reporter who's initially only interested in her for the story/reward money, but (I trust I'm not spoiling anything here, as the outcome is very predictable) ultimately falls in love.

Sound familiar? Substitute "singing star" with "heiress" and you've got the basic premise of "It Happened One Night"... minus Frank Capra's directorial magic, Robert Riskin's witty script, and charismatic stars like Gable & Colbert.

If you've never seen "It Happened One Night"... go see it first! But if you happen to see "Eve Knew Her Apples" first... just don't, okay!? But if you *do*, you might find it a pleasant diversion. Fans of the far superior film will probably feel nothing but dismay and disgust.

How blatant are the thefts? In the end, Ann Miller's character dumps her wealthy fiancé, and William Wright, when questioned as to whether he loves her, steals Clark Gable's line, "YES! But don't hold that against me, I'm a little screwy myself!"

Oh my. Such direct theft only invites unfavorable comparisons. And Wright is NO Gable. I'm amazed the writers of "It Happened One Night" weren't given any credit here. Perhaps they were indignant and didn't want to be associated with a tacky rip-off of their classic? Perhaps Columbia simply felt entitled, since this studio released both films. But there's a reason nobody's heard of "Eve Knew Her Apples".

I could make some cracks about studio heads being such SNAKES, and how SINful it is to produce a cheap imitation that taints a beloved classic - but you get the idea.


The rating is higher than it ought to be simply because it is fascinating to watch a great movie remade on the cheap for no particular reason other than Columbia already owned it, and comparing it to the original.

I walked in on this in the middle. I love Ann Miller, so I kept watching. Suddenly I was hearing very familiar dialog. Hokey smokes, it's "It Happened One Night" only without the lighting, directing, production values, pacing and acting.

The sheer audacity of taking a classic (the only picture to win all five major academy awards up to that time) and turning it into a B semi-musical boggled the mind. I even was able to recite the script ahead of the actors (and better).

Contrary to the previous comment, they really did use the original brilliant dialog all over the place. It just goes to show that even a work of genius can be destroyed when placed in the wrong hands.


It`s often said that a short story is the most difficult thing to write . I agree that`s true and that`s probably the reason why I`ve never seen a short film that satisfies me , and I agree with the other reviewer who comments on the fact that DUMPING ELAINE is confused . Why do a young couple keep revisiting the cafe if they`ve broken up ? And why do the two waitresses seem so interested in them ? Gawd their whole interest in life seems to revolve around this on/off relationship. Why can`t people just mind their own business ?


In a time when made for television films from HBO in particular and Showtime et al seem to be taking more chances with riskier topics than those flooding the theater screens, along comes CARRY ME HOME with a thud that hearkens back to the whiny tearjerkers of twenty years ago. While the premise of the story appears to be warm coming of age of a young girl with only a single mother to guide her growth, the film fragments with so many subplots that are quickly and incautiously pasted together in the end, resolving everything in a shallow overly sentimental and unsatisfying mess.

Marlboro, NY 1947, a time when the country is recovering from WW II, which includes the families of GIs killed in the war and the economy in ruins. Harriet (Penelope Ann Miller) keeps together her household of two children - Carrie (Ashley Rose Orr) and Brian (Harrison Chad) - by being a seamstress to the likes of Mrs. Gortimer (Jane Alexander), a town gossip and matchmaker who is advising Harriet to pay attention to the return of Bernard (David Alan Rasche) as a potential 'marrying kind'. Harriet spends her days working and remembering her GI husband killed in the war. Daughter Carrie is approaching puberty and yet refuses to behave like a girl, wearing her father's dogtags and jeans, running instead with a group of boys including her younger brother and two other lads. The 'gang' has a secret clubhouse, make mischief, taunt the mentally challenged neighbor Charlie (Kevin Anderson), unfortunate son of Grizzle (Leo Burmester) who abuses his unwanted son by forcing him to live in a barn. Charlie's only friends are the puppies he treasures. The destructive pranks played on pathetic Charlie include stealing one of his pups, destroying the food garden of Grizzle, pouring sugar in the gas tank of Grizzle's John Deere tractor, etc. In other words this little group of kids is cruel and their shenanigans are mean-spirited.

Harriet finds it impossible to control the behavior of Carrie and quite out of keeping with the 1940s family unit, Carrie sasses her mother viciously and in general is an unlikable brat. When Bernard begins his courtship of Harriet the prospect of Harriet's finding a modicum of happiness is undermined by Carrie's behavior. In a particularly cruel evening's prank, Grizzle's garden is destroyed, Charlie is reduced to self-mutilation because of the stealing of his pup, and the lowly barn in which he lives is destroyed by fire. Grizzle and Charlie survive and the effect of this final disaster on the lives of Harriet and her children and their 'emotional awakening' serves to make a hanky call and end the story with an unsatisfying bump.

The script by Christopher Fay is pedestrian, leaving the film with poorly motivated characters about whom it is difficult to care. Penelope Ann Miller tries her best to make the most out of Harriet, but Ashley Rose Orr renders one of the least likable young girls on film. This is a black and white script without motivation. Jace Alexander directs, which probably explains why his mother Jane Alexander consented to do the tiny walk-on part to give the film attention. The crew manages to make the mood of America in the post-war years plausible, but the dialogue assigned to the characters undermines those attempts. There must be an audience for these soap opera films: it is a shame this one couldn't have been better. Grady Harp


After reading the comments for this movie, I am not sure whether I should be angry, sad or sickened. Seeing comments typical of people who a)know absolutely nothing about the military or b)who base everything they think they know on movies like this or on CNN reports about Abu-Gharib makes me wonder about the state of intellectual stimulation in the world.

At the time I type this the number of people in the US military: 1.4 million on Active Duty with another almost 900,000 in the Guard and Reserves for a total of roughly 2.3 million.

The number of people indicted for abuses at at Abu-Gharib: Currently less than 20

That makes the total of people indicted .00083% of the total military. Even if you indict every single military member that ever stepped in to Abu-Gharib, you would not come close to making that a whole number.

The flaws in this movie would take YEARS to cover. I understand that it's supposed to be sarcastic, but in reality, the writer and director are trying to make commentary about the state of the military without an enemy to fight. In reality, the US military has been at its busiest when there are not conflicts going on. The military is the first called for disaster relief and humanitarian aid missions. When the tsunami hit Indonesia, devestating the region, the US military was the first on the scene. When the chaos of the situation overwhelmed the local governments, it was military leadership who looked at their people, the same people this movie mocks, and said make it happen. Within hours, food aid was reaching isolated villages. Within days, airfields were built, cargo aircraft started landing and a food distribution system was up and running. Hours and days, not weeks and months. Yes there are unscrupulous people in the US military. But then, there are in every walk of life, every occupation. But to see people on this website decide that 2.3 million men and women are all criminal, with nothing on their minds but thoughts of destruction or mayhem is an absolute disservice to the things that they do every day. One person on this website even went so far as to say that military members are in it for personal gain. Wow! Entry level personnel make just under $8.00 an hour assuming a 40 hour work week. Of course, many work much more than 40 hours a week and those in harm's way typically put in 16-18 hour days for months on end. That makes the pay well under minimum wage. So much for personal gain. I beg you, please make yourself familiar with the world around you. Go to a nearby base, get a visitor pass and meet some of the men and women you are so quick to disparage. You would be surprised. The military no longer accepts people in lieu of prison time. They require a minimum of a GED and prefer a high school diploma. The middle ranks are expected to get a minimum of undergraduate degrees and the upper ranks are encouraged to get advanced degrees.


This movie must have Ben written by someone with absolutely no exposure to the military. If your big on bashing the military or you think everyone who serves is a drug addicted scam-mer or a high ranking moron, you will probably enjoy this movie. If you have any grasp of reality you will hate it. Buffalo Soldiers is the kind of movie that reminds you that actors are not in general very intelligent.

I actually like Ed Harris and Joaquin Phoenix,but how on earth could they lower themselves to make this a piece of crap is beyond me.

I can't help but wonder how movies like this get made. You have to at some point realize that what you are making is absolute rubbish.


This movie depicts the Buffalo Soldiers, one of the most decorated units that ever fought for the United States as criminals. They were not criminals. They had the lowest desertion rate during the Indian Wars in the 1800's. They were called upon to be with Theodore Roosevelt when he followed them up San Juan Hill in Cuba with the Rough Riders. They were called upon again to chase the thieving murderous Pauncho Villa into Mexico and execute him for his crimes. They were the first guardians of our National Parks like Yosemite and the Presideo at San Francisco, where many are burried, in honor. Though BLACK for the most part, segregated, spit upon by other soldiers, looked down upon they held their heads high and fought bravely during every conflict the USA had to deal with since their inception in 1868. No, this film should be named something else. I cannot believe other STARS in Hollywood and elsewhere allowed this attrocity! I don't care how funny, how good, where it shows - I'll not cast my eyes upon it and allow my money to foul the memory or our heroes.


I kick myself for watching trash like this. It is sad that a major hollywood studio would release something that insults and reflects poorly on American armed forces. I'm a veteran and found the movie to be not funny and just another hollywood lie.


I am no gung ho patriot but this film is the pits. Are we supposed to enjoy a film where the anti-hero betrays his kindly commanding officer, sleeps with his wife, sleeps with a teenager, deals heroin on the side, consorts with Turkish gangsters, sells stolen weapons to said gangsters yet comes up the good guy? Lot's of movies had soldiers and sailors bucking the system, living it up and playing small time rackets ala McHale's Navy but when the chips came down you could count on them to come through. This clown you couldn't, yet we were supposed to root for him and jeer the hard nosed sergeant sent in to bust him? I realize that the military isn't all heroes and has a lot of wasted time, money and attracts a lot of real pigs and bullies too, but these men were located in a civilized country in the middle of Europe, not in some remote third world environs. So if being a total waste was the most they could accomplish on their off hours, then they are truly unworthy. This film is totally degenerate and stupid to boot, despite it's hip Euro appeal and it's A list actors. If you care anything about decency and a positive message about people in films, avoid it!


This was an OK movie, at best, outside the context of the book. But having read and enjoyed the book quite a bit it was a real disappointment in comparison. I don't recall ever seeing a movie that took so many liberties, large and small, with the book that inspired it. For example, the Hawaii "happy" ending at the conclusion was absurd and a bit of Hollywood in the worst sense. And the portrayal of Stoney was a complete joke relative to the badass he was in the book.

The book was so much deeper, nuanced and philosophical (even beyond the usual book/movie dichotomy), you got a much better feel for, and understanding of, the time and place depicted in the movie. In comparison the movie was flat and felt phoned in. The cast was OK, some decent actors but nobody doing their best work. If you want to have any hope of enjoying the movie, DO NOT read the book first.


One of Whoopi Goldberg's many post-"Color Purple" blunders, a half-comic/half-serious rendering of Lawrence Block's series of stories about a cat burglar who witnesses a murder while robbing a house. Swinging wildly from farce to suspense, director Hugh Wilson's schizophrenic rhythm never finds an appropriate tone, and as such we never warm to Whoopi's character. Lowest point is her scene in the dentist chair, getting her teeth drilled in what may be an unofficial--yet totally unfunny--nod to "Marathon Man". It's always nice to see John Goodman helping out, but a little of Bob Goldthwait goes a very long way. *1/2 from ****


I recently saw this movie in a bargain bin at a store and became excited when I read the back cover. It appeared to have everything that I love in a film - comedy, action, Bob Goldthwait, and was made in my favorite era (the late 80's). I eagerly popped it in the DVD player when I got home and it starting off fairly promising with a suspenseful burglar scene and cool 80's soundtrack music. But then the plot just droops off into a depressingly boring cesspool of garbage. About 20 min into it you're left thinking "this isn't going to get any better is it?" The movie is hardly funny at all despite tricking you into thinking that with a large array of comedic actors in the cast. The film has more of a gritty cop drama type feel with a dark club-like nature. I like that, but this movie shouldn't be played out that way. So basically it's stuck in the middle without a genre. The main highlights of the film are its cool 80's pop/rock soundtrack, slight Miami Vice-like feel, and Bob Goldthwait in some scenes. Although, I'm a big fan of Goldthwait and this film doesn't showcase his hilariousness nearly as well as others. Whoopi Goldberg has a strange character that leaves you thinking "Huh?" in almost every scene. Her character isn't likable at all much less funny or anything else.


The IMDb votes for BURGLAR are all over the place. Substantial segments of users graded it 6/10, 5/10, 4/10 and 3/10. A notable percentage also voted 7/10 and 1/10. Such divisions only reinforce what is obvious to anyone who's seen this Whoopi Goldberg vehicle -- it's an extremely uneven effort.

One of BURGLAR's biggest strengths is that it hits the ground running. Whoopi is great in the opening scenes, disguised as a fat-bottomed ol' lady ripping off a small piece of a rich man's riches. This sets the stage nicely for what promises to be a fast-paced blend of comedy, action, and snappy dialog. The film continues at a surprisingly entertaining level as our thieving hero, owing 25 G's to keep the lid on past misdeeds, agrees to snatch back some jewelry for a bitter ex-wife. Only things go terribly wrong when her target is murdered before she can make a clean getaway. Now she's the chief suspect and, just as O.J. once famously pledged, must find the real killer.

Unfortunately, it's at this point, when our expectations are highest, that BURGLAR begins to fall apart. The film grows progressively (and unnecessarily) lewd and at times downright dreary (particularly the out-of-place climax). Though there are a couple of laughs, much of the humor is so painfully unfunny you almost cringe. Performance wise, Whoopi is at the top of her game. But hard ass/cutie pie act -- punching men in the groin one minute and making wisecracks the next --never really works. Spastic comic Bobcat Goldthwait is as zany as ever as her best pal, but no one seemed to realize that his is an act meant to be taken in much smaller doses than this.

BURGLAR would have worked much better as a straight action thriller. Its insistence on trying to be humorous is what hurts it the most. Of course under no circumstances would this be a classic. But at the end of it all, you get the sense BURGLAR could have been more than it was.


It has the look and feel of a bad high school play, where basic elements of pacing and plot were unknown to the producer(s). Even the name "Daydreamer" doesn't make sense in the context of the film. It's a confusing story that starts out muddled and gets worse as the movie goes on. There are holes in the story that aren't resolved, despite their apparent attempt to "wrap it up" at the end. The camera work is sophomoric to the point where I believe someone bought their kid a Sony DVW for Hanukkah and they suddenly thought they could make a movie. The actors are like so much of Hollywood today: models that look good on screen but can't act their way out of a grocery bag. This movie made my head hurt; not because it's nonsensical and hard to watch, but because someone actually paid money to make it.


When le Dernier Tunnel failed to get important nominations at le Gala des Jutra ( Quebec's own Oscars ) Éric Canuel, director of Le Dernier Tunnel, said that the genre movies ( horror, thriller, etc. ) were not appreciated as more serious movies like The Barbarian Invasions. Well maybe so, but what Canuel is forgetting to mention is that his movie, genre movie or not, is one of the most uninspired thriller in years. I'm from Quebec so I already know all the actors in Le Dernier Tunnel and they are usually among the best ( like Michel Côté ) but Canuel's movie manages to make them look pretty stupid and artificial. Besides that the omni-present music is absolutely annoying, the camera work tries to be cool but only look clumsy and, worst of all, the ultra-conventional script and pretends-to-be-tough dialogues. So unless you've seen less than 10 movies in your life or if you are a teacher who wants to show an example of a bad bad movie stay away from Le Dernier Tunnel. One more thing: Quebec's critics rarely say bad things of Quebec's own movies because of the small market and that they want to protect themselves but even Le Dernier Tunnel got bad reviews so believe me when I say it's worst than bad !


Okay, guys, maybe I am a little too harsh on this movie, but what is that all about? Okay, it is realistic material that is filmed, but still... First of all the introduction of the main character takes very long - and it's not worth it! There is no struggle to be seen in his way through the movie. He is not changing anything although one thinks something would change in his mind. This love-story of his is sooooo boring, 1000 times to be seen before and flat as a sheet of paper! The other three guys introduced are of perfect stereo-type of a robber's movie: we have the old veteran, the main character's best friend and somebody who wouldn't let him down; the 'oppponent', a very aggressive and not to be believed in type; last but not least 'Smiley', an old acquaintance of the main character; he organizes the money for the deal. The lightning, the cut and the camera and most of all the music are so tension-seeking it really gets on my nerves: e.g. Smiley's face is ALWAYS lightened up only from one side to give him a "dubious" touch - very clever! But back to the content. Why do we like to watch robber movies? Right, the preparation, the exact planning, the carrying out of the plan in detail. The movie lacks in all of these categories. All this is replaced by a - as already mentioned - extremely boring love-story, probation-assistant fooling-around ("Why didn't you meet me?" - "I hit my head" - hahaha) and the relation between the four gangsters; that at least could have been an exciting study to see - but it isn't at all. The 'turning points' (if one can call them so) are somewhat predictable it hurts! I'm really sorry but that movie is a certain '1' or '0' if that existed. It may be thrilling if you are 15 of age or a total entertainment-dependent junkie with an IQ of less than 70 - or it is your first movie you ever watched... for everybody else: HANDS OFF!!! One good thing about it: it made me register at IMDb because I was so upset and wanted to write a review so that nobody else makes the mistake and spend a cent seeing this movie...


Curse is a standalone movie, which is part of the problem. You got this wacked out scientist who got hold of Toulon's puppets, and who obligingly let him know they're alive and willing to help him. Why they're willing to (initially) kill for him isn't clear.

George Peck's off-key performance is another problem: he acts like a thirty-year old in bad aging makeup. Maybe he is 60-70 like he is supposed to be, but he looks and acts really odd. And why does he have a 25 year old daughter?!?

There are very few people to like here, which also hurts. The romantic leads are vaguely sympathetic, but the scientist, the obnoxious town sheriff, the local town bully, etc., are all very unlikeable, making them slaughter-fodder.

The worst problem though, is the end. The movie just...stops. run credits! Whaaatt? Who knows. Catch the sequel, #7, when it comes out, I guess.

The uninteresting human characters mean that the puppets have to hold center stage. They're pretty much relegated to the odd gory slaughter or two, though. Even they seem somewhat confused as to what their motives are here. Jester and Leech Woman are relegated to the background as always, Blaze is missing (despite, as noted, his appearance in the opening credits), and the only new puppet we get is the new TV/Tank puppet, which appears for about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.

Definitely the weakest entry in the Puppet Master series. Even at the worse of time, the others in the series have had something to contribute. But Curse... just hangs there with nothing to support it or recommend it.