I have a confession to make. Until I sat down to watch THE AMAZING TRANSPLANT, I was a Doris Wishman virgin ! Well, that's not entirely true as I had seen her hardcore/horror hybrid COME WITH ME, MY LOVE back in the day when the lady still vehemently denied any involvement in the explicit side of the sex film industry. Hoping to pop my cherry with her notorious sex change mockumentary LET ME DIE A WOMAN and waffling on the Chesty Morgan duo (Geddit ?), it was TRANSPLANT's outrageous premise that finally reeled me in. Many a starry-eyed genre "critic" (read : devoted fan boy who would defend Doris to his dying breath) has likened Ms. Wishman to Ed Wood as both were blatantly incompetent movie makers whose sheer ineptitude in terms of both narrative coherence and production values somehow translated into a charm of their own. Now I would agree with such assessment as far as Wood's concerned, whose exuberant enthusiasm largely compensated for his glaring lack of talent. Maybe TRANSPLANT was just a poor place to start exploring the works of Wishman, but her listless disinterest as a director is far more shocking than the tabloid-inspired subject matter she can barely be bothered to tackle. Simply put, I never thought a flick about a penis graft turning a nice, all American kid into a demented rapist and accidental assassin could possibly turn out this boring.

The kid in question is swinging single Arthur Barlen (played by future Oscar-winning DoP Joao Fernandez who has surely had one of the strangest careers in the world, encompassing both the mainstream and hardcore pornography, having shot most of Gerard Damiano's classics as "Harry Flecks") who turns up after a long absence at the door of spurned fiancée Mary Thorne (the deliciously named Sandy Eden), only to fall under the spell of her dangling gold earrings and choke her to death ! So much for whodunit. Arthur's widowed mother Ann (Linda Southern) seeks aid from her brother in law, detective Bill Barlen, portrayed by longtime sleaze veteran Larry Hunter. At least both Southern and Hunter attempt an acting performance, though defeated by Doris' trademark out of sync dubbing (with constant cutaways to inanimate objects andpeople's shoes ?!), and had both featured in Damiano's prior to penetration TEENIE TULIP. Finding Arthur's little black book, Bill sets out to investigate the missing family member's sordid past through his acquaintances. Soon to become a fornication film mainstay, pretty Kim Pope (from Damiano's MEMORIES WITHIN MISS AGGIE as well as Shaun Costello's wonderful PASSIONS OF CAROL) appears as the new girl in town who made the mistake of putting her trust in the apparently affable Arthur and inviting him in, a vicious violation her sorry reward. Perky one shot wonder Olive Denneccio  you know that must be her real name !  is Edie Stone, who went to high school with Arthur and has been yearning for him ever since. Their rape turned to romance bit would be offensive if it were invested with even a modicum of dramatic weight. Instead, Wishman treats it as just another skin display. Blowsy upstairs neighbor Bobbie is played by Pat Barrett at the end of an obviously all too long run in sexploitation flicks. You might remember her as the lady flashing her fleshy wares at Sly Stallone at the start of Morton Lewis' incredibly dire PARTY AT KITTY AND STUD'S a/k/a Italian STALLION as the rest of the world now knows it.

But what about that amazing transplant Doris lured us in with ? Well, turns out Artie Boy was jealous of his friend Felix's prowess with the fairer sex, as evidenced by an artily shot flashback involving dvddrive-in.com's estimable Casey Scott's favorite sexploitation sirens Linda Boyce and Uta Erickson. The film's single genuinely erotic encounter, a tiny puddle of style and sensuality in a quagmire of crap, it showcases the talents of cinematographer C. Davis Smith, who until then seemed thwarted by Wishman's ham-fisted approach, bringing to mind that he also photographed  extremely well, I might add  such adult classics like Howard Winters' practically perfect NEON NIGHTS and COED TEASERS, one of the frequently despised Lenny "Leon Gucci" Kirtman's finer films. When Felix took ill with a mystery virus, Arthur blackmailed the family physician (who sidelined as an abortionist) into the titular genital graft. The rapist tendencies are explained away by Felix having a thing for golden earrings, so "naturally" our anti-hero is so mesmerized by the starlets' gaudy costume jewelery he just has to ravish them on the spot ! The film's final shot merely adds insult to injury. Doris devotees will undoubtedly argue that she's an acquired taste and ample print evidence suggests that her legion of fans treasures exactly those same elements that leave her detractors scratching their heads and occasionally screaming in agony. I guess she's just not the girl for me, even if she does manage to build an entire movie around the premise (and promise) of pecker !


If you've seen one of Wishman's "movies", you've pretty much seen them all. Although I wasn't expecting much, Amazing Transplant has the same slow pacing, dull characters, monotone setting, sub-par directing, etc. that characterizes much of her films.

A man goes around entering homes of women, strips their clothes, rapes, and then kills them. It's the same thing over and over again. If the women were prettier and the soft-core scenes more arousing, I would forgive much of the shortcomings of the plot and acting. But this movie just drags. I do have to say the penis transplant towards the end was unintentionally hilarious.

The ending doesn't make any sense. As a matter of fact, almost nothing makes any sense. Don't waste your time watching this. There are better things to do with your life. Amazing Transplant certainly lives up to it's billing from Something Weird.


This is, gladly, the only Chuck Norris movie i have ever seen. This film, i believe, is acclaimed by fans as one of his best, so i most certainly don't want to see anything that could be even worse. It is possibly the most formulaic 1980s cop movie i have ever seen. Hackneyed phrases akin to "I'll have your badge for this!" and "Dammit, Cusak!" are sprinkled liberally throughout the script. The Police Chief character is a walking cliché. The tension between the Columbian drug dealers and the Mafia is never explored or explained very well. It seems like the writer just used the situation as a convenient backdrop for a pretty girl being in danger. It could have been about anything. The big finale is far too predictable; the typical one-man-kills-every-last-criminal gunfight scenario, which is the inevitable climax of all such movies. The direction is average. No more than competent. Some of the fight sequences are quite terribly shot/choreographed (eg on top of the tram) to the point where a parody of such scenes would be redundant. They just look sloppy and very unrealistic. Chuck Norris shows off some pretty impressive kung fu moves in the bar fight, but this is about the only high point. Pity there wasn't more action, as his acting is pretty horrible. He just pulls a tough-guy scowl and mumbles. Not recommended. A very clichéd and run of the mill 80s cop movie.


in fact,it's your typical action/crime drama.the characters are stereotypical for this genre.i also found the movie slow and depressing.i was quite disappointed.i was expecting a much better movie than this.the action is slow,and there really isn't much originality here.Andrew Davis directed this one.he also directed The Fugitive,Under Siege and Above the Law,all after Code of Silence.but it's not all bad.for one thing Henry Silva is great as one of the main bad guys,although he doesn't get a lot of screen time.because of it's depressing atmosphere though and how slow it is i give Code of Silence a 4/10


This movie is said to be based on a true story. It started out pretty good and unraveled at a nice pace. After the first half of the movie, though, the characters that you are introduced to and all the previous plot twists become completely insignificant. In fact, the first half of the movie is completely different than the second half. Consequently, the movie turns into a story of of a broken family coming together, completely with the cheesiest attempts to jerk tears from the audience, some are even dull rip-off's from other films. For the most part, all the characters are well acted, which is the strongest thing that it really has going for it. I would have excluded the weird 35-year-old-looking daughter that is supposed to be a fragile little girl. Her appearances are very annoying and she doesn't help at all. Overall, I think this film kind of shows that families should leave everything up to the police in times of crisis. My biggest problem with the movie is how they find the missing kid (the point of the movie). The way that they do makes the previous 95% completely useless (*spoiler* the kid fell asleep at the wheel and ran off the road. A random truck driver had spotted him and came in to tell the cops *spoiler*). So, I suggest you watch the first half then catch the last 10 minutes if you are interested. 95% of this movie has no purpose.


An interesting concept-reincarnation-is poorly addressed in this psychological drama. The bad acting and poor direction are extremely disappointing, considering the brief glimpse of genius Director Bartlett showed in earlier efforts-"The Silent Raiders"(1954) and "Silver Star"(1955). The stiff acting, and lack of direction, combined with preachy dialogue, deliver a picture reminiscent of an Ed Wood production.


The creator of Hot Shots brought this film that tries to be funny.I expected a funnier film. I wasted 4 bucks on this movie. The spoofs get over used to the the point of stupidity. Don't waste your money on this film either by go see it or by renting it. I'm not looking forward to the Titanic spoof which the creator of this film is producing and writing.


Instead of watching this, just watch 8 1/2. The same themes and ideas are expressed, but 8 1/2 is beautiful and expressive. This movie, while referencing and showing clips to other movies, generally takes most of its inspiration from 8 1/2 and, honestly, I feel if I hadn't had watched 8 1/2 previously I wouldn't have been able to care about this documentary.

Another thing is that this documentary lingers in heavy close-up on Fellini's face a lot, which isn't composed well and is kind of annoying. About the only really good original imagery in the film is long takes of the Italian countryside, but even those aren't technically necessary... especially since Fellini and some of the others in the movie discuss how sometimes sets are more preferable anyway.

All I got out of this movie was the feeling that I could have much better spent my time watching one of the films presented in this essay. So I think I'll go do that now instead of lingering any longer on it.

--PolarisDiB


Tales from the Darkside: Ring Around the Redhead starts as convicted murderer Billy Malone (John Heard) is about to be led to the electric chair, before he is though a journalist named Adele (Caris Corfman) is allowed to interview him. Billy denies the charge of murder & tells Adele a fantastic story about a large metal ring which transported an alien shaped woman named Keena (Penelope Miller) into his basement, after teaching her English within two days Billy's problems really started as his friend Jimbo (Greg Thornton) steals the magical ring...

Episode 3 from season 2 this Tales from the Darkside story originally aired in the US during October 1985, the second of three Tales from the Darkside episodes to be directed by Theodore Gershuny I have to say I personally thought Ring Around the Redhead was total crap. It's almost as if someone came up with this bizarre outline for a story & decided to turn it into a 20 minute TV program without any regard for the poor audience who has to sit through it, the story is just weird & if you like strange stories which make no sense & don't work on any sort of narrative level then Ring Aroiund the Redhead may be the TV program you've been waiting for your whole life. If, however, like me you like your stories to have a purpose & actually tell an entertaining tale then Ring Around the Redhead isn't for you at all. There's no twist at the end, it's predictable, it makes no sense, it's just bizarre & I really can't see what anyone would get out of it.

I thought Tales from the Darkside as a series focused on horror anthology type material, a sort of forerunner to the excellent Tales from the Crypt (1989 - 1996) but it doesn't have that show's dark humour, it's twists, it's gore or it's horror content. Again I was left asking myself just who Ring Around the Redhead was meant to appeal to, it's some sort of horrible lighthearted Disney type fantasy with no horror elements at all, no bite & no substance. This was Penelope Miller's screen debut & has gone on to appear in many films & TV show's since.

Ring Around the Redhead perplexes me as a viewer, it did nothing for me & I just can't see why anyone would enjoy it. It doesn't really do anything & I struggle to see why anyone would like it & even at a brisk 20 odd minutes in length it still bored me.


An all too happy story, similar to the new M. Night Shyamalan film Lady in the Water. It's about a man, now in prison waiting for the death penalty telling us how he got here. When in his basement, he accidentally opened a portal to another dimension and a redhead confused woman came out. Revealed right away we learn what a nice guy our soon to be fried man is, but we really don't care. It's just an annoying episode. It's too happy and cutesy for my taste and the plot isn't that good to begin with. The ending however made me smile because I was into the good main character. Not very good in the long run.

My rating: Mildly amusing. 21 mins. TV G


Juan Piquer Simon used to be a postman (thus linking him to Fabrizio de Angelis, ex-postman and director of "Killer Crocodile"), but quit his job to step into the movie business. If his mail delivery was as excellent as his knowledge of movie making, I wouldn't send a letter to Spain.

Supersonic Man is so obviously a Superman rip-off that I'm almost ashamed to mention it. Still, shame is something Piquer Simon didn't seem to have. Granted, the man has lots of imagination, but so has a toddler who draws three lines on a piece of paper and says it's a car. Supersonic (for that is his name) is sleeping in a spaceship when an intergalactic voice tells him an evil mastermind wants to kidnap a professor so he, the evil mastermind, can rule over the world. The evil mastermind is none other than Cameron Mitchell, actor in a handful of classics and the lead in over 150 B- to D-movies. In this production he's the biggest (read: only) star.

Supersonic doesn't take the train, like any superhero he can fly. Well, flying... it does look like the actor is busy pretending to swim in the air. Go lie on a bench and move your body first 10° to the left and then 20° to the right. Keep doing that, add a blue screen and you too can fly. To make us believe the movie was shot in the US, Supersonic often flies in the air with parts of New York in the background. Unfortunately, that's the only use of these scenes, so basically you're just watching a man in a silly suit pretending he can fly.

Supersonic's suit may give you a few chuckles, but what really got me rolling on the floor is the scene where the professor's daughter (Patricia) is chased by gangsters. Just when it looks like her car is going to hit a bulldozer, Supersonic lifts it up with one hand. Though, why a bulldozer is standing in the middle of a forest road beats me, just as it's quite fascinating to see the bulldozer is actually made of wood. The crooks try to avoid hitting the bulldozer, drive down a hill and for some reason that should explain why their car explodes.

The bulldozer scene is featured quite early in the movie, so it's best to stay on the floor. Don't crawl back into your couch as an avalanche of bad scenes is still coming your way: bad special effects (toy helicopters anyone?), cheesy humour and even more bad special effects (toy houses?). Oh, did I mention already the plot is hard to follow and some plot lines commence but never go anywhere? Frankly, "Mulholland Drive" is easier to follow.

To make things even worse, this Spanish action movie (let's use that phrase lightly) is dubbed in university English. When the giant robot bursts into the professor's lab to kidnap him, the professor states: "What kind of tomfoolery is this?" One has to admire those academics, if not for their vocabulary, then for the fact that he doesn't start laughing when the giant and fierce (and frankly slow) robot appears.

Juan Piquer Simon is sometimes compared to Ed Wood, but at least Wood had a vision (a vision hindered by a budget, but still a vision). "Supersonic Man" however is a work that makes "Killer Crocodile" look like a masterpiece. Which in its own right is quite special.


Years and years after I saw brief fragments of this absurdly grotesque Spanish "Superman" knock-off on TV, during a special about the worst movie productions ever made, I finally the full film for the first time! Special word of thanks to my good pal, and fellow IMDb-member Dario the 2nd and his endless movie collection!

"Supersonic Man" is an indescribably yummy smörgåsbord of cheese, tackiness, decadence, incompetence, infantile enthusiasm and delirium. Theoretically speaking, this is presumably one of the worst movies ever made, but simultaneously also the most entertaining piece of rubbish I've seen in years. The slasher imitation "Pieces" and the creature feature wannabe "Slugs" already convinced me of writer/director Juan Piquer Simon's capacities as a bad B-movie maker, but "Supersonic Man" is undoubtedly the biggest accomplishment of his career. The plot isn't even remotely important  all you should know is that the titular hero has to prevent the ultra, super, massive, hyper evil mastermind Cameron Mitchell from obtaining world domination  but the moments of sheer priceless imbecility are plentiful and unintentionally hilarious. Just for fun; behold a short listing of the film's greatest *cough* highlights:

+ Whenever he transforms into Supersonic Man, our hero wears an outfit that makes him look like a crossbreed between a flamboyant homosexual and a FILA wrestler. His exaggeratedly long and aimless flights over New York City are always accompanied by the cheesiest music ever composed. + Supersonic Man is an intergalactic hero who can fly through rock, hellfire and ice. However, he has his butt whooped at least three times during confrontations with ordinary thugs. Once even during a lame bar fight with crazy hillbilly music playing in the background. + The last thing you can say about Supersonic Man is that he doesn't have a sense of humor! He abuses his powers to go out and steal booze to go on a date and when he breaks out of a death trap in the open ocean, he flies in circles around his enemies for minutes just to toy with them. + There are cardboard bulldozers, cars spontaneously catching fire as they drive off cliffs and some of the craziest dialogs ever writer + Cameron Mitchell portrays the least modest mega-villain in cinema history. In one and the same dialog, he refers to himself as both Julius Caesar and our God almighty. His sidekick is a bulky and ultra slow- moving robot. At a certain point in the film the robot attacks a couple of people in a house, but basically all they should do is climb up some stairs and the stupid thing would be utterly powerless.

In conclusion: a must for every self-respecting cinema connoisseur; duh!


I remember seeing this movie in 1986 when WFLD TV-32 in Chicago was broadcasting the final episode of its old-school horror-movie program, THE SON OF SVENGOOLIE, hosted by Rich Koz. As I said, this was a show known for showing various older (by 80's standards) horror films, so the decision to air a campy foreign superhero movie was just so wacky! I guess the host/producer figured, "It's our last show, we might as well throw them a curveball!" I imagine I basically laughed at all of the things that were unintentionally funny about this film-- the funky costume, escape from the shark, the steamroller that suddenly turned to balsa wood, or the fact that the hero who is called "Super Sonic Man" ends up being vulnerable to a sonic-ray blast (whoops!).. In essence, everything that the first "Superman" film (1978) did right, these guys got wrong.

If I could find this on DVD for cheap, I wouldn't mind buying it, but only for the comedy..


This was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Absolutely no suspense. A lot of really bad acting. Very poor special effects. Avoid wasting your time with this one. Nothing more to say, but here's the required minimum 4th line anyway.


The Legend of the Mummy is so bad, I would rather have my brain removed through my nose and my innards scooped out and placed in jars than watch it again. A turgid, muddled and totally inept movie, this lame horror stumbles awkwardly from one awful scene to another even slower than its titular creature.

Based on the Bram Stoker novel about the resurrection of a 7-fingered Egyptian queen (which was made into the far superior Blood from the Mummy's Tomb by Hammer in 1971), this film is poorly scripted, acted, directed and edited and the result is totally confusing and lacking in any suspense or shocks whatsoever.

Pretty Amy Locane (from John Water's Cry-Baby) plays Margaret Trelawny, the heroine of the tale whose father is attacked by a mysterious assailant whilst examining an old artifact from the cursed tomb of Queen Tera. Margaret's boyfriend Robert Wyatt (a totally bland Eric Lutes) tries to solve the mystery, along with dodgy treasure hunter Corbeck (Louis Gossett Jr., who still sounds and acts like the Drac he played in Enemy Mine) and ex-copper Daw (Mark Lindsay Chapman).

The film boasts bargain basement effects and features a barely seen (and probably for good reason) manky mummy. Enlivening proceedings (but only slightly) are some gratuitous sex scenes: sexy maid Lily (Laura Otis) imagines herself having sex in a bath, pudgy museum curator Brice Renard (Richard Karn) inexplicably beds a massive-jugged blonde hottie, and Margaret does a brief full-frontal flash towards the end (although this is more than likely a body double for Amy Locane).

When rating a horror film, I always take into consideration any inclusion of unnecessary scenes of quality female nudity (there's always room for some nekkid flesh); thus The Legend of the Mummy saves itself from the shame of receiving the lowest possible score by the (wrinkled) skin of its (decayed) teeth!


The acting in this film is so hilariously atrocious and the mummy so cheesy that you just might have to rent this the next time you have one of those 'bad movie nights' with your friends. Last but not least, let's not forget the Oscar-worthy acting of Al Borland of "Home Improvement" fame. Who would have thought his film career would never take off? (shocking)! With no actual scares, this film becomes a campfest from the very first minutes. This is a script even Paulie SHore would have thrown out. If you like watching bad movies for pure fun, I also recommend 'R.O.T.O.R.', which is quite possibly the worst film ever made. All in all, this is one great waste of time.


There are some films which are so bad that they are actually watchable, such as "The Grim Reaper", but this is not one of them. It sags dejectedly between two stools - neither good enough to watch nor bad enough to be fun.

This would have been good if it had been done in the greatest traditions of Hammer Horror with oh-so-obviously-a-set locations and the nearest modern equivalent to Peter Cushing et al. The actors try to act, they really do try and some should have known better, but they would have had more success if they had hammed it up in glorious fashion along the lines of "Psychomania" or other can't-hear-the-dialogue-for-the-creaking-of-wooden-acting horror films.

I love unashamedly bad movies but everything about this film is just poor. It is best watched while drunk at 3am after the clubs have shut and you just want something on in the background while you and your mates finish your pizzas or you want something to fill the awkward smoochable pauses in the conversation between yourself and the latest bit of skirt/trouser you picked up.

This film is utterly forgettable.


Was forced to watch this by a "friend" and can honestly say this is one of the most tedious boring films that I have ever seen.

From the little of the film that remains with me it's about some old git in a study with some annoying woman having something to do with the plot as well of course the mummy itself.

For most of the films too long running time most of the main characters are talking in the study with an unconscious old man.

For some reason the film includes sex scenes that seem to come out of nowhere and have nothing to do with the story although they rarely do.

Avoid this there is nothing redeeming in this film at all - it's boring.


Don't even think about watching this movie. I did and I would find it very difficult to find a worse film than this. It was long, drawn out, poorly acted (even by Louis Gossett Jr) and the special effects were laughable. Unfortunately, a lot of people will buy this by mistake (my wife included). Just don't...


I remembered when this movie came out back in the late 90's. I never paid much attention to it, but when I saw it was going to be on HBO, I DVRed it. I finally got around to watching it, and several times throughout the movie I had to refrain from stopping it and deleting it. I figured, this has to get better at some point.

Boy was I wrong...

I got up several times during the movie, to let the dog out, grab something to eat, and didn't even bother to pause it. I had such a disinterest in it that I didn't even want to be bothered by hitting the pause button.

This was the biggest pantload of a movie I've ever seen. How many mummies were in this movie? Was there one, or 12? The story line was awful. What happened at the end? Hell, what was going on through the whole movie!!?? Was the kid in the beginning of the movie supposed to be Louis Gosset Jr?

Take some ancient Egyptian artifacts, an old unconscious bag of bones (not the mummy, the old man in the movie), a $3 throw away version of Christian Bale (Eric Lutes), complete nonsense, and the contents of an unflushed toilet, mix them together, and there you have the gist of this movie.

From beginning to end this movie made zero sense, was poorly scripted, and the acting was worse than imaginable. Al from Home Improvement really put the final nail in the sarcophagus.


_Legend of the Mummy_ was long and tedious... a few mildly suspenseful scenes and not much else. Al from _Home Improvement_ provided a little comic relief, but there was nothing at all in this flick which so much as made me want to stop it before going for a snack. And the mummy is incredibly cheesy, looking rather like Eddie, Iron Maiden's concert mascot.


I had to struggle to get through this one. Louis Gossett Jr. (An Officer and a Gentleman) was the only reason I tuned in. he usually does a great job, and he really wasn't all that bad in a poor vehicle such as this.

This is one of those films that you need a bucket and a gun before you watch. That is to either throw up or shoot yourself if you can't escape.

The mummy was pathetic, there was little horror, and the ending was a mess.

Stay away - far away.


Not to make myself out to be conceited, but I think of myself as a Film Connoisseur. I am also a fan of Louis Gosset Jr. Anyhow I believe this script does not do him any justice. As far as Amy Locane goes. The only movie i found her remotely good in was airheads. I would only recommend this film to anyone who has those Summer Repeat blues and there is nothing else on.


This movie is bad. This movie is awful. I was lured in to watching it without doing any research first and was under the illusion that it may in some form be related to Francis Ford Coppola's classic, "Bram Stoker's Dracula." It isn't. These false pretenses lead to a great deal of disappointment. But as I was watching, it occurred to me that there is one format in which this movie could be improved. That would be if Mystery Science Theater 3000 were to take on this movie as a project and were to work their magic and at least make this over-the-top, cheesy B-grade movie into something that is laughable for reasons other than the predictable dialog and ridiculously melodramatic acting. The highlight of this film comes when the mummy that the story revolves around is being depicted . The camera pans down the arm of the cloth-wrapped creature and when it focuses on the hand, one notices that something doesn't seem quite right. Apparently the special effects and make-up flunkies got together and decided to pull a prank. For some reason, this un-believable depiction of an ancient Egyptian queen has seven fingers on one hand. Curious.


Legend of the Mummy starts in Egypt 1947, the Vally of the Sorcerer where a young John Corbeck carries out a bit of tomb robbing... Jump forward to the Present Day, Marin County California where Egyptian artifact collector Abel Trelawny (Lloyd Bochner) reads some ancient incantations from a stone tablet, he is attacked shortly after & found in a coma by his daughter Margaret (Amy Locane). Worried & unsure what to do she contacts her ex-boyfriend Robert Wyatt (Eric Lutes) to, well I'm not sure really but he goes round her house to be with her anyway. There Robert finds Abel in a coma & a set of bizarre instructions he left behind to be followed to the letter, Robert soon realises that something odd is going on & seeks the advice of John Corbeck (Louis Gossett Jr.) who tells a tale about Queen Tera (Rachel Naples) who is using magical influences & Abel to reincarnate herself...

Co-written, executive produced & directed by Jeffrey Obrow one has to say that Legend of the Mummy is rubbish & that's all there is to it. The script by Obrow & John Penney is an adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel 'The Jewel of the Seven Stars' which had been previously adapted to film as the Hammer horror film Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971) & the big budget The Awakening (1980) both of which are much, much better than Legend of the Mummy which takes itself far too seriously, everything is played with a straight face & it doesn't work. The character's are awful, the dialogue is so dry & tedious it becomes a chore to listen to, the story is a mess with all sorts of dull plot strands going on all of which come to nothing & a criminal lack of blood, gore or Mummy activity. At almost 100 minutes Legend of the Mummy is far too long & if it doesn't put you to sleep you will lose interest well before the painfully obvious twist ending. The main problem is the story which is so fragmented & slow going I lost all interest in it, there's confusing sub plots about a Mummy that hides behind an old mattress in Abel's basement (!) & is then forgotten about, lots of spiritual nonsense spouted by Corbeck which amounts to nothing, chopped up Mummy's buried in Abel's garden (!), the number seven is a recurring motif for no reason including the fact Queen Tera had seven fingers (!), several boring flashbacks as well as some rubbish about a red jewel. Add this to the total lack of gore or horror elements & we've got a turkey on our hands which is best avoided.

Director Obrow films this in the most static, boring & unadventurous way imaginable & it has all the pace, style & energy of a fishing instruction video. There's no gore apart from someone having their fingers pulled off during a dream sequence so forget about any. Since the film is so lethargic & dull it's not scary & there's no tension or atmosphere. I will admit though that the production design is quite nice, set during the present but set in a hose full of antiques & period furniture Legend of the Mummy does look like a 20 or 30's period piece in keeping with the traditional Mummy films. To be honest if you want to watch a decent Mummy flick then go for the big budget The Mummy (1999) or it's sequel The Mummy Returns (2001) which are far superior to this in every way.

With a supposed budget of about $2,000,000 Legend of the Mummy had a pretty decent budget which is probably why it looks quite nice, it's a shame there isn't more Mummy action, more gore, more style & a better more straight forward story. The acting is very stilted & no-one seems to put much effort in, Lou Gossett Jr. was winning an Oscar for his role in An Officer an a Gentleman (1982) not so long ago, needless to say he won't be getting one for Legend of the Mummy.

Legend of the Mummy, or Bram Stoker's Legend of the Mummy as it's also known is a tepid, dull, bland, boring none event of a horror film with a confused plot, no gore & minimum Mummy action. When I watch a Mummy film I don't want it to spend most of the film hiding behind an old mattress in a basement!


Okay, folks, please indulge me....if I provide the right context, you might thoroughly understand why the title of this review is oh, so apropos!! ...okay, so it was a crisp, foggy, rainy, windy San Francisco Sunday morning....one of those mornings where you awoke, looked outa the window and immediately knew you would deservedly luxuriate in bed after a loooooooong week....this was the perfect time to catch up on some old movies I had been meaning to watch/may have missed....I had passed by Bram Stoker's The Mummy on guide listings, each time wondering, "why haven't I heard of this before?" all because the natural assumption was that it was somehow remotely connected to Bram Stoker's Dracula...at least in terms of production values.....nothing could be further from the truth...

....I should have paid attention to the sinking feeling in the pit of my gut when in the beginning of the film we are set in Marin, California.....MARIN?!??!!!...what on EARTH does Northern California have to do with Bram Stoker??!!?.....folks, it was all downhill from there....

....okay, so I relaxed and thought, hmmm, set in San Francisco...this oughta be fun...(well, for lack of a better word/phrase....) The movie is absolutely horrible....so horrible in fact, that I could not even turn away from it...AND I HAD THE REMOTE RIGHT THERE IN BED WITH ME!!!....I suppose I kept thinking, well, Lou Gossett is in it...how bad can it be?.....

Lou, a dubiously celebrated archaeologist (with an ever-present flask), carried off the role with aplomb and MUCH overacting, and was probably actually drinking during the production...I dearly love Lou, but I could NOT stop laughing at his performance here...and the guy who was the sidekick on "Home Improvement" and the face of Orchard Supply there for a while, (yeah, the cute bear) was humorous enough...however, the most interesting part of his performance, HANDS DOWN, is that the very last time the audience sees him, he is having a "spasm' or "seizure" of sorts, presumably from a curse and his last words were "I gotta get some fresh air!!!" and he RUNS OFF!!....NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN....I tell ya, I lost it!!!...

The leading man and woman were absolutely horrible. The script was absolutely horrible. The acting was absolutely horrible. The plot was absolutely horrible. I googled Bram Stoker to find out if indeed there even WAS a Bram Stoker's "Mummy" and haven't found anything he's written with that title...yet...

But for some ungodly reason I watched it until the end...at least some of the shots of the city, i.e. the Chronicle truck, the obligatory cable cars, (wow, no Golden Gate Bridge shot) were somewhat accurate...

This movie was so bad, I might add it to my collection...it was hysterical in its absurdity and if I can include the Toxic Avenger (I. II AND III!!!) I can certainly have an over-the-top Lou Gossett warding off the curse of whatshisname!!! I laughed until I cried...perhaps it was because of the glass(es) of white zinfandel I sipped while watching...(..hey, lay off..I'm a Raider fan, whaddaya want!!)


Wow, this is a bad film. I think this may be the first flick with some passable production values (you can hear dialogue, they know how to do lighting, etc.) that I've scored a 1. Others have mentioned many of the problems, but some bear repeating as a forewarning:

* Every character seems to be in a separate story/different film. Maybe this was an experimental work wherein each actor was told to write their own Mummy story/script and act out (in whatever style of their choosing, no matter how incongruous) their self-penned part while others did the same.

* Despite the multitude of actor/writers, the film primarily works as a sleep aid. Not much happens. I was starting to wonder if this wasn't really a low-budget 1970s BBC attempt to make a "relatively" boring drama.

*Actors are sometimes attacked by nothing. Maybe they were told that effects shots would be added later. That didn't happen. So most of these scenes are amusingly ridiculous.

* The various scenes of the simultaneous separate stories seem to be edited by throwing a hundred randomly selected pieces of film in the air and putting them together however they landed.

* It's not clear how many mummies are supposed to be involved in the story. There seem to be a few different ones . . . you never get to see most of them very well though. It's a mystery who most of them are, where they came from, and what they're trying to do.

* Because there are twenty different sketchy stories occurring at the same time, the film makes less and less sense as it progresses. Like another viewer, I got to a point where I started looking for more interesting things to do--like brushing my teeth--without caring if I hit pause or not . . . the movie wasn't going to make sense no matter what I did. There's a strong "everything including the kitchen sink" approach evident. I primarily entertained myself from the halfway mark by making fun of the film and writing/reciting my own dialogue, MST3K-style. For example, when they decide they all need to go downstairs for some ceremony, I'd add, "Now, we all need to do the hokey pokey." It made just as much sense as the actual dialogue.


I bought this film cheap and boy am I glad I did. I don't think I'm including any spoilers by telling you it's the story of a mummy who wants to come back to life and spends the best part of 90 minutes trying to do so. The film is full of people you kind of know from other things, and I spent a much more lucrative time looking them up on Google than I did watching their performances. There's really not too much to say about the film - it's supposed to be based on Bram Stoker's novel, but there's no coherent story here. All the characters seem to be in different stories, and I don't know why it has an 18 certificate (except for a slightly explicit sex scene at the end). The horror is incredibly underplayed and every time you think the film is leading up to something, it shies away at the end. A dull horror film - can there be any worse? It's the kind of film you and a few buddies might enjoy whilst splitting a pizza and a few bevvies, but it's not even up there with the really good bad films. Lou Gossett Jr chews the scenery a bit, but even he seems to know he's in a prize thanksgiving turkey. A case of take the mummy and run methinks.


Man! A horror movie with Lou Gossett Jr. (THE Lou Gossett Jr.) and Richard Karn (Al from Home Improvement)! Must be great - or at least good.

I think not. There's some terribly annoying ex Scotland Yard detective who seems bent on pissing OFF everyone involved (audience included).

NOT a real good movie. I actually had to watch this one in two shifts. Far too much bad movie crammed into one movie slot. It is honestly a not-real-good movie.

Many times when there's a good deal of activity on screen, the camera work is such that you can't see much of anything going on. Almost, not quite. But it doesn't add to the suspense at all. Just frustration.

Finally, why are there so many people with different type of accents. Why is it that when you could MAYBE understand what one of them was saying, the volume dropped so low that it wouldn't matter anyway.

If they'd have just done what was required earlier, I wouldn't have wasted slightly better than an hour and a half of my life.


This is *NOT* one of those movies which are so bad they're funny.

The screen play was horrid, the directing was the worst and I could continue with every facet of movie making (props, special effects, etc.). Everyone including Louis Gossett, Jr. should be ashamed of their involvement in this piece of garbage. No one should be paid for their part in this sham. Worst of all, it is no adaptation of anything written by Bram Stoker. But somehow Bram ended up with his name in the title.

Okay, this was made in 1997. But "Star Wars", "Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi" all came out by 1983 and had better *EVERYTHING*, so the year is no excuse. There are a lot of names and well known faces in this movie. You'd think the actors could have pulled it out of the gutter. Other than Louis Gossett, Jr. (who I love to watch act), there is Richard Karn (Home Improvement), an older Lloyd Bochner (tons of character roles, IMDb has him listed in 183 movies or shows), Aubrey Morris and other recognizable faces couldn't save this.

Please, for your own sake, avoid this at all costs. You're better off playing Ostrich for 2 hours and sticking your head in the sand. This is purely dreadful.


What a load of toilet this film was. I've seen it twice now and I really cant say anything nice about it other than the sex scenes were okay - but more on that in a moment.

Based on Bram Stoker's novel The Jewel of the Seven Stars (itself not a very interesting book) this tells the story of blah blah blah. Quite frankly, after ten minutes I couldn't care less. The acting is total nosh and you never really understand anything that goes on.

*** Now for Spoilers *** Now the sex scenes: how can that fat bloke pull so many babes? Come on, they're only fillers to keep you from turning off.

And what's with that humping in the bath got to do with anything? Why is that maid spying? Who is getting rogered in the tub? And why does the door handle bleed? If you're thinking about this film, just don't. Get the slightly better (but not by much) Hammer Horror Blood From the Mummy's Tomb.


Okay, first, I'll make it clear that I am not a Mummy fan. This is not my monster of choice to begin with, but barring that fact I know a bad flick when I see one. I won't insult your intelligence by referring to this as a "film." This was a movie that had the audacity to tie Bram Stoker's name to it in hopes of saving it I assume. If you saw Bram Stoker's Dracula and liked it, don't let this one fool you, it doesn't compare.

Now, if you're that is not to say I hated this, but rather I expected lots more here. First of all, it seemed to remind me way too much of a very lame Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie meets the mummy sort of story and is written, directed and performed pretty much in that tone. If you're a Hammer film fan you may LIKE it, but you won't LOVE it.

The effects are just that, effects. Way too theatrical for this simplistically performed story. The characters are not only unbelievably portrayed and cast but not even exceptionally interesting. Louis Gossett Jr. is of course excellent as always, but even his excellent talents could not save this poor movie. Some of the other cast members were what actually saved this film for me at all.

The plot and story is so predictable. The ending is so over-used it shames the finer points of the whole movie -- What few there were. The seven fingered mummy bit is not only obviously awkward but pathetically prosthetized. The mummy herself is indeed disappointing enough without the bad hand effects. Some of the scenes seem to exist solely as fillers and I wonder if they were ever in Mr. Stoker's original story at all.

Over starved fans of horror, and Hammer films especially, will likely find this some what entertaining at least. Not much quality horror has been produced over the last 20 years or so therefore many will at the least find it watchable or of interest. Being a horror fan, that's pretty much how I found it to be though I would not actively seek out the video to add to my collection especially if paying money is involved. But if you can catch it on cable and have a spare VHS tape it might be fun to add to your collection in jest. Though if you're really looking for a good horror film, with a great story and excellent FX look for and buy The Mummy starring Brendan Frasier, you won't be disappointed.


I expected this movie to be somewhat in the same league as Bram Stoker's Dracula, but I was sorely disappointed. This movie was a complete bore, even in the climax. I expected there to be much mummy action in this movie, but there was hardly any. The movie basically revolves around mummy curses rather than an actual mummy. The acting in this movie is above standard for the most part, but it just can't help this sleeper of a movie.


This incredibly inept (supposed) horror film is so badly done that one might think that everyone involved (cast & crew) created this mess just to upset the general movie-going public and to sit back and laugh at us for trying to watch it! ...either that or it was created as some sort of tax dodge... Please don't waste your time on this 0 out-of 10 trash...(a.k.a.

"Bram Stoker's The Mummy")


Horton Foote has often written incisive character studies that are dramatically underpowered, and this effort by his writer-director son follows in Dad's footsteps. The very model of a small, well-meaning, late-1990s independent movie with no major stars (the biggest, third-billed Margaret Cho, has about five minutes of screen time), it's a little-people-about-their-tasks slice-of-life drama where the good guys mess up, clean up, mess up, clean up, and commit some business errors that seem improbably naive. Cameron Dye has a nice Aidan Quinn soulfulness and Kevin Geer is quietly excellent, but they haven't much to play. As another poster mentioned, it's unconvincingly telescoped -- does all the action take place within a year, with the tavern trying so many formats and suffering so many twists of fate? Also, for what it's worth, where would the "Tavern on Main" be? It's a New York-set film with some authentic-looking locations (and others that smack of Toronto), but the only Main Street in the five boroughs is in Flushing, and these bar patrons are definitely not East Queens stock.


This movie was highly recommended by some folks. i saw it in cinema with my brother and his 2 friends. At the end we were in disgust and regretting our decision to pay extra money and losing one weekend over this. From the start we did not understand what s going on , there was only killing with bullets firing in an unrealistic fashion. Quite a few action sequences were unbelievable carrying no weight. In one final battle cars were coming directly straight Antonio and his 2 buddies they spray bullets over bullets , not a single one hits the while his shot just inside from his guitar case is far more accurate. The whole film was lost during the process of mindless gun fights. I think its successor was way better than it. such movies can only be enjoyed very much teenage and some immature minds who only want to see violence with no proper plot.


I do like action films. If you are going to make it ridiculous, then let it be funny. I felt like there was an attempt to make it serious- which failed miserably.

Banderas has the guns with 3000 bullets. He only runs out of ammo when the script is setting him up for predictable scene. It wasn't as bloody as Kill Bill- just close.

I was stuck at the airport with only one DVD movie left to watch, so I viewed this one. If I had any alternatives to watch, I would have ejected it within the first 15 minutes.

If they had just showed a little more of a naked Salma Hayek, she was worth the score of 2. (Too bad she didn't flash a little more, it could have doubled the score.


Okay, I'll accept the fact that he can use all of these weapons without any prior knowledge of how to use them. I can accept the fact that this librarian will take him in, treat his wounds, and put herself in extreme amounts of danger even though he is a complete stranger and, probably, is the last person you should trust, all because he saved her life. I'll accept the fact that almost every character in this movie is a clone/rip off of the entire cast of El Mariachi. I'll even accept the horrendous sex scene which is just as bad as the abomination known as Ninja Scroll Resurrection, which by the way had tons and tons and tons of sex scenes bent on being violent and there for the sake of getting some sick and twisted individual horny as heck. But I left this movie after seeing the scene after the sex scene, where the Moco clone somehow managed to find out, with nothing but Selma Hyak's strange performance when he gets to her bookstore, that El Mariachi is in the book store being hidden by her character. I am not even going to bother seeing anymore of this stuff. I mean, seriously, what the heck? It's like he's assuming we'll buy anything he tries to sell. Almost as if he assumed that we wouldn't see El Mariachi, even though Columbia, according to Robert Rodriguez' diaries in Rebel Without a Crew, said they'd package both movies together when they were negotiating for the rights. I mean, for the love of God, why the heck would she automatically know how to become a surgeon just by reading a book? Are you kidding me? And, now correct me if I'm wrong, but at the end of El Mariachi, didn't he have more of a fake hand than a real one? Seemed like it was almost robotic to me when he drove off into the sunset. Yah, this is a bad way to start reviewing movies, and I'll attest that I thought El Mariachi and Once Upon a Time in Mexico were excellent movies for the lighting, special effects, and storytelling. But you couldn't pay me to see anymore of the dribble in Desperado. Not a single cent, I tell you now.


Rodriguez is quite fond of comparing himself to John Woo. But most of the "hip" American directors who emerged in the nineties, Tarantino and Rodriguez included, have not even understood what makes Woo great.

For them, all of Woo's influence has been translated into an axiom of "violence is cool". From the playful nonchalant attitude of "Pulp Fiction" to the desperate attempts in "Desperado" to amuse the audience, these directors have tried to make violence funny, playful, exciting.

For Woo, violence is anything but "cool". A violent action has motivations, meanings and repercussions. When a character dies in a Woo movie, it is never without reason. It dies because it has been defeated in a battle of ideals, or, on the contrary, it has fulfilled its ideal by dying. Compare this to the meaningless gore in "Desperado", when characters are introduced and then killed off without the slightest reason.

In "The Killer", which Rodriguez has ridiculously compared "Desperado" to, the leading character's fate is a matter of crime and punishment, and he knows that. He kills others, and he accepts that the cosmic order of things dictates that he has to die - and not only to die, but in the same way he has hurt the one he loved most. Believing that he commits justice by killing others, now the killer needs to accept that same justice being acted out against him.

Now, just compare this to the randomness and tastelessness in "Desperado". A character played by Tarantino is introduced, apparently because Rodriguez thought it would be funny. It is then killed without any real reason and without any emotional effect on the audience, maybe because it is not really possible to withstand such an idiotic and unrealistic character for more than a few minutes. Antonio Banderas is such an abominable actor, that even if his actions have some emotional consequences for him (as they obviously do for Woo's leading character in The Killer), he is completely unable to display them.

The closest Rodriguez came to Woo is in "El Mariachi", if only because in that film, the leading character is interesting to follow: He knows that as a man who lives for music, he no longer belongs in this world which cares only for money. The movie had soul, if only because Rodriguez quite obviously thought of himself as a Mariachi of sorts when he wrote the script.

And then came all the Hollywood money and ruined him.


What makes for good fight scenes in movies are those which stretch the limits of credibility but never leave you laughing in the aisles because they have lost all touch with reality. Banderas is very good at what he does and this movie is just a laughable comic strip that makes James Bond adventures look like conservative stunts. A movie should never leaving you feeling that reality has been stretched to absurd proportions.

Despite a completely unoriginal plot and storyline, the movie has some substance. But get to the fight scenes and it's all over. The villains can open fire with machine guns and, despite a complete lack of obstruction, miss their targets completely. But worse, our heroes just walk calmly through this barrage of automatic firepower as though they know that they cannot be hit even if it were a Sherman tank aimed right at their heads from 20 feet away. It's so preposterous that it's difficult to take this movie as even a long stretch of the imagination. This ridiculous charade repeats itself several times and in each one there is never any suspense because you KNOW that Banderas and co. will calmly allow the villains to empty their arsenal and then our boys can go on a slickly filmed, stylish killing spree of the bad boys.

This is a B grade rental for Banderas (and Hayek) fans only. There are better films for those who feel a compelling need to see more skin from Salma Hayek. If you must see this, take it for what it is -- a poor mans desire to see some sensuality without the porn and some outrageous gun play that will leave you shaking your head. This movie wastes many talents, style, and from a reasonably good opening it goes downhill from there...


We need to remind ourselves that posing is not acting.

Besides that the rest of the film is a mess. Consider: Double barrel shotguns cannot fire three consecutive times. Bandera's sawed off double barrel inexplicably holds eight shells which are never seen ejected.

Silencers are worthless placed on revolvers.

Bandera's accent can drill through concrete.

It is axiomatic  sub machine guns used by the bad guys always miss their target.

If the bad guy has a gun and the good guy doesn't, something will happen to bring the obligatory "mana-a-mano".

Cartoonish, underdeveloped characters.

Okay, so you have this weird guy throwing knives at you and he's managed to stick three blades in you. Don't bother pulling out of your pants your 9 mm pistol and shoot the guy  hide behind a trashcan and wait for other bad guys to drive up out of nowhere and kill him for you.

As usual Hollywood depicts the racist stereotype of the typical small town in Mexico  backwards, no police, violent, primitive, with women that are whores and men who are drug dealers.

Oh, but it's so hip!! Besides, it was directed by a "Hispanic".

Worthless stylistic crap.


A pretty dreadful French thriller in which a gifted scenarist may be learning how to direct. The 126 minutes' length hints of a genre-piece that can't stop itself: the director wrote twice as many fainting scenes, dream sequences, and face-offs between heroine-villain as any film could sustain, and then left in every damned one of them. Its only suspense lies in the gradually revealed nastiness of the director himself-- "He's not going to do THAT to his actors.... My God, he really IS." The casting and the peculiar violations of genre logic show vestiges of a much better movie than BAMBI. In a day full of interesting French films shown at Boston's MFA, this ringer, of course, turned out to be the only one secured for American distribution. You are seeing the Director's Cut on screen-- a case in which a Studio version of this frayed and rough-cut would be superior.


This is a throwback to the horror and action-adventure movies in which the tension is based on the threatened woman who cannot get out of the way of danger because of her passivity, gullibility, or other gender stereotyped disability. Here we are offered a pseudo-psychological explanation having to do with her mother having died (mother-loss rendering her more vulnerable to domination by the medical patriarchy????) She fails to act or to follow through repeatedly (e.g. failing to mention the clue of the two needle holes after she goes out on a limb at the incident review conference, and we are given no clues as to her motivation in taking that risk at that point or in her failure to follow through).

Other egregious negative stereotyping in these genres (and in the crime genre) are--- screaming upon finding the corpse, and running from danger being pulled by the man (have you ever tried running holding someone's hand? Dysfunctional!!)


STINKS! "The Lot" is a nerdy attempt to be provocative and profane. I've seen better high school plays. The Lot is a "cue-card" enactment loaded with wooden performances throughout. (Performances???) This series, in which each episode runs less than a half hour, and in which uses up nearly four and a half minutes for head titles and end credits over live action, tends to appear historically incorrect, or shall we say inaccurate, in its pretense to portray popular celebs of the day. This company's research department missed the boat when it comes to certain actual events and even, in one episode, makes mention of a mouthwash product that didn't "make the scene" until the mid-'60s. Don't forget the time-frame here is supposed to be the late '30s. This series is so bad, I doubt it could pass as "noon-time soaper" material. (My opinion, of course) I watch just to see how ostentatiously bad it can get. (Who could love a studio that is run by a sweaty Tor Johnson lookalike?) Your juxtapositions aren't working, Mitz. (Again, just my opinion)


Remarkable how The Lot, with each episode, just keeps sinking to lower and new found levels of incredibility. I put it on a par with "Plan 9 From Outer Space," director Ed Woods' best. This is one of the worst and most thoughtless presentations I've ever seen on TV and it comes from the NYUK channel, American Movie Classics (AMC). This probably explains, as far as I'm concerned, AMC's sudden decline in popularity and aimless descent into le potee. Also gone from AMC is their last remaining air of dignity, Bob Dorian, who always displayed himself as a knowledgeable and truly authoritative presenter. Thus leaving us with Wee Baby Burke and his sluggish monotoned delivery to tell us all about the picture we are about to see. I wouldn't doubt that most of the movies on AMC was filmed before he fell to earth. If you want to see a really good TV show about the struggle to "make it" in the movies, look for "Tales from the Hollywood Hills: A Table at Ciro's." This one hour show was combined and intercut with another and retitled "Power, Passion and Murder" and still shows up on TV occasionally. As for "The Lot," stay close to the flush handle.


WEAK, WEAK, WEAK! Totally miscast and disinteresting. Whatever happened to those wonderful character faces seen in all those great movies about movies from the time period this half-effort attempts to portray? There has been so many better films and TV shows on this same subject that reigns mountains over this "flick" (to be polite). Remember "Bracken's World" (1969)? It's a shame American Movie Classics (AMC) chose to cancel "Remember WENN" in order to, according to their website announcement, make time available for "The Lot", a 4 part - 2 night time waster. Station "WENN" has everything "The Lot" ain't! Pray that this one goes no further.


This movie is one that I will never forget in my life.It was such a big disappointment. The opening is very interesting, a man gets arrested. But that is actually the highlight of the movie, nothing else interesting happens. Shortly and frankly said, this movie sucks, it is not entertaining, neither is it exciting, nor is it worth watching. For the story itself, it is taken from a good environment. A female judge is fighting against rich evil powerful and corrupt men. The idea is excellent, but the way it is filmed is just garbage. I have to say it, this movie is BAD. How bad? Is it the worst french movie I have ever seen? Oh, undeniably, but that is not the point. The point is that this is the worst movie, I have ever seen in my life. As I have mentioned earlier, the idea of the story is interesting but the storyline in the movie just sucks. In some parts, the movie is just incomprehensible, so are some of the main characters. This movie is very boring too, there are only two exciting moments. First one is in the beginning when one of the rich men gets arrested. The second one is when the female judge finds out that someone destroyed her office, but you don't know who did it, nor why he or she did it. And finally what is the best way to end a shitty movie? With a shitty ending that is even more horrible. An ending that sucks so hard, it has scarfed me for life. The ending doesn't actually end the movie. There are still many questions to be answered and many things to be resolved. However the ending credits are a big relief, they end a long torture, a long suffering, that you cant wait to end. So its like getting liberated. I gave this movie one star, because that is just what it deserves. If it was possible to give zero stars I would have done it. I think that the problem is that the french just are not good at making movies. Yes, french comedies are great, like the TAXI series for example, which I love very much. But every french movie in my opinion is bad, unless it is a comedy or unless it has Jean Reno or Gerard Depardieu starring in it. Well that is it for my comment. It is my personal opinion and I respect anyone who happens to disagree with me.


One of the main problems in "The Comedy of Power" is that, ironically, there is no comedy. If obvious little puns and predictable little jokes are comedy, then I am way out of it. This film, now playing at the IFC center, is Claude Chabrol in rotten 'fois-gras' and Isabelle Huppert in a rotten package of canned meat,and yes, it really is that disappointing. The film follows a chronicle that we all have heard of before, except this time, Chabrol thinks he can make magic out of Huppert. The story line, best as follows, is about a lazy french judge (A rotten Isabelle Huppert) who tries to bring down the corruption of a very powerful company. This one's a long, slow ride down an all too familiar road. One of the films main problems is the talkative dialogue; even though it's French, there are so many useless scenes of non stop talking, that you can go to sleep, wake up, and you would have missed nothing. While some of the scenes are easy to go along with, most of the film is pure familiarity. For Claude Chabrol and Isabelle Huppert, however, this probably could be named the funnest movie ever made in between them. But, unfortunately, the viewer is the one that suffers for their fun.


This movie was so god-awful-l, i can not explain this with words. If you want to see a comedy without any laugher, then this movie is the best choice you can take. Listening to the actors could drive you crazy, so be careful. The dialogs are cra-p and also the whole story. I can not believe who is able to drag the good old lucky Luke / Dalton comics so through the mud. Up to this I liked french movies, but this was the worst movie I have ever seen. They should pay you for watching this ...

Sure the movie has its good side, it lasts only for 86 minutes. The people in the cinema cheered when it was over, but not because they liked the movie, just because it was over...


Well i've been terribly disappointed with this movie. Theorically the movie is an adaptation of the known Morris' comic, but it is very different, neither of the characters is like the comic (except Rataplan, the dog), the story is totally annoying and the actors are pathetic, in addition, the directing is not better. In addition, in Spain the movie was translated by two known humorist (el Neng and Corbacho), that could not be bad, but they don't ever try to adapt themselves to the characters, they just make their usual part (like theirs on TV) but with the faces of Joe and Averell Dalton.

Surprisingly has two good things: it is very short (82 minutes) and the task of adapting the environment is quite decent (not very much, but it is the better of the film, by far), I am talking about the atrezzo, which is the best adapted of all the movie (which is not very difficult, if we think about the horrible work of characters and history). To sum up: If you could,you should avoid seeing this film.


this movie is terrible, do NOT watch this film, Til Schweiger is a pity, awful,playing for 5 minutes in the movie. This movie is stupid, stupid and stupid, more I can't say....no plot, no sense, never saw such a bad movie. There is no gag to laugh, no story, nothing is in this crappy piece of... And if you know the both comedians playing the long and short Dalton, they ma be good comedians, but not in this film.... PLZ miss this movie... more is not to say..;o) I don't know how to produce such a crap, it should be forbidden to show such movies in cinema to prevent the people in getting idiots.....we started with 90 people in the cinema, at the end of the movie there were 3 left, i think that says all....;o)


At start i want to say that i am very big fan of Lucky Luke and that he is my favorite animated and comics character. Why am i saying this? It is pretty simple. I am saying it so you can see that even hardcore fan could not love this movie.

This should be comedy. I mean Daltons vere always funny and there are a lot of jokes with them producers could use to make this movie good western comedy about most popular cawboy. From start everything is so stupid. Everyone is scared of Daltons and people which was filming this probably though that scary faces of others and some nonsense words from some of Daltons would make me laugh. Oh no! And why not? Because all stupid words a bit of Lucky Lukes scenes and all other characters with so stupid text are wrapped together in something awful called Daltons Movie.

Animated series about Luke are perfect, comics too but so far we haven't seen good movie so i hope that Lucky Luke (2009) will make me wrong. I really hope!


The picture begins in medias res, with some sort of tribal conflict going on among the Maoris. Some of them are evidently allied with the British. A lance corporal Maori named Te Weheke finds that a relative has been killed by the British, and for some reason swears eternal vengeance (or 'utu'). He has his face tattooed and leads his ragtag guerrilla army through the woods and brush. At no point is he likable.

Even in the most brutal of American westerns, the Indians were given a shred of understanding. Not so with the Maoris here. They are just mean and impulsive savages with no motivation other than the joy of killing. One comes away from this film wondering why these monsters weren't simply wiped out, instead of being coddled and treated as pets. And what were they doing in the local constabulary, anyway? A bit more background to the Maori situation, and to the motivation of Te Weheke's suicidal campaign against the British and colonists, would have helped make this a clearer story.

**IMDb deleted the original version of this review, essentially the same, and wrote:(This review was deleted by IMDb based on an abuse report filed by another user) from which we must assume that the troublemaker didn't bother to read the full review. We would appreciate information leading to the apprehension of this culprit.**


This movie deserves to be #1 on the 100 worst movies ever. Although words are inadequate to describe how bad this movie is: "wretched," "pitiful," and "embarrassingly horrible," all come to mind.

I can't imagine that the writer and director were serious when they made this. Either they must have been joking, or they made this from inside their room in the asylum. Actually, that would explain the lack of decent acting and props, too....

I used to like roleplaying when I was a kid, and even that couldn't get me to finish watching this movie. I got almost to the end, but I feared that if I watched the whole thing, my brain would explode, I would have to gouge out my eyes, or the universe would end... maybe all three.

Avoid this loser of a film at all costs....You've been warned!


I would advise not to waste any time or money on this "so-called" horror film.

The plot is just ridiculous and goes absolutely nowhere.

I realize that the budget for these kinds of low-grade films is tiny, but you could at least try.

Nothing in this film is up to expectation..... VERY poor acting, poor direction, silly attempt at special effects, and the story itself is nothing that would hold anyone's interest (even those interested in role playing games!)

For placing it in the horror genre, it sure isn't scary at all.

Whatever you do, do not waste your time or money on this one!!!!!


This horrible attempt of a "movie" was the worst piece of crap I've ever seen (and I've seen a lot of horrible B-movies). I am ashamed that I wasted any time on this at all. The worst thing about it was the acting--NOT ONE person cast in this movie has the right to call themselves an actor. It seemed as though they were reading from cue cards the entire time. You can tell they must have went up to people on the streets and said "Hey, want to be in a movie?"! From the laughable performance by the child playing Jack Jr. to the ridiculous writing, directing, plot, ridiculous attempt at special effects, etc..etc..etc.. The list goes on and on.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** For some reason I decided to pick up this film to rent and have totally and completely regretted it ever since!!!

This has got to be one of the most absolutely stupidest flicks of all time.

*** Possible Spoilers Ahead ***

First of all, a group of people play roleplaying games (I didn't realize that people who are in their 30's played roleplaying games, but I guess they are trying to act like teenagers for the film), then one of the losers kills themselves because they are in love with one of the other losers (ooh, very dramatic). Some of the roleplaying people start receiving roses from an unknown person. Finally a knight shows up on a horse, killing them.

This film just doesn't have any good parts to it at all.

The "actors" are all so stiff and fail to portray any character reality at all, so you don't really feel for them or care about the story at all.

The direction of the film keeps changing and you're left wondering "what was this film even supposed to be about?"

Whoever wrote this piece of crap needs to try a LOT harder if you want to entertain people.


I don't know if I'm more angry and disgusted with the filmmakers of this piece of stinky-cheese, or my local video store for carrying it for rent! This movie 'might' have been borderline okay with even a crappy TV cast and some dialog that didn't seem made up on the spot, but... probably not. Avoid this stink bomb of a "movie" at all costs... Hey -- get a director that knows what they are doing, take acting lessons and learn how to write a script BEFORE you try to make a movie. It might work out better for the audience in the end.

90 Minutes of my life I want back, NOW. Maybe I'm the fool for sitting through the whole thing!


I used to like to play role playing games when I was young so I thought I might enjoy this independent film about a group of role players, but I was very disappointed. Even though it is an indie film it is very below the standards of anything I've ever seen before. First off I thought the gamers would be a little younger, usually people that old don't game do they? So that made it very unbelievable, but I tried to get past it. Then we come to the very lame and cheesy writing and acting, both of which are so bad you keep stopping and asking yourself "are they really that bad or are they trying to be extra cheesy to make this whole movie a joke?" Either way, you will find nothing good about this stupid silly little movie, I would not waste my time with this one if I were you.


A group of 20-somethings have regular Role Playing Game gatherings at their former high school teacher's house. John, the geekiest of them all, gets picked-on by some of the other "gamers." He kills himself and the others find themselves being stalked by a knight on horseback. Yeah. This movie is quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I've always thought obsessive "gamers" (I cringe at that word!) were somewhat off, but this movie just makes them look incredibly stupid when playing their RPG. I can usually find some redeeming value in any movie, no matter how bad, but that is not the case with "Knight Chills." My Rating: 0/10.


You need to have the proper perspective when watching these types of films..they're crap..we know they're crap..so enjoy the crap. I thought this was a weak story, however there were some enjoyable characters and the plot is classic...loner loser geek gets revenge on all those who have harmed him...we have all fantasized about that kind of thing. I found this little jewel of cinematic pooh on a collection called "Night Chills" and trust me..this is one of the better films in that collection...I personally love crappy C and B grade movies because I'm sick of the Hollywood factory made movies that have the same stupid plot as the last 50 Hollywood movies I've seen


I had no idea that movies this bad were being made. The production quality--and I'm not being facetious--was comparable to a mid-80s porn movie. I've seen and enjoyed many B-movies, but this was absolutely atrocious. The story, acting, script, camera work, and sets, were among the worst I've ever suffered through. The worst of it, however, was the music. Holy crap! the music was so obnoxious, paying attention to the movie became impossible. This may very well be the worst movie ever made.

I'm curious to find out who is responsible for this film and how much was spent on production. This was not just a waste of time and money. It is an insult to the horror/sci-fi genre, and B-movies in general. To the people/group responsible for this movie: you should be ashamed.


Verily, this Ranketh Low and Wretched.

Not even fun for gamers - makes the old Mazes & Monsters (an early Tom Hanks made for TV bomb) seem like Lord of the Rings by comparison. Orcs could put on a more enjoyable production.

Senseless plot. Confused gamer crashes into a tree after playing a role-playing game. Host of the game loses his job and is harassed by the police and news-media as a direct result. Confused? I sure was.

Normally, people driving home late at night and having an accident would not lead authorities to attack the people/friends where the person was driving from unless there were Drugs & Alcohol involved and some sort of witnessed connection. Zero evidence of foul play, folks. Zero evidence of Logic, too.

When actual murders begin, police become clueless and merely ask a couple of questions of the already destroyed Game Host.

Whatever "action" occurs is just too murky even to make out. It's that badly shot.

To sum it all up - Terrible Dialog, Abysmal Line Delivery, Truly HORRIBLE lighting and filming, and Zero Acting ability from all involved. And a hopelessly amateur plot to top it all off. What a complete mess!


I am a HUGE fan of 'Knight Chills.' I actually own a copy of it. Katherine Hicks is a mad genius and I *hope* to see more work from her in the near future! The actor that really pulls this movie and makes it utterly BRILLIANT is the child playing 'Jack Jr.' who is without a doubt the funniest actor in the history of film. His close rival (Jack is a hard one to beat folks) is 'Laura Nixon' who had to be re-dubbed all throughout the movie causing unparalleled laughs out of me and any friend I can trick into watching this wonderfully bad movie. I'm not 100% sure how to describe this flick. When it's teetering on absolute monotony suddenly Jack Jr. or Laura Nixon will appear and make it once again HYSTERICALLY funny.

I'm eagerly awaiting "Figure in the Forest" in hopes of seeing little Jackson Kennedy shine again.


This is a terrible movie with one questionable virtue: the spectacle of dozens of real rats really shotgunned. It looks like they used a 20 gauge. It could be some kind of stunt, but nobody told the rats. Suggestions that the production used pellet guns on the rodents seem unlikely to me, as in my experience it takes a little more than .177 caliber to knock a rat off his feet.

It is of course possible that there is a special effect involved; if so it's a technology I've never seen. Certainly these rats react violently to the projectiles that hit them, and they don't seem to like it. They are knocked end over end by bloody impact. Meat flies off the wounds, even. They seem hurt, and they squirm pretty convincingly. Perhaps they are good rat actors. But I don't think Clyde Beatty and Siegfried Sassoon together could train 100 rats to pretend to drown, then play dead while floating underwater, a trick employed here with great verisimilitude.

There is lots of bad process photography, and the puppet rat heads are more impressive than the awful script and underutilized all-star cast. Bert Gordon never did less with so much. But the real rats are filmed in slow motion against miniatures in medium and long shots, and they die there, with more realism than is achieved by any other part of the picture. Wholesale slaughter of furred creatures seems unlikely so late as '76, but I doubt the FOTG set even saw a licensed caterer, much less OSHA or the Humane Society.


So this guy named Morgan plays football and that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this movie. Him and his friend end up on this island where the wasps, rats and chickens are gigantic. The rats, chickens and wasps are so fake looking that it's hilarious. The acting is so terrible that I couldn't help but burst out laughing. I could act better if I had been in a coma. Then this lady has this baby and the other lady who is a bacteria expert knows just how to deliver a baby. That was strange and it didn't seem to hurt without any drugs. Plus the baby was fake looking too and it's just the icing on the cake. I had to back it up just to see the giant plastic chicken because it was so funny. Other than that it's just a bunch of drown rats and a kid drinking some milk.


Three friends with big faces go to an island to relax by chasing a deer to death with dogs. There's so many over-sized faces at the start of this movie it's like watching Easter Island statues bobbing around. This merry jaunt is interrupted when some giant wasps kill one of them.

This film is full of laughs, most of which come from the unconvincing giant animals. The rats look OK in close up but the giant chicken is one of the funniest monsters I've ever seen and easily the highlight of the entire film.

I liked the character development too. They want to show that the businessman is a real typical 70's businessman jerk so there's one line where he stands opening a gate and says "open the god dam gate" for no obvious reason. Granted it's not quite on a par with a giant chicken head pecking at you but it made me laugh all the same. The crazy religious woman is equally subtly sketched with her endless talk of sin. The ultra-hostile "female bacteriologist" is pretty funny too. Check out the bit where her biological clock goes off during a rat attack. Funny stuff.

The whole movie is pretty much rats being shot with paint ball pellets while roaring like a tiger and climbing on a dolls house. The basic fact that rats can swim doesn't fit with the ending so there's a clunky scene where we get told that giant rats can't swim. They can't swim OK, and we're not just saying that because we've already filmed the ending before someone pointed out that they can swim.

Also, how come there's a dam on an island in the first place? Geography wasn't my best subject but wouldn't that mean the island was lower than the level of the water?

If you've seen any of Big Berts other movies you'll know what to expect. Definitely one for bad movie fans only!


There are two types of bad films: bad films that are fun and somehow end up being good, and bad films that are no fun and only manage to be crap. Given the plot line, this bad film really should have belonged to the former group; but somehow it doesn't manage it and ends up being a part of the latter. Quite how a film about ravenous, over-sized animals could be so boring escapes me, but somehow director Bert I. Gordon has managed to make it so. The film is based on a story by the great H.G. Wells, and while I haven't read it, I think it's safe to say that The Food of the Gods is a lot better on paper than it is on screen! The plot focuses on a group of friends who go hunting on a Canadian island. It's not long before they are attacked by a group of wasps, but they're not just any wasps - they're giant aggressive wasps! One of their number is killed by the wasps, so the friends go looking for help, when they come upon a barn inhabited by giant chickens! It's not long before they put two and two together and realise that something funny is going on - shortly before they meet the most dangerous creature on the island, the rats...

Giant animal films don't tend to be high quality, and this one does nothing to buck that trend. Most of the action is unexciting, and when you've got people battling giant animals - that really shouldn't be the case! The special effects are decent in places, the rat attack looks decent enough considering that this is a very low quality film, but some of the effects look terrible and the gore isn't any good either. The plot is fairly basic and there isn't much explanation for anything, which is a shame as the story basically just lays out it's stall (a load of white goo trickling down the side of the mountain) and lets the giant creatures take it from there; but the giants aren't enough to keep things entertaining, and the film fails for that reason. It becomes hard to care about anything shortly after the film starts, and that doesn't get any better as it moves on. Probably quite unsurprisingly, I wasn't impressed at all with The Food of the Gods, and that's a shame as this could have been quite decent if it had been handled better. I can't really recommend wasting time with this film - shiny new DVD release or not!


Terribly unappetizing stew from Bert I. Gordon, an adaptation of H.G. Wells' story concerning a band of campers fighting off rats and chickens enlarged to monstrous proportions. The dark, clammy 'woodsy' setting is visually ugly, not helped by the film's low budget and really rotten special effects. Yes, it's a Grade-Z horror movie, but for a film in which the effects are the drawing-card, this one fumbles the ball right out of the gate. Surely Gordon didn't spend all his money on the cast: Marjoe Gortner, Ralph Meeker, Pamela Franklin, and most especially Ida Lupino all look as if they'd rather be elsewhere. Shockingly, the picture did attract some business, creating a small cult which lead to a quasi-sequel in 1989. NO STARS from ****


This awful movie has very little resemblance to H.G. Wells fantastic novel. I only watched this film because Pamela Franklin, whom I'm a huge fan of, was in this film. I guess she needed the money real bad to appear in a stinker like this. Director Bert I. Gordon has done some wonderful, low-budget campy films in the '50s and '60s, but this isn't one of them! Some people like this film because it is so bad and cheesy; I mean I usually get a big laugh out of films like that, but this film is a total bore. Contains a few laughs, but not many. Perhaps if I watched it stoned, I might find it funnier, because everything is funny when you are high. The very fact that former child evangelist, Marjoe Gortner is in it is enough to type anyone of that it is a very, horrible movie. I feed bad for Ms. Franklin that she even appeared in such a rotten egg of a movie. No wonder she gave up acting!


Therein lays the main problem I had with this movie even as a kid. This movie had promise, but turns into mainly a giant rat movie with Bert I. Gordon's main technique the old rear projection monster. I liked his "Empire of the Ants" because it combined that trick with big model ants, but this one is mostly rear projected rats. I liked the wasps and there was a centipede and a giant chicken too, but after the wasps are destroyed there is nothing else but the stupid rats. So basically this one starts out interestingly enough, but degrades to something like another of Gordon's films "The Beginning of the End". How they destroy the rats is a bit stupid too, as doesn't Gordon know what a rat does on a sinking ship? So this one is one that has promise, but fails to deliver. It used to come on television all the time, but you rarely see it these days and seeing how low its score is here, that is probably a good thing.


Some kind of mysterious liquid is making animals grow to humongous size. They soon starting attacking humans. Eventually, rats become the dominant species. FOOD OF GODS is bad even by director Bert I. Gordon standards. The visual effects are unrelentingly awful but they take a backseat to the woeful acting of the undistinguished cast. You know you're in for it when the hero is played by none other than Marjoe Gortner, an actor who is creepy even when he's playing it straight. What's more depressing, the fact that this garbage was even made or the fact that screen legend Ida Lupino was reduced to appearing in stuff like this near the end of her career? Based on the novel by H.G. Wells, who must have rolled over in his grave. Like you, he too would surely be rooting for the animals in this mess.


If you watch the original food of the gods and have your pause button ready you will notice that some of the poor special effects are real footage of rats getting shot by a slug gun or the like. A bore to watch however it is a movie that makes you appreciate the half good movies out there. and for that reason it should be compulsory viewing for all.

You don't realize just how good that b grade movie with the Baldwin brother in it is until you watch this load of vomit ...........must see. If you find yourself in the video shop and cannot find this cinematic treasure, yet the sequel jumps out and bites you , just remember that number one has very little redeeming features where as the sequel contains none.


Some white stuff from the ground turns animals giant-size on a remote island. Soon a bunch of people are battling giant wasps, chickens, earthworms and rats to get off the island.

It sounds interesting but this is actually a pretty pathetic adaptation of (according to the credits) "a portion of Food of the Gods by H.G. Wells". The sound you hear now is Wells spinning in his grave.

The dialogue is just DREADFUL (some of the lines were so bad I couldn't believe I was hearing them) and the script is just silly. As for the acting--Marjoe Gortner was bad but Belinda Balaski and Pamela Franklin (looking fantastic in her last film to date) were very good despite their lines. The bit where Franklin tells Gortner she wants to make love to him (when they're holed up in a house surrounded by giant rats) had me helpless with laughter! It's also really sad to see two fine actors--Ida Lupino and Ralph Meeker--reduced to crap like this. Their performances are very bad too--Meeker the worst of the two.

The special effects are mostly horrendous--the giant chicken will have you howling and the wasps are (very) obviously superimposed. However the sequence with the giant earthworms was VERY bloody and admittedly a high point. And some of the rat effects weren't bad. Also there are a number of extremely bloody attacks by the rats--I'm really surprised this got by with a PG. The attacks are the only reason I'm giving this a 2.

And when the attacks aren't on the movie is dull dull dull! Scattered unintentionally hilarious dialogue does not compensate. Worth watching for the attacks--otherwise a boring, silly and sad film.


"Teenage Zombies" is a bad movie. Make that an absolutely horrible movie. It isn't as bad as "The Beast of Yucca Flats", but that's not saying too much. Jerry Warren was one of the worst directors ever. The man had absolutely no clue on how to keep up a pace. This isn't even his worst film (I actually sat through "The Wild World of Batwoman" and "The Incredible Petrified World"). The man seemed to have no idea on how to craft some degree of tension or suspense. His films aren't even that funny, which is the main draw for many folks to b-movies. "Teenage Zombies" suffers from all these problems, yet for some reason I've never been able to forget it.

It all achieves a sense of unintentional surrealism due to the sheer ineptitude of it all. The bargain basement sets, the "zombie" which is just a guy rolling his eyes upward, the sexless teens, the sheer implausibility of the script, the awkward silences throughout, and the standard explanation for the horror being perpetrated by Russian spies. All of this seems so fabricated and yet so bizarre, like your most severe fever dream. Even without the supernatural elements, the film resembles absolutely nothing in reality. I'm not sure if this is exactly a recommendation, but I don't believe I'll ever forget the unexpectedly disorienting affect "Teenage Zombies" had on me. (3/10)


The story: Four teenagers head out for a day's water skiing. And decide to picnic on a mysterious island. They go exploring and meet a strange woman and a procession of ambling zombie types - they run away and find their boat has vanished. They are all eventually captured by the mysterious woman and her Zombie sidekick Ivan (who looks weirdly like Alfred Molina who has managed to put on an overcoat with removing the coat hanger first) and locked in two cages with bars wide enough to slide a well greased elephant through, let alone a skinny teenager. Back on the mainland two of the missing 'kids' friends go to the Sheriff's office - which appears to consist of a hatch in a wall like a cheap all-night taxi place. "Gee willickers! Mr sheriff, our friends have vanished!" - they don't actually say "Gee willickers!" - but you know they want to.

The Sheriff goes out in a very small boat and looks about a bit and comes back (if internal continuity is to be believed, the next morning) having found nothing. The kids borrow a boat and head off to look too. they arrive on the island. have a conversation with the Mysterious woman and leave. As they cast off two mysterious strangers arrive on another boat. They turn out to be nasty spy types. Unless the mysterious lady doctor completes her formula soon the plans will change and the Russians will nuke America. "The fools!" The mysterious woman doctor flares her nostrils and takes them to her lab where she zombiefies a gorilla she just happens to have hanging about.

Cut to an American Flag outside a building. Cut to a bad actor in a military uniform sat behind a desk. Another bad actor in a military uniform comes in and tells the seated actor about the diabolical gas plot threatening the USA. He has one lead. A photo of the lady doctor. He is going to search the USA state by state starting with California, working up the West coast and then moving east state by state. (I wish I was making this up)

"I would also request, marine and navy helicopters and every reconnaissance plane the Air force has available!" he says, cuing in the audiences mind the tedious prospect of hours of stock footage of planes being used by the end of the flick. "That's a big order, I hope we can fill it." says the seated general. He couldn't, thank god, because not an inch of stock footage made it to the screen.

Back on Spy Island the boys pick the padlock on their cage by reaching through the gaps large enough to get their whole bodies through. they rush to the girl's cage and the boy who picked the lock keeps watch while the boy who didn't futilely rattles the lock on the girl's cage door. At which point the audience decides these kids deserve everything they get. They are too stupid to be allowed to breed. The boys heroically sneak away when it's dark. (It isn't dark. It's supposed to be but the film-makers were too cheap to hire a night for day filter).

The boys start to build a raft then sneak back to their cell.

The "Gee Willakers" boy and girl go the sheriff's house and tell them of their suspicions about the mysterious lady. The continuity has got so out of whack now that it appears they have taken the whole night to get back to the mainland. OK, says the sheriff, I'll take a look - and off they all go again.

The girls are dragged to the Zombification chamber. They boys heroically do nothing till it's too late. The Sheriff arrives and turns out to have been a baddie all along. One of the spies shoots him and while Ivan is disposing of the body the boys make their move. After the the weirdest rolling around on the floor fighting ever filmed without the contestants being naked and covered in mud, the boys get the gun, get the girls out of the Zombifying room, and shove the lady doctor in when she won't de-zombify the girls. They find the antidote and make her drink it. She smashes the flask but there is enough to rescue the girls. Our heroes run around escaping for a bit. The gorilla licks some of the antidote off the floor and goes on the rampage and fights Ivan. The kids escape to the Sheriff's boat and sail away home.

All of which sounds like any other kids thrilling adventure movie except it is so inanely done. Everything shot in long takes with everyone standing in lines. At one point while watching the gorilla being zombiefied the spies watch it happening behind them over their shoulders and when Ivan comes to take it out of the room there is is this amazing nothing ten second shot of three people standing in a line looking over their shoulders at a blank wall. Ten seconds doesn't sound like a long time but believe me; on screen it's an age to be watching bad actors doing nothing - badly.

This one is for serious bad movie fans only. A mix confusion and boredom in exactly equal amounts. Avoid. There are lots of far better (by which I mean enjoyable) bad movies out there.


Are they going water skiing or are they going horseback riding? Are they going to be zombies or aren't they? I love these movies. The acting is so stiff. The characters deliver lines and then wait a second or two. The dialog is so pointless that it really doesn't matter. There's this huge island in a lake with a hugre research facility on it. But the people in the town don't seem to know it's there. Still a couple of kids can take a little rowboat with a ten horse and make it to the island. The research that is being done concerns a kind of nerve gas that will turn all Americans into blathering idiots (it's probably too late for that anyway). There's a gorilla running around, a couple of boring spies, and a kind of dragon lady scientist who locks the kids up for future research. The kids have the usual silly nicknames. The sheriff is on the take, so he won't help. My favorite scene is the last minute. I won't spoil it, but it's priceless.


i just saw this movie yesterday, and to tell you the truth, I can't stop thinking about it. Every aspect of it was god-awful... the writing was painfully dull, the acting was nonexistent, and the plot was so thin and contrived it was hard to believe it wasn't an hour-long inside joke that I was regretfully unaware of. But strangely enough, it was so bad it was almost good. the man in the cheap gorilla suit? classic! the pseudo-sexual brawl between the voluptuous young teens and the evil scientists and politicians? Strangely arousing. While the corn level was high and the horror level as low as I've ever seen in a wannabe creature feature, there is something oddly appealing, and most definitely unforgettable, about this 1959 piece of crap


Six all American Eisenhower era kids decide to go water-skiing or at least four of the six do. When the four fail to show up, the other two go looking for their friends.

The two who are searching come across this island in the middle of their lake inhabited by a strange scientist woman, her Igor like companion and a bunch of mindless men walking around in a trance. It's those zombies that no doubt they've seen in several horror flicks when they've gone to drive-ins. And could their friends be becoming Teenage Zombies?

It's a lot worse than that because our lady scientist who's a poor woman's Gale Sondergaard is a Russian agent. She's experimenting with nerve gas and a way to deliver it in quantity so that they can turn New York, Boston, or Chicago, etc. into a city of zombies, though some might argue that's already happened. In fact she's begging her superiors for more time because the Russians are getting ready with an H-Bomb attack, but her method would be so much neater and would leave all those nice cities intact with a population of slaves.

Teenage Zombies has a no name cast most of whom I won't mention because you've never heard of them. I've seen better acting in junior high school productions, especially from the young folks. The sound quality is horrible and the film looks like it was shot from my father's old Bell&Howell.

But Katherine Victor who played the lady Russian scientist was a real hoot. This was her second film, she was in another science fiction travesty, Mesa of Lost Women first. If anything Teenage Zombies was an improvement.

It says here that the film was released in 1959, but when I saw the film the credits clearly said 1957. The fact that it took two years before the producers inflicted it on the movie-going public should say volumes.