I've always been a big fan of the film Freaks and think it was very ahead of its time although in its day it was thought disturbing. Freakshow stays near to the originals plot but as a story it loses its moral,in the original you care for the unfortunates of the title and they are the heroes of the film.In Freakshow there is very little character development and you really couldn't care less about them,as they are neither likable or admirable and towards the last 10 minutes of the film they turn out to be bigger sadists than those who portrayed the villains,so i really couldn't see the moral of the story,it all seemed more like a film of revenge and sadism. The last 10 minutes of the film was so unnecessary with the girl Lucy {baring in mind she hadnt actually killed anyone herself}being gruesomely hacked at so that she could be turned into a freak,i thought they were just going to cut her tongue out but oh no that was only the beginning,i couldn't believe how long this scene went on for or what they were going to stop at.It was also silly really as no one would survive all that blood loss. Very pointless


This movie is awful. The plot is shallow and underdeveloped and the "horror" is just useless violence. The costumes of the "freaks" are obvious and not made well. There was random information thrown in that led to nowhere. The movie was utter crap. My friends and I feel like we wasted and hour and a half of our lives watching this "movie" don't waste your time. Below are some choice words describing this movie. Nonsense, Pointless, Unnecessary. Reading the cover of this movie is even wasting time. Milking a cow would be more entertaining. The producer of this movie should be shot on the spot for even thinking about this piece of trash. If you want some slasher movie just watch Saw.


Come on now. You cant expect someone to watch a movie just cuz it is said to be banned in 43 countries can you?? Well I was victim to that. Thats the only reason why I rented. Stuck it in my DVD player hoping for a half descent movie. The nudity... ahhh its OK.. not great, but its alright. The acting????? There's no need to comment on that. The freaks?? Yeah OK they were real sideshow performers, but I thought that for example the wolf man, or wolf boy played by veekay, was really a wolf boy/man... but apparently he just had a bunch of hair stuck to his face.. So it didn't lie when it said using sideshow performers, but it wasn't what you would have expected. Like the elephant man, if there is one out there why not use him.. but it was a mask.. The make up was excellent I will give it that, but these days, its easy to make things look real. The only good part of the movie, was just gross. Im not a squeamish person, but I had to say.. wow.. looked real. And to someones comment who said "Im wondering if they used a real person or not"... what the hell are you talking about? Do you really think someone is going to get killed that way on camera for the sakes of a shitty movie?? Some people are soooooo stupid.. just for that person.. its called PROSTHETICS....

Anyways, movie was bad, acting was bad, banned in 43 countries.. more like..rejected from 43 countries cuz it was soooo FREAKing boring (haha) only good part is the 10 minute torture scene but don't rent it for that, rent something you might enjoy, like The hills have eyes.


I won't give out any spoilers even though I hated this movie...but here's why!

-The storyline was crap. It makes no sense whatsoever and is plain stupid. -There was NO character development -The freaks were nothing special at all. With the exception of maybe 1 or 2 weird looking characters(whom you rarely see and never even hear speak)the freaks in that movie are way outdated...(as in nothing shocking) and it should have simply been called "Carnaval" instead of Freakshow. -The ending was completely disappointing. Actually, the whole movie was disappointing.

All in all, this movie is not worth buying or renting. Don't even waste your bandwidth downloading this crap(if you download movies).

Perhaps this film would be considered "gory" if we were living in the year 1970.


This has to be the worst movie I have ever seen. First of all if it was supposed to be a tribute to Tod Browning's Freaks then I would feel like I had been slapped in the face. The acting was terrible! The story line is completely lame. I was excited when I heard the movie had been banned in 43 countries; this prompted me to rent the film. I was looking for some kind of spark in the film... the only shocking moment in the film was the single torture scene which to my notion is the only real acting in the film. I will say the last scene in the movie is the most brutal I have ever viewed and say I am still wondering if that whole scene was performed on an actual human being. No offense to anyone involved in the film, just not my cup of tea.

I give it a 0 for acting scale 3 for story line 10 for gross out factor.

If you like pointless suspense, poor acting, and one gory scene you will love this film.


Last 10 minutes of the movie were completely unnecessary... It was like watching a surgery, a nasty surgery... n btw I'm sure a person could die from that much blood loss, or at the very least pass out.

I don't particularly like scary movies, and this is a perfect example of why, because they're stupid, but I wanted to see this because I do like the original Freaks. The success in that movie was they left the gore to the imagination, and otherwise told a story-- that's something today's movie have no concept of. Everything is all shock appeal, and the success of a horror movie is merited to the one that makes you want to vomit the most.

The other comments were right, there is zero character development. Characters get hurt, and die gory deaths, and you really don't care, there is no effort in the screenplay to pull the movie watcher into the film; they just want to gross you out. I forced myself to not be grossed out by the last 10 minutes because I didn't want to give the makers the satisfaction of achieving that from me for this stupid movie, which had the potential to be a lot more.


The cover made it look like The Devils Rejects, the opening credits (images and choice of songs) made it look like The Hills Have Eyes, yet this movie wasn't like either. It wasn't even scary, the first hour and a half was just a waste, then they tried to pile all of the "Scary stuff" into the last 5 minutes. I had never heard of any of the actors or actresses before, and sometimes thats not a bad thing, but usually (and it was the case here) it means you're in for a low-budget film that really won't be that great. The whole movie pretty much left you wondering why you rented it in the first place. Definitely not worth the 4 bucks at blockbuster. If you want a scary movie, don't rent this one.


I am not one for censorship and don't like the idea of banning anything, but honestly I thought it was very appropriate that this movie was banned in 40+ countries.

This movie is Slow and Boring with Bad Acting, Bad Mixing, Bad Sound Engineering, etc. It sounds like traffic in the background for most of the movie. The movie has no point, constantly repeated scene stills and short carnival clips, extremely choppy, even worse then your average asylum movie.

Then there is the last 20 minutes. When the violence starts, it is your average gore fest. However, The last scene where the woman is turned into a worm is one of the worst things you could possibly see. It is not entertaining, It is not enjoyable. It is completely uncalled for. I would even understand if someone threw their rental disk away and paid the fee just so it wasn't put back on the shelf. Extremely bad taste. Even if you love horror movies like hellraiser, freddy, hills have eyes, hostile, etc. nothing is as disgusting and awful as this movie. Don't waste your money on this crap, and it's time we stop supporting asylum, they are sick people that don't belong in showbiz, and on top of that they can't even mix down their movie right.


I would have to rank this movie as my top worst if not the worst movie of all time. I don't think it's worth wasting any amount of time in your life to watch this movie! It was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen as there was no character development, very bad dialogue, very bad acting, and it moved very slowly with very bad filming... Definitely not hostel, or the hills have eyes, or house of 1000 corpses, or Texas chainsaw massacre, or any other horror flick involved. This is just a horr(ible) movie! Watch it if you have lots of time to waste and nothing better to do with your life! That's why it was banned from 43 countries, because the countries would have to pay you to see the movie!


If you are a B movie fan, this is worth a watch...maybe. I would not recommend running out and buying this. 90% bad acting, but I did like the music throughout it :P. Neat idea, but not put together well. If you're bored, and there is nothing else to watch, you might make it through it. Like everyone says, last 10 minutes are little gory, not really anything else 'bloody' in the movie (unless you count those nasty boils on his back :P)I too have seen the original Freaks, and I would not even compare them because...well...you just can't...the original was a cult classic, this one is no where near that. Glad I sat through it, just to say I have watched it :P


Not THAT boring, but not an Emmy winner either. It's basically the kind of film you'd expect to see on Cinemax at about 1 AM. I've never seen either of the main actresses in this film in anything else, which is somewhat disappointing. They're both EXTREMELY hot, and Kim Yates is quite a good actress as well.


For the 39% of Playboy Magazine subscribers (e.g.--Janet Reno, Gore Vidal, Madeleine Albright) who pay monthly for the articles rather than the pictorials, this Playboy movie will be taken primarily as a cautionary tale about the corruption of the world pharmaceutical industry. The main character Janie (the artificially enhanced Judy Thompson) works in a pharmaceutical lab. Her lover's boss, Prof. Sterling Manville (John Logan), teaches a college sex appreciation course as a front to manufacture and distribute a new hallucinogenic date-rape drug which causes users hump their pillows even if their long-time lovers have just been murdered. Meanwhile, the so-called legal medicine men turn a blind eye while working cheek by jowl with presumed deviant sex slayers. A person could pick up much the same message from the other movie I saw today (Chris Bell's excellent doc BIGGER STRONGER FASTER: THE SIDE EFFECTS OF BEING American), but who do YOU want to see with few or any clothes on: the artificially enhanced Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Ms. Thompson?


This is a sequel that has no connection to Stephen King. The only thing carried over from the original is the same location. Parts of this film are gory while violence over shadows the horror. This movie has been struck with a mean streak.

A young widower(Anthony Edwards)moves with his young son (Edward Furlong)to an old town in Maine. After hearing the legend of the pet cemetery where sometimes the dead are revived; he wants to take his mother from her grave and place her in the special burial ground in hopes of her rejoining the family. The boy's best friend's stepfather is proof that the legend is true. Some of the strangest scenes are funnier than they are scary. But don't rest easy for there are times you will flinch.

Also in the cast are: Clancy Brown, Jason McGuire and Lisa Waltz.


After witnessing the onset death of his actress mother in a most implausible way (what movie crew would use a metal fence with their actors near electricity?), child of divorce, Jeff (Furlong), is off to live with his dad permanently and must accept the fact that his parents will never get back together. Or will they? Director Lambert makes the returned dead a bit more interesting this time by making them more intelligent and cunning. Unfortunately this was primarily used as a means to portray a lot of cheesy and cheap "shocks" and even unexplained motives for the Gus (Clancy Brown) character. Gone is the endearment and tragedy of the original; substituted with excessive gore f/x and spiteful characters. Furlong, who managed to impress in his early roles with characters who had similar family of origin problems (Terminator 2, American Heart, Brain Scan, A Home of Our Own), doesn't do much here outside of sullen glares, cuss and cry "Mom!" (literally) a number of times. Overall cheesy fun for horror fans but a flop in the character and scare departments. Hard to believe Mary Lambert, director of the first film, is responsible for this major disappointment of a sequel to the superior original. The ending suggests a setup for a sequel. I suppose we can all feel lucky this franchise remained buried after all.


I have to say that Pet Sematary II was the biggest load of rubbish I have ever insulted my eyes with watching. I should have been forewarned with the bizarre spelling of "cemetery" -- why they didn't spell it correctly in the first place... I'll never know.

What the hell was up with the ending credits with all that sad music and pictures of the people who died? It's not a -documentary-, it's a pathetic excuse for a thriller/horror film. The acting was dodgy, the script was bemusing and the plot was utterly ridiculous.

The psycho zombie dog was mildly amusing, but I'm not sure it was supposed to be. What was the film trying to do? Was it a spoof of a horror film? It failed at an attempt to fit into any genre of film other than "trash". I found the entire movie to be contrived, boring and stupid, and I wouldn't watch it again even someone paid me!


"Pet Sematary II" tried too hard. The makers of this film tried to be like Stephen King, and failed miserably. I sat through this movie with the worst feeling. It was so unrealistic in a bad way, and the violence was inappropriate. "Pet Sematary" was a work of art by the master, Stephen King. "Pet Sematary II" was a work of trash by some wannabe. The acting was fine, but they couldn't save the movie if their lives depended on it. The nudity was in all the wrong places. The doctor has a fantasy about his dead wife, and her head turns into that of a barking dog. It was sick, disgusting, and way too many people died. Did you notice how there weren't very many deaths in "Pet Sematary"? Well in "II", there were tons. Way too many. This movie was horrible. If you want to see a good sequel, see "Scream 2" or "Scream 3". I gave it a 1 out of 10.


This is the most idiot and meaningless zombie movie I've ever seen. Pet Sematary I is a horror classic, but this is an A-bomb.

The characters' depth is non-existent, the movie is boring, the kid is boring, the bully is ridiculous and the sheriff was a zombie before he was dead. You begin to hope for some postal worker to assault and destroy that town. But no, probably even the postal workers of that town are boring.

The violence is gratuitous, not funny, and the final credits sequence with the faces of the people who died almost made me puke. That was the final blow: I lied catatonic over the couch, in true disbelief -- DUHHH...


...it might come back as a sequel that is even worse than this one. For the record I actually liked the first Pet Sematary. While not being the best book-to-movie adaptation, it had its moments. This one has none.

Premise: A son loses his mother in a fatal accident on a movie set. The boy's father moves to the same town that the Creed family died in. things start to happen when a boy loses his dog "Zowie" to a gunshot would by his abusive step dad who is also a sheriff. The boy buries his dog in the same Indian burial set and things get worse from there.

Opinion: This was one pointless sequel. At least the characters in the first movie had a method to their madness. The characters in this movie are just plain stupid. The acting is bland and the story is backwards. The characters who die and come back to life have more personality as a reincarnated corpse than they did when they were alive. How insane is that? Plus this movie leaves questions unanswered? Why would Gus bury Clyde in the sacred burial ground after he killed him? It makes no sense as is the son who buries his abusive stepfather in the same burial site. If you saw that you dead dog came back to life more deranged wouldn't you think your spiteful step dad would come back more psychotic than he originally was? I didn't feel an ounce of sympathy for that pudgy idiot when Gus killed him and his mother. Stupid! If you want a better horror movie from Stephen King check out Misery. That was a classic. Pet Sematary Two is just a rotting, flea-infested dog of a sequel that should have never made it to the cutting room floor.


While PET 2 features the same director as PET 1, it is far inferior. Essentially what we have here is a zombie movie, minus the thrills. A veterinarian loses his wife to a freak accident and ends up moving with his young son to the town that houses the legendary and mysterious pet cemetery. Before you know it, once-dead animals and people are once again walking all over the place, raising holy hell. Anthony Edwards of ER fame is the vet and Ed Furlong is his son. Edwards is boring and Furlong is unconvincing as someone who becomes obsessed with bringing back the dead. The one saving grace here is Clancy Brown as a sadistic sheriff who dies and comes back absolutely delighted to be undead. Brown carries most of the movie, and is loads of fun as he slaughters the living and generally wreaks mayhem. The rest is hogwash and the story lacks internal logic (for instance, Brown kills the town bully and then revives him, but why?). The gore is stepped up a bit from the original, but this is because there are more flesh-eating dead people walking around this time.


I enjoyed the first "Pet Sematary" and rented this because I wanted some cheesy entertainment. It won't disappoint if one is looking for cheese, but on most every other front it will. The main problem is that Edward Furlong, our protagonist, has virtually nothing to do. Clearly he was cast because of his participation in "Terminator 2." While I find Furlong to be somewhat grating (the pubescent cracking of the voice and the eyes glowering under too-long bangs), he did create a coherent character in "T2." Yet here he is given very little dialogue and exists to merely sleepwalk through scenes. I kept waiting for him to respond to his tormentors with some biting comment, or have some insight into death, but he is a cipher. If he had been a proactive character--at least as interesting as the bully and the abusive sheriff--this movie would have been an above average horror.


Mary Lambert's "Pet Sematary II" of 1992 is an unpleasant and unscary sequel and only bearable due to a few cool gory scenes and some decent performances. The original "Pet Seamatary" of 1989 (also directed by Lambert) was certainly no Horror-highlight, and I personally found it to be overrated by many of my fellow Horror fans, but it was still an atmospheric and entertaining film that had many creepy moments. The sequel, however, is a vast disappointment for a Horror fan like myself, since it doesn't really deliver any creepiness or suspense.

After the death of his celebrity mother, teenager Jeff Matthews (Edward Furlong) moves away from LA with his father Chase (Anthony Edwards), a veterinarian. As luck would have it, the father and son move, out of all small towns, to Ludlow, Maine, the nice little backwater we all know from the first movie...

"Pet Sematary II" is a (boring, badly made) drama about the struggles of adolescents more than it is a Horror movie. There is simply hardly any suspense in this (probably because the screenplay wasn't written by Stephen King, as it was the case in the first movie), and many scenes that are meant to be creepy are, if anything, more funny than scary. I admit that there are a few entertaining and gory scenes, but that's simply not enough to counteract a boring plot and the lack of suspense. The only noteworthy performance is that of Clancy Brown, who plays the town's Sheriff, an arrogant and aggressive prick. Brown fits very well in his role, his performance is one of the few positive things about "Pet Sematary II". Otherwise, the performances are forgettable, Edward Furlong and Anthony Edwards were not necessarily bad, but I can't say their performances memorabe in any way either.

The first "Pet Sematary" was definitely no Horror masterpiece, but this sequel makes it look like a Dario Argento movie. "Pet Sematary II" has a few fun scenes, but, honestly spoken, there's better ways to waste your time. 3/10


Simply put, this movie is awful! IT has nothing to do at all with the first movie, and lacks a plot- and a heartbeat for that matter. The first Pet Sematary is truly a classic and Stephen King would let Gage Saw his achilles' tendon (as he did to Jud) if he saw this god-awful sequel.

SKIP IT!! 3/10 (riding on a good effort by Furlong)


I have 3 words for this movie; I-Hate-It. I hate it! I watched this in our school field trip once, and it automatically sucks! This is a piece of crap slapped with a bunch of dead animals and freaks. First of all I want to give a shout-out to the film producer Ralph Singleton and Director Mary Lambert; "Hello?! Have you ever heard of AA-NII-MAAL RIII-GHTSSS???" Oh, I'm sorry... It's just this movie sucks anyway! Thanks a lot Stephen King! I'm gonna kick your @** for this, not really.

Sigh... And the story goes, the beginning sucks a lot; who would have thought of putting a real iron fence as a prop! They could have at least used... well... just like this movie, PLASTIC! Then the protagonist shouts "Moooooooommm!" Several times... what a Drama Queen! Yeah it's gay. A little later in the vet, a bunch kitties were sent... blah... blah... blah... then the protagonist's friend came in with a Siberian Husky (Hey, I like that dog!). Then, a few minutes later, the kitties turned into shrapnel, poom! Kitty go bye bye! A few more minutes, the dog was shot dead by that freak police officer. The dog is then buried, a little later, freaky police officer turned into freakier police officer after being bit by a zombie dog... ooh... ah... scary... Not!

A few more minutes later... This the worst part I've seen and I want to kill them! Those harmless bunnies are torn apart and turned into dinner, I thought those things hanging in the cage were a bunch of stuffed toys, turns out to be rabbits! W.T.F.?! Gah! Only an d-bag would do that! At the near end the ghost mother shouted "blah... blah... (I forgot) Dead is better! Dead is better! Oh, God!" Oh, shut up b****! At the end the father and his son went off, away from that scumbag town! And the last part, showing the characters faces at the side, yeah... It's a barf bag! What a Cornball!

By the way, my fictional nation considers this as the most controversial movie, because it's disrespecting! They shot a dog, which is sacred in the nation, showed some kittens that turned into shrapnel, mutilated a rabbit (so sad! They are a bunch of heartless morons!) and showed a taxidermized Pug (the most respected of all dogs in the nation) with an eye that doesn't fit, now it looked like the eye just popped off! My people are animal lovers! The Animal Liberation Front of Teryl (Teryl is my fictional country, I made it since I was in 4th grade, I'm in 12th grade now!) should have protested against this, and ban this for good!

The movie's story is crap, the acting is just cheesy, and the lines are lame! Indeed, I'm an animal lover, mostly dog person! If you're an animal lover like me, destroy the VHS, VCD, or DVD or anything that played this crap, burn it, shred it, just don't bury it in the Pet Sematary in Maine! Okay, that's a little drastic... just curse Mary Lambert instead, it's her fault anyway!

Overall I give this a 1 out of 10! That's it, I'm done!


When first saw Pet Cemetery II I wasn't expecting anything that would come close to the original, and I was right. First off the film isn't anything like the original the only thing remaining from the first film is the pet cemetery all other aspects of the first that made it good have been changed. The plot is basically a kid and his father move back to the town after the death of their mother/ex-wife, the kids makes friends with another kid who's dog dies and they bury it in the cemetery, well I think you know the rest. The predictability of the entire plot was just sad, I mean I could guess exactly what would happen next. The acting was average nothing horrible, nothing special. The film although directed by the person from the first was nothing like the first, whereas the first film used suspense and dark atmosphere with only very minor gore effects, The second film skips the suspense and atmosphere and goes straight for the gore, It seems like the director wanted to go in a different direction with this film in order to make it more action-packed, it really doesn't work. Overall this film ends up being everything the first wasn't, predictable, weak and just downright stupid. If your a fan of the original I wouldn't recommend this to you at all considering all the things you loved about the first have disappeared in this one.


The first Pet Sematary by the same director, Mary Lambert, is genuinely creepy and scary and contains couple of great shocks which stay in your mind. This sequel is much worse and was pretty hard to sit through when I watched it for the second time.

Plot includes again a dead person who leads the characters to the mysterious cemetery from the first film, and soon they decide to try that wonderful idea of getting someone dead back to life with the "help" of that old burial ground which has been used by indians. What follows is human and animal zombies, couple of atmospheric moments and stupid gore. In other words, pretty lame a film.

At times, the film is purely ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. But the character played by the great Clancy Brown (Blue Steel, Highlander) is funny to watch and pretty effective "dead" man..But I can't recommend this to anyone real horror fanatic because most of the time, this is stupid and boring. And the violence tries to be more brutal than in the first film but it fails pretty miserably. I think it is stupid to make splatter films when you have to keep the R in mind..And horror film to be scary, effective and atmospheric, the use of effects is definitely not a must. See the first film and don't rush seeing this sequel.

3/10


"Pet Sematary 2" is a totally unnecessary sequel to the first "Pet Sematary",which has to be one of my favourite horror movies of all time.Instead of suspense it is loaded with gore and repulsive violence.The acting is pretty bad,the characters are one-dimensional and the film is completely idiotic in places(for example how our boys managed to carry the body of Gus through the quagmire?).If you're a gore-hound then you will be able to handle this little flick(there are better gorefests,though),but if you like scary horror movies avoid this trash like the plague.3 out of 10.


BOY THIS MOVIE SUCKS!

I can't put my word on it, it's just CRAP! The original was at least a bit entertaining and spooky and scary and so. This ''movie'' sickens me. D-I-S-G-U-S-T-I-N-G!

Almost as bad as the worst movie ever, the sequel to THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE.

Please.

By the way, if you like this movie you do realize that you have no taste of art what so ever? I really hope so. Bye.

BOMB 0/10


This is terrible. Not that I expected much, but this was my first walk out. Mid date, I just got up and left. Oh, and this may be a spoiler... Even if you do watch this, you may want to cover your eyes during the rabbit mutilation.


Let me start by saying that this "movie" is just pure rubbish. It proves that the creators had only one thing on their mind: "How can we make as much money as possible with no effort at all?"

The story isn't new, but that's OK. Someone or something dies and the ones who are left behind have a hard time to live without their loved one. But there is a solution. If they bury the death person, dog, cat,... on an ancient Indian cemetery he or it will live again ... as a zombie. A good director can do some great things with this, with or without a lot of special effects. But this clearly isn't a good director.

I know, from a commercial point of view a sequel or a prequel to a popular movie is very interesting. You can be sure that a lot of people will watch it. But why do you have to insult your fans with such an awful movie? Do they really think that a lot of gore, a dog with red eyes and a dumb zombie will make a great movie??? I sure hope not! Perhaps in the early fifties, sixties and seventies they could scare people with that kind of uninspired nonsense, but today they will have to come up with a lot better.

If I have to give my advice to someone who didn't see it yet: DON'T WATCH IT! There are a lot of good movies, but don't watch this one! You'll only regret it. Not because it is too scary or whatever, but just because it is a pure waste of your time! I think a lot of people will agree with me if I say that this so-called movie isn't worth much more than a 2 or a 3 out of 10.


OK I'm 15 and i saw this movie one night after band.................i thought it was the worst possible thing ever i mean i have seen SO....many movies because my family are movie freaks so ya.......There was no music thats was it sounded like all together, the scenes were god awful and the whole movie was all together fake looking and u can tell it basically looks like a slide show thats animated and was photo shopped it was a disaster. After i had seen this movie i compared it in my head with the first and how the first one was based off the book i can see that it was extremely better in my eyes but to all you people that like it can you tell me what was going through your head when you saw this movie. Im not trying to be mean its just i don't get it.


Naturally, I would hate this movie, because Eddward Furlong is in it. Sadly, that isn't the only reason this sucks. The acting is crap, the plot is forgettable and horror is cheesy. The fact that there is too much violence and not enough atmosphere ruins this movie (the first one sucked too).

I obviously wouldn't recommend this movie to any one with a sense of taste for movies. The actors are awful! (especially Edward Furlong) This movie really just seems like an excuse to desensitize people to violence.

In closing, this movie is pretty lowsy and deserves to be on the bottom 100. If you like movies with strong plots and powerful acting, don't waste your time with this.


I had vague memories of seeing this when it came out in 1992. I hated the first one but I had some hope that maybe the sequel would be better. I remember hating it worse than the first one! Seeing it again last night (Why? Damned if I know) all those feelings came rushing back.

The plot is basically a retread of the first--a spooky cemetary in the Maine woods has the power to bring the dead back to life. Naturally the dead come back as killers.

The first one was a cruel, stupid horror film. This one manages to be even crueller and much, much stupider. The script is horrible--full of unlikable characters and has an extremely mean-spirited tone to it. The movie opens with a young boy seeing his mother electrocuted to death and then cuts to a dog being put to sleep by lethal injection! That's just the opening--all through the movie there are vivid scenes of child and animal abuse shoved in your face. It makes you feel dirty and disgusted. Also there's a truly sick (and unnecessary) rape scene and pointless female nudity. And there's some really sick, graphic gore.

The direction is lackluster and (with one exception) all the actors are terrible--Anthony Edwards appears to be sleepwalking and Edward Furlong is just pathetic in the lead role.

The only thing that makes this film bearable is Clancy Brown's hilarious performance as a resurrected sheriff. But that's not enough to sit through this crap.

Cruel, sick, badly acted, badly directed, stupid script--to be avoided at all costs. This definetely does belong in IMDB's bottom 100.


During the 1930s, there were quite a few god-awful musicals that are awfully hard to stomach today. That's because unlike other musicals, the songs were almost operatic in style and high-pitched warbling abounded. Now you probably are immediately reminded of Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy's films, though there were some that came out before theirs that were actually far more difficult to stomach--the films were so old fashioned and the singing so dreadful. Oddly, the studio heads even placed Laurel and Hardy in a few of these musical monstrosities--they were that popular an 'art' form at the time.

Here in ONE HEAVENLY NIGHT, we've got all the makings of a terrible old musical. The singing is among the most high-pitched and ear-shattering, the songs are dull, the acting (at times) is suspect, the film features comic relief (Leon Erol) that isn't all that funny and the love story is rather creepy.

Let's talk about the love story for a moment. The film begins with a not especially attractive lady singing a song rather poorly. Yet despite this, the men in the audience respond like she's "Swing Shift Cinderella" (from the Tex Avery cartoon) and begin hooting and hollering and acting like horny dogs. After a riot, the police order this sex kitten out of the city but instead she sends a similar looking friend. This friend (Evelyn Laye) has dreamed about the life of a vamp and she's quick to agree to the masquerade. However, the vamp's reputation proceeds her and the Count in the town she arrives in assumes she's an easy sexual conquest. When he practically rapes Laye (great name, huh?), she runs off and realizes she doesn't want to be a vamp! Yet, oddly, later the Count realizes he actually loves Laye and wants to marry her, not just lay Laye. And so the two kiss and live happily ever after! Aside from promoting date rape, this plot is really, really hard to believe and is made all the worse by the couple periodically breaking into song.

Overall, the idea behind the plot isn't bad but the execution and romance are so god-awful I can't recommend the film.


This original operetta was a flop in 1930 and still is, despite good production values (no surprise, with Goldwyn as producer) a shimmering leading lady (Evelyn Laye) and a fun supporting turn by Lilyan Tashman. The songs by Clifford Grey, Herb Nacio Brown, Edward Eliscu and Bruno Granichstaedten are mildly pleasant, nothing more, and a musical with a boring book (by Sidney Howard, of all people!) needs superior songs to float, and these second- rate numbers don't help. Finally the enterprise sinks completely during long and tiresome slapstick routines performed by Leon Errol. Sometimes the viewer wonders whether this production was meant to be a conventional operetta or a variety show. John Boles as the romantic lead exudes more energy than in his straight dramatic roles and sings well, but not often enough to put a dent in the tedium. Students of cultural history will find this film interesting as an example of why screen musicals became unpopular for a time. It's too bad Laye had to be in a turkey for her American sound film debut. She had everything it took to be a major player.


I know this film has its defenders, and the opening scenes are promising, but I have to say that in the end I found Two Seconds unsatisfying, despite some interesting elements along the way. Edward G. Robinson is an actor I almost always admire, even when his material isn't up to par, but in the final scenes here his performance is overwrought and unconvincing. For the finale he throws all restraint out the window and indulges himself in over-the-top histrionics, as if to compensate for a script that didn't rise to the occasion. To be fair, he was miscast in the role of naive, simple-minded construction worker John Allen; Robinson was pushing 40 when this film was made and his childlike pronouncements in the early scenes just don't ring true. If this had been made in the 1940s perhaps Broderick Crawford or even Lon Chaney Jr. might have made this character credible, but Robinson's intelligence shines through too plainly for us to accept him as an oddly virginal blue-collar guy who turns homicidal.

The premise is that what we are seeing represents the thoughts in a condemned man's mind during the last two seconds that his brain still functions, as he dies in the electric chair. That's the hook which provides the title, but it's little more than a gimmick for framing the story: what unfolds in John Allen's mind is a straightforward narrative of the events leading to the capital crime he committed, presented in the familiar style of a '30s crime flick. (And the screenplay violates its own gimmick, for there are sequences in Allen's flashback that occur when he isn't present, explaining things he doesn't know, which are therefore "memories" he couldn't have.) From the beginning the script sets up expectations it fails to meet. In an early scene when John is working high above Manhattan with his friend Bud on the frame of an unfinished office building, he looks down on the people below and delivers a speech comparing them to ants that suggests a seminal version of Harry Lime's famous speech in The Third Man. We're prepared to expect that John will come to fancy himself some kind of Nietzsche-like 'Superman,' and that his crime will derive from a sense of superiority over others, but nothing in his subsequent behavior follows from this speech. Instead, John's actions are motivated by deep-seated feelings about the proper relationship between men and women --and perhaps unspoken feelings for Bud, his friend and longtime roommate. More directly, John's crime is provoked by his rage toward his grasping wife Shirley, who tricked him into marriage by getting him blotto drunk and who indirectly contributes to the accidental death of Bud.

Shirley is well played by Vivienne Osbourne, an actress I'd never seen before, who is vivid in a two-dimensional, underwritten role. Shirley, like John, is another character who is strangely inconsistent from scene to scene, but she eventually settles into the familiar movie staple of no-good trollop, a parasite who marries John for his steady paycheck and showers him with contempt when his health fails and the paychecks are no longer coming in. We're given no credible reason whatever why Shirley stays with him, and when she seeks work as a dancer at her former place of employment it seems like a smart survival tactic, but this is where the story's true thesis kicks in: John is now the parasite because he's living off his wife's earnings.

The script becomes increasingly shrill and hysterical as it reaches these final scenes, and Robinson's performance follows suit. What's interesting is that John's speeches reflect the panic felt by a lot of men of his era over the painful fact that they were no longer the breadwinners in their households. As the Depression deepened and more and more men were jobless, a growing number of women, married or not, had to earn income through secretarial work, factory work, needlework, clerking in shops, or less savory pursuits. It's bluntly implied that Shirly isn't making all her money by dancing, and it's her success in earning "low" money that provokes John's rage. He states repeatedly that a man who lives off his wife's earnings is no better than a rat, and after he's killed her he complains that since he's become a "man" once more it's entirely unfair to punish him for it!

Did the people who made Two Seconds believe this? I seriously doubt it, but does that mean we are to dismiss John as crazy and ignore his rants? It isn't entirely clear, and I wish the screenwriters had worked out their themes (and followed their intriguing premise) more carefully before the cameras rolled. Even so, this is an interesting, unusual movie which stands as a fascinating reflection of the period when it was made. Still, for a truly great performance by Edward G. Robinson I'll take Little Caesar or Double Indemnity any day.


Most old B-movie buffs know Mantan Moreland as the sidekick for Charlie Chan in the later Monogram Pictures Chan films. In this role, he was often very funny but also the embodiment of what many Black Americans hated about Hollywood during the era. He was almost always cast as the scared Black man who overreacted as White folks laughed their heads off at his antics. He was quite funny, but at the same time this reinforced a negative and paternalistic stereotype. Now I do NOT recommend people avoid his films--after all, throwing out his films would do a disservice to his talents and living in a 100% politically correct world where we cannot allow evidence of "incorrect thinking" is a scary prospect indeed. But be aware of this before you watch the film--you could easily be offended. Oddly, however, while this is definitely a horror film featuring Mantan reacting to zombies and the like again and again, his antics weren't nearly as offensive as usual. Plus, oddly, he had one of the best vocabularies of any character from his age--using very high-brow words AND using them in the correct context! So, while Moreland might have been a negative role model in one way, in another he showed that a Black man can be very bright and articulate as well (now THAT'S a first in film).

Apart from Moreland, the rest of the film is a pretty flimsy story about a plane that crashes onto an unnamed Caribbean island. There they are assisted by a guy who obviously is a German but the three men never seem to catch on and put 2 and 2 together! While the US was not yet in the war when the film was made, WWII was in full swing and only a group of idiots wouldn't have guessed what was really occurring! Because the heroes were too stupid to live and the plot was handled so much better in films like WHITE ZOMBIE and I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, this film is totally skip-able. However, if you do watch, don't expect it to be either bad or good--sort of like the VELVETA of films.


KING OF THE ZOMBIES begins with a three-man airplane crew making an emergency landing on a remote island. It's there they find the home of an eccentric doctor, his servants and, of course, an attractive young woman. Things get even more bizarre when a few individuals from the non-living ranks -- the result of the fine doctor's experiments, we learn -- begin roaming around.

Despite the potential for black and white B-movie fun, KING OF THE ZOMBIES is a very forgettable, unspooky effort. It's a slow mover with too much buildup and not enough reward. Fans often point to the antics of Mantan Moreland, playing the pilot's black servant, as the saving grace. However, Moreland is more of an annoying distraction, to say nothing of the racial stereotype he represents (of course this was 1941). In trying to strike a balance between humor and horror, the film succeeds in neither.

Whatever you think of KING OF THE ZOMBIES, it will most certainly go down as the most unlikely picture ever nominated for an Oscar. Incredibly, it was up for the 1942 Academy Award in the Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic Picture category. That fact is actually more unbelievable than the plot of this or any other zombie movie!


In World War II, during a storm, a small plane crashes in an island between Cuba and Porto Rico, but the pilot James 'Mac' McCarthy (Dick Purcell) and his two passengers, Bill Summers (John Archer) and his black servant Jeff Jackson (Mantan Moreland), survive. Bill is in a mission trying to find Admiral Arthur Wainwright (Guy Usher), who vanished in that area. They are lodged by the Austrian Dr. Mikhail Sangre (Henry Victor) in his mansion. The scared Jeff finds that the place has zombies, but Mac and Bill do not believe on him. Later, they find that Dr. Sangre is a spy transferring the knowledge of the admiral and other prominent persons to the zombies.

I saw the Oscar nominated "King of the Zombies" in a Brazilian cable television expecting to see a great zombie movie, but I was completely disappointed. The story is simply ridiculous, with an awful actor (Mantan Moreland) unsuccessfully trying to be funny. There is no definition if this low-budget movie is a bad comedy or a terrible horror movie. But certainly it is a forgettable C-movie, and surprisingly there are IMDb users that enjoyed and recommend this not-worth to see flick. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Rei dos Zumbis" ("King of the Zombies")


I found this movie a year back in a collection of horror films from a friend. We sat and watched this one first, and we found ourselves cracking up. This film rotates around 3 young men, stranded on a strange island after their plane goes down. While exploring, they find natives who repeat to them again and again that there are "zombies" walking around the island. This is by no means a horror film. If anything, it's good for laughs. Some of which would be the visible strings holding up their "airplane" at the beginning of the movie, and a man who is convinced that he is a voodoo zombie. The actor for this part is very silly, and i'm sure that he was a comedian outside of this film. With one of the most cliché'd endings ever, a funny opening, and everything in-between, King of the Zombies is good for a laugh, but please don't buy it for it's "horror" appeal. you'll be disappointed if you do. Watch this film with your kids, if nothing else. There's nothing here that a 4-year old would flinch at. worth a buck or two.


An American special agent (Dick Purcell), accompanied by his assistant and valet ( the continuously wise-cracking Mantan Moreland) and an aviator, sets off in search of a missing U. S. Admiral whose plane has crashed on a Caribbean island during World War II. While searching, the men get lost in a fog and can't make any radio contact, but they do make radio contact with someone friendly speaking a language they don't understand, which appears to be German, a language - of course - widely spoken in the Caribbean. As luck should have it, our heroes' plane also crashes and they are helped by a solicitous German whose wife is even more insane than he is. Afte the crash, with the plane lying there in round' thousand pieces, our heroes walk out unharmed, without so much as a scratch, with their suits in perfect condition.

Zombies and voodoo practises form the main background in this forgettable romp of B-movie nonsense by director Jean Yarbrough, who made a slew of B-movie hokum (over 50 films) during the '30s, '40s and early '50s, like THE DEVIL BAT (1940), THE SHE-WOLF OF London (1946), JACK AND THE BEANSTALK(1952), and the more critically acclaimed CRASHING LAS VEGAS (1956)," plus a number of films with Abbot & Costello, like IN SOCIETY (1944) and LOST IN ALSKA (1952). Later in his career, during the '50s and '60s, he directed several episodes of TV-shows like "Navy Log", "Gunsmoke", "Petticoat Junction" and "My Favorite Martian."

Sadly, this film hasn't much on offer. It's bad in pretty much every department. On paper, you would think Nazis and zombies would make an entertaining combination, but not in this film. It's short on action most of the time, with plenty of unintentional laughs though. It's certainly not the worst of its kind, and I can imagine it could have a certain appeal to fans of old B-flicks, but most of the film is just incredibly dull. In one scene, we see a confrontation with one of the zombies and all we get is some lame wrestling with a black extra, who is supposedly a zombie, but he has no make-up, is not scary, not funny, just ridiculous. The most amazing thing about this chunk of cheeze is that the music score received an Oscar nomination for "Best Musical Score of a Dramatic Picture."

Camera Obscura --- 4/10 (- which is very generous)


"During World War II, an American agent, his butler and a plot are searching for a missing admiral when their plane crash lands on a Caribbean island. Taken in by a German doctor and his strange wife, the trio discovers the island inhabited by zombies under the control of Dr. Sangre. The doctor is attempting to use the zombies to extract information from the missing admiral to help his country's war efforts. Through the efforts of the butler, the heroes are able to turn the tables on Dr. Sangre and set his zombies against him," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

The predominance of Black actor Mantan Moreland (as Jefferson "Jeff" Jackson) in the film makes this a great one to watch for the "type" of racial character depicted. Pedagogical interests aside, "King of the Zombies" is a dull attempt to frighten and amuse. Strangely, Edward Kay's musical score was nominated for an Academy Award; Mr. Kay received five score nominations in the 1940s. Henry Victor (as Dr. Sangre) is a Lugosi-like zombie-maker. John Archer (as Bill Summers) and Dick Purcell (as Mac McCarthy) are one too many heroes. Resident "maid" Marguerite Whitten (as Samantha) and "voodoo high priestess" Madame Sul-Te-Wan (as Tahama) easily outdistance the higher-billed women.

** King of the Zombies (1941) Jean Yarbrough ~ Mantan Moreland, Henry Victor, John Archer


TRIVIA: Three of the main players -- the male co-lead (Dick Purcell), the Admiral (Guy Usher) and the Mad Doctor (Henry Victor) all died within four years of making this 1941 mystery-comedy-voodoo film.

As for the movie itself, 65 years after it was made, and considering the social and political atmosphere of that day, it's hard to fault the writers or director for what was considered standard fare back then. The movie was assuredly cheaply made and was only held up by the comedy relief of Mantan Moreland. The treatment of servants and the demeaning stereotypes portrayed here chill us today, but were common and expected in an era where segregation was a way of life, people could actually smoke in hospital rooms, when drunkards were usually funny (especially when driving) and when seat belts were unheard of. We have indeed come a long way. ~~


During WWII, a plane crashes on a small island. The three men aboard (Mac, Bill, and a servant, Jeff) survive and find their way to a mansion. The creepy doctor who lives there takes them in and introduces them to his catatonic wife. Immediately, Jeff suspects there is something wrong going on, but the other two guys seem fine with the fact that the woman is walking around comatose. After talking with the house servants, Jeff is convinced the house is full of black zombies. Turns out he's right, and the evil nazi doctor has reanimated the corpses through a voodoo priestess.

As many films made during this time with black characters, this movie relies on blatant racial stereotypes. However, Mantan Moreland is really the saving grace of this otherwise yawn of a movie. His "easily scared" bug-eyed routine is boring, but when the comedy isn't rooted in racism, he gets to deliver some hilarious lines (the dialogue is often very witty--"can I help it if I'm loquacious?") and it is clear to see this man was a natural comedian. There's lots of talent in this movie, especially by the black cast who did the best with the awful material they were given. But overall, it is too silly with an abrupt anti-climax and not worth seeking-out unless a fan of Moreland.

My Rating: 3/10.


"King of the Zombies" is a prime example of Hollywood's blatant racial stereo typing of black actors and actresses in the 30's and 40s.

 The story is a typical "B" movie plot. A secret service man or something like that (John Archer), his valet (Mantan Moreland) and a pilot (Dick Purcell) are searching for Admiral Wainwright (Guy Usler) who has disappeared over an isolated island in the Caribbean. Their plane loses radio contact and is forced to crash land on, you guessed it, that very same island. They then find a creepy mansion inhabited by Dr. Sangre (Henry Victor) and several zombie like creatures. Turns out the evil doctor is a Nazi spy trying to learn military secrets from the admiral. Joan Woodbury is the heroine of the piece. And we're not quite sure where the zombies (all black of course) come from. Are they hypnotized or the result of some voodoo magic? Who really cares?

 The racial overtones are very obvious in this picture. When sleeping quarters are being assigned, Moreland is told that he cannot stay in the upstairs bedrooms but has to sleep in the servant's quarters off of the kitchen. The dialogue between Moreland (who steals the picture by the way) and the fetching Marguerite Whitten as the maid, Samantha are pure Hollywood. There's plenty of wide eyed "feet do yo' stuff" reactions as well as, the usual "yassir massa" types of speeches. It is appalling to see such fine talented people degraded like this. Moreland, to his credit, made the best of a bad situation and forged a lengthy career out of playing the banjo-eyed scared out of his wits friend of many "B" movie heroes.

 It is also curious why Victor was cast as the chief villain in a Bela Lugosi type role when Lugosi himself was probably available at the time. Both he and Boris Karloff were making "B" movie quickies for Monogram at the time.


1st watched 8/16/2009 - 2 out of 10 (Dir-Jean Yarbrough): Lame and boring zombie movie where every scene appears manufactured and contrived. The story involves a couple pilots and a servant who crash on an island and encounter a strange doctor and his weird counterparts. He, of course, welcomes them to his mansion quite graciously but the servant realizes early on that things aren't right with him. Of course, he sees the zombies on the Island and no-one believes him initially because he's just a servant. The plot becomes a lot more complicated when we realize there is also a lost admiral whom the mad doctor is trying to get information out of by hypnotizing him. The complications in the plot really don't help the movie because it moves at such a slow pace and even the zombies are pretty ho-hum. There is also a very lame comedy attempt thrown in with using a racist portrayal of a black man with big eyes providing the hucks, although they are obviously borrowed from other movies. And then of course, the mean count has the Lugosi-like foreign accent and the local folk get involved with the voodie attempts on the admiral. I really can't believe how many of these type of movies were made in this timeframe. Hopefully they weren't all this bad.


Single mom Rosemary Zoltanne (Markie Post) and her smart-ass teen daughter Sarah (Sarah Chalke) move from L.A. to a big house in Massachusetts where a witch was burned at the stake 300 years earlier. Sarah makes friends with a geeky outsider (Ben Foster) but also attracts the attention of teen members of the "Descendant's Club"-- obnoxious jocks (led by Christian Campbell, brother of Neve) and the high school bitch queens (led by Soleil Moon Frye) who think she's the reincarnation of the dead witch. Sarah gets harassing phone calls ("I've been waiting for you!") and a masked killer with a steel claw lurks around.

This is resolutely typical post SCREAM/I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER fare (supposedly from the "author" of the latter) with offscreen violence, but the performances are surprisingly good and it's watchable, though it all seems like a big build-up to nothing by the end.

I didn't know it at the time when I rented the video, but frequent fade-outs to black and someone credited with the teleplay soon made me realize I'd rented a TV movie that was inexplicably (and erroneously!) rated R to bulk up it's distribution value. Don't be expecting to find gore, nudity or four-letter words in this film.


Actually it wasn't too bad for a made for TV horror and post-Scream outing. "I've Been Waiting For You" (another eye grabbing title) is a feebly light-weight teenage aimed story mixing elements of witchcraft (leading girl interested in the occult / the town living in fear of a curse) / slasher staples (killer with metal claws, black cloak and a hokey looking mask) that when it came to the crunch it's rather diluted, but doesn't hurt. Fashionable, but formulaic we've seen it all before. The story (taken off the novel of Lois Duncan --- Gallows Hill --- who was also behind "Stranger in Our House" and "I know What You Did Last Summer") might consist of messy plot details (trying to be too clever at times, than letting it flow), an terribly incoherent staged climax (which is risible for all the wrong reasons and so are the flimsy attacks sequences) and bestowing a heavy-handed script, but in all it keeps you wrapped within the shallow mystery thanks to largely the agreeable performances (of mainly not particularly likable characters). Sarah Chalke is exceptionally good in the lead, giving her character spunk with her smart-lipped lines. The rest of the cast get your basic teenage sketching. Director Christopher Leitch (''Teen Wolf too'' (1987), oh yeah!) offers no real surprises by doing a pedestrian job, creating a decent image or two, but suspense and atmosphere is weakly conceived. Even though it begins to lose its puff towards the end, gladly the time still breezes by if transparently.


Here we have another so-called horror flick made only for tasteless teenagers or fans of modern teen flicks like "Urban Legend" or "Scream".No violence,no real thrills,only a lot of predictable cliches.Oh,and there's also incredibly dumb sequence when one girl is scared to death by strange masked figure(Ha!Ha!).I hate those completely commercial 90's slasher films.If you want good eerie horror movie rent "Texas Chain Saw Massacre","Wolfen" or my favourite "Scarecrows",but stay away from this crap.My rating:3/10.


Its barely a one out of 10! The movie was a complete disaster! The acting was watchable I'll give it that, but the entire movie was just too out there. I mean, this guy running around with an X Men style weapon.....nobody finds that just a wee bit on the stupid side??? I don't mean to offend anyone who likes this movie, but I am only stating my opinion. I've never read the novel that this movie is supposed to be based on, but according to other comments by other watchers, it was nothing like the movie. In my opinion, thats one of the worst thing a director can do to a writer. It makes me upset when they take a writers work and completely change the story to draw an audience. This sort of thing happened in Maeve Binchy's classic "Circle of Friends". It was a great book, then when was made into a movie, the story changed. The ending was even changed. Anyway, I don't mean to rant. In a short; "I've Been Waiting For You" is a great example of a terrible movie.

~kolohehele


A sarcophagus containing the remains of a Hatian voodoo priest is taken aboard a cruise ship and guess what? That's a bad thing. For the voodoo priest isn't dead, and he wreaks havoc. Most of the reason for wreaking havoc seems to be that his long-lost lover, Kenya, seems to be on board, but Kenya is played by a different actress than the woman that this man now has his sights set on, Sylvia. Not to mention that one seems to be black and one seems to be white. I say "seems" because it also seems that it's hard to tell what race people are supposed to be in this because they keep changing. ?? Now, Sylvia is the secretary and love object of Dr. Kessling, who is the man who is responsible for transporting the sarcophagus to a museum, and he also seems to have discovered the secret of its occupant, who manages to change places with an incoming professor and take his place, that is, after that particular poor soul is run over by a steam roller, egad. I really don't know how to better describe this but it's like "Love Boat goes horror" flick in the hands of some of the most incompetent film makers you could imagine. Incredibly cheesy special effects, like a severed head that looks either plastic or plaster. One cool thing though is the ring, worn by the priest, it's like a snake with a hypo on the end that dispenses curare, the better to make zombies with. This is incredibly cheap and incoherent, but worth seeing once for a few laughs and to realize that it's obscure for a good reason. 3 out of 10.


Different, incoherent Spanish film about a Caribbean mummy aboard a cruise ship killing people that remind him of those that killed him thousands of years earlier. At least I think that is what the main plot thread was? It is difficult to tell with the poor, hatchet-job editing, the cheap feel the film has, the dull, sophomoric direction, and the acting talent of washed-out understudies. The film opens with the mummy character when he was young and vibrant - we see him with his love, get in a fight over a girl, and then watch his girl beheaded in front of him and then he is "paralyzed" and prepared for mummification. The opening scene really is done so poorly that you really aren't sure of many of the character motivations. Many flashback scenes would be used throughout the film using that ever-so-clever red tinting(Ho...hmmmm). The budget is low in this one: the heads decapitated look like mannequin heads with animal blood caked around the necks. One scene where a dancer(she is the best part of the film in all of her buxom grandeur!)is wrestling with the mummy - we don't know why he wants to kill her - has the two fighting in front of a mirror and then shows the cameraman in the mirror shooting the scene. Many more examples of such amateurism can be found throughout. What did I like? The film is watchable and funny for its ineptitude. The mummy in the sarcophagus actually looks creepy at times. And did I mention that dancer? The end is an even bigger letdown than the film(as if that were even possible?). It is so ridiculous. As for the performers? Nothing too good. The guy playing the self-proclaimed "fat, old" cop waiting to retire is probably the best just for comic relief. The rest sub-par. Except for, did I mention already, the dancer?


Painfully dull Euro-horror thats a retread of the Karloff Mummy set on a cruise ship.

Ages ago a voodoo priest who was having an affair with a married woman kills the husband in a fight. The woman is decapitated and the priest is put into a wooden coffin and buried.

Now. The coffin is dug up and put on a cruise ship. The dead priest comes back to life and begins looking for his reborn love at the same time he's chopping off the heads of some of the passengers.

Its slow. Its dull (with the opening bit about the affair replayed over and over and over again with an all but obscuring red tint) and it has some of the worst paper mache heads you'll ever see flying all over the place.

Cinematic sleep meds.


This movie is so bad, one wonders why it was picked for dubbing and video release. Check out: the papier mache heads, bad African makeup, the fire breathing exotic dancer, and a '70's look that was probably dated when this film was released. Please don't anyone restore this, just sit back and watch in a different kind of terror. I exorcize a 1 from this dead trash.


Aldo Sambrell plays Gato Nebo,a thousand year old Haitan priest who is decapitated along with his lover Kenya for adultery and murder.Then the film takes place during 70's and is set on a cruise ship to Port-Au-Prince,Haiti.After being awakened Gato Nebo starts decapitating various ship passengers with a sword.Add also a romance between reincarnated Kenya and her mummified lover and an absurd climax set in an ancient cavern in Kenya."Voodoo Black Exorcist" is an inept Spanish horror flick with fuzzy guitar score and phony looking beheadings.Outrageously silly script doesn't help either.Only for the discerning trash enthusiast.4 out of 10.


Let me state the obvious: This film has nothing to do with voodoo, there are no blacks in it and nary an exorcism occurs. This was filmed at the height of the blaxploitation/horror era when movies Like "Blackenstein" and "Blacula" were popular, as was a film titled "The Exorcist." If you think using burnt cork to make white actors "look black" is a hoot (and racist), then this film will leave you shaking your head and wanting to conjure up the ghost of Al Jolson real quick. I don't know what they used to darken the skin of these untalented actors, but to me it looks like watered-down Shinola.

I own this DVD as it was part of the 50-pack "Drive In Movie Classics" set, but I only keep it for historical / hysterical reasons, as I am a collector of old "classics." The only redeemable thing about this film is that it shows that for the most part, white producers and directors are a bit more in tune with black sensibilities.


(Slight Spoilers) Badly disjointed horror movie involving a 1,000 year old African mummy Nigerian nobleman Gatanebo who's time has come for him to came back from the dead. Gatanebo's insane mission is for him to reclaim his love of years past the reincarnated Kenya. Kenya doesn't know it but some 1,000 years ago she was having an illicit affair with Gatanebo behind her husbands, the village high priest, back. Caught and made to pay for their crimes Kenya was lucky in just getting her head cut off. Poor Gatanebo got the worse of it by being locked alive in a sarcophagus, stone coffin, for all eternity.

It's now in 1973 when Gatanebo's coffin is being shipped back, from Pôrto Prince Haiti, to the Museum of Natural History in New York that he suddenly comes alive. It just happens that the person in charge of shipping Gatanebo back to the states, Dr. Kessling, assistant and secret lover just happens to be Syliva! Kenya latest reincarnation! Coming alive Gatanebo has Freddy, another of Dr. Kessling's assistant, who guarding his body drugged with his golden snake pinkie ring and made into a mindless Zombie. Freddy now Gatanebo's Zombie slave will now do anything that his master Gatanebo tells him to even murder.

The film "Vudu Sangriento", Bloody voodoo in English, goes on endlessly with Gatanebo looking like the guy who played the role of "The Amazing Colossal Man" the 60 foot bald and radioactive mutant Glenn Manning. Not quite being able to adjust to modern society Gatanebo is also unable to keep his emotions and feeling to himself! With him going into wild and murderous rages whenever things don't go his way. Gatanebo spends most of his time running around on the cruise ship with nobody on board,the 340 passengers and crew, being able to kill or even capture the dangerous and out of control maniac.

Gatanebo also does in one of the ships crew members by decapitating him who, were later told, was the person back in ancient Nigeria in another lifetime who decapitate his doomed lover Kenya! Gatanebo in a crud effort to go undercover later takes on the identity of Dr. Craig, whom he had the Zombie-like Freddy crush to death with a steamroller. It was the late Dr. Carig whom Dr. Kessling was to meet at Pôrto Prince Harbor in discussing what to do with the stiff, Gatanebo, he's got on board and how to ship him back to the states .

In doing that, having Dr. Craig murdered, Gatanebo as Dr. Carig can now be as close as he'll ever get to his old flame Kenya or now Sylvia Dr. Kessling's secretary. Gatanebo has no trouble speaking the English language In that over 300 years of being displayed in museum's all over the world he quietly and secretly learned English. This was by his listening to the people and tourists, from English speaking countries, visiting the museums.

Sylvia when finally confronted by her long lost lover Gatanebo was anything but trilled in going back with him, to Nigeria, since he was anything but likable or even interesting to her. In fact when the weather cooled off, or dropped below body temperature, Gatanebo turned into, with his skin dripping off his face and body, what looked like a melting chocolate Easter Bunny!

Mad and feeling rejected Gatanebo, like a spoiled brat, together with his Zombie-like slave servant Freddy for some reason go on a rampage attacking among others two of the boats passengers the Chicago meat distributor, he has the best hamburger beef in the world, and his girlfriend an exotic dancer on the ship. This mindless action on Gatanebos part tips off the local police to what a nut-case and dangerous psycho he really is. It also connects him to the brutal murder of the crew member who's severed head was later found in Sylvia's bedroom.

Chased into a cave on the island, Haiti, by the local police lead by inspector Diminguez, a Spanish version of Let. Det. Frank Colombo, Gatanebo and his love the kidnapped and unwilling to go along with him Sylvia end up where where he always wanted her to be: With him forever in the land of the dead.


"Single Room Furnished" was the last film of the once-celebrated Jayne Mansfield. Not surprisingly, given the sad state of her career, she was cast as a bitter, used-up prostitute. The film is ostensibly a dramatization of her sad life and times. Because she died before it was completed,it ended up on the shelf, until the director (and Mansfield's ex-hubby) Matt Cimber, made the decision to finish the film. In order to release it to capitalize on the lurid headlines generated by her untimely death, he added an additional story involving a singularly unappealing middle-aged couple that stops the film cold, and totally negates any interest it might otherwise have had. Mansfield, looking blowzy and tired, may be the main interest here, but she's done in by the pathetic script and the surrounding cast of no name, no talent performers, all of who seem to want to get off-camera as soon as possible. All except Charley and Flo, the characters played by the actors hired to complete the picture, who sigh, grunt, moan and whimper about the sad state of their lives. Not nearly as much as the critics who were forced to endure this film, however, or the audiences who were subjected to it during it's mercifully short release. Jayne gave a valid performance in "A Guide for the Married Man" shortly before her death, and that would have been a more fitting end to her (modest) career. Anyone who makes it all the way through this film (like I did) deserves what they get.


Jayne Mansfield dons three different guises to play one slow-talking, slightly zonked woman (her idea of being sultry is to dawdle over every other word--or maybe she thinks she's being dramatic?). It's a tacky, flashback-framed fiasco that is filled with two-person scenes, and in every sequence the characters keep saying each other's names: "Hey, Flo?" "Yes, Charlie?" "You know what, Flo?" "What, Charlie?" A tired and amateurish farewell to Mansfield, who, contrary to popular belief, was not beheaded before its release. After perishing in an auto crash, a newswire photo flashed across the globe featuring Jayne's blonde wig next to the crushed car's right-front tire. Rumor quickly spread that it was her head, but rest assured Mansfield's head was attached to her body when she died. *1/2 from ****


This low-budget end to Ms. Mansfield's career is a curious mix of emptiness and hope that is hard to put your finger on. Dorothy Keller as Flo (who resembles Estelle Parsons) is sad and touching. Fabian Dean as Charley is Everyman, and Jayne Mansfield (in one of her best performances - a great listener) "plays" three roles and seems to connect with all of them. Beautiful work.

A 4 out of 10. Best performance = Ms. Mansfield as Eileen. The final third of the story is the most interesting. The guy who plays Billy gives a heartfelt disturbing "performance" and Jayne seems tapped into something special and uplifting. Great closing shot and music. Decently directed with an average script - a bit morose, but empathetic to the plight of these trapped souls. The young woman playing Maria is very fetching, but it's Ms. Mansfield in her swan song that hits the bulls-eye.


I watched SINGLE ROOM FURNISHED as part of BCI Eclipse' Drive-in Cult Classics (featuring Crown International Pictures releases) on DVD. This one stands out for its dullness.

Johnnie's (Joanne) young husband (no doubt a latent-homosexual) abandons her to go to sea with a pal that joined the Navy four months earlier.

After changing her name to Mae (and, dying her hair), she is pregnant. Desperate, she throws herself at the dysfunctionally shy, overweight salesman, who lives downstairs.

After proposing (he feels sorry for her), he realizes his true love for the plain fisherman's daughter; and, proposes to her in a bid for matrimonial happiness. He dumps Mae over the phone from the bar.

She then changes her name to Eileen; and, is left with a string of 'suitors' who become so numerous that even she has to regard herself as a prostitute. The only men in her life are emotionally unstable boys willing to kill themselves over her, or crass traveling salesmen out for a good time!

That may not sound too bad, but SINGLE ROOM FURNISHED is one very unattractive, badly acted, badly written movie.

Jayne Mansfield does have acting ability, but her choice of material is rotten, and the wordy and florid soliloquies here make everyone come off like idiots.

The scenes are far too long; the production values are so poor that the very good image and color quality of this disc just makes the sets and scenery look like what they are, almost-entirely undecorated flats. The costumes are no better.


There was a simple recipe in the late 1980's early 1990's for the common action film:

Take one part flawed hero (preferably divorced, a heavy smoker and drinker), Mix in their defiance for authority figures, Add one part tragic family history (the loss of a child works best), Add corrupt politicians, Stir with mix of gratuitous violence set to a heavy electric guitar musical score, And serve with plenty of one-liners preferably after a death or tense moment has passed.

1992's Live Wire follows this recipe to the exact measurements. Pierce Bronson plays Danny O'Neill, a member of the FBI bomb squad that stumbles on a plot consisting of corrupt Senators and a new form of explosive that is in the form of drinking water - when mixed with acidity of the human stomach, one becomes a walking time bomb that even the strongest Alka-Seltzer wouldn't cure.

Danny has had a rough year. His only daughter died in a swimming pool accident, his wife left him (for a Senator no less  didn't see that coming!), and now he works his job uttering such unique catchphrases as Man, I love Mondays'. But when Danny is assigned to a job of investigating a rash of murdered politicians where no triggering device is evident in the debris, Danny soon fears for his wife's safety, and thus his extra incentive to bring the bad guys to justice. Yawn.

Live Wire is helmed by perennial television director Christian Duguay (Million Dollar Babies, Joan of Arc), and it is the advice of this reviewer that he stick to that forum. And its not that the premise of this movie is so awful, its actually the opposite. I was intrigued of the notion of bodies being used as bombers, but Duguay does not seem to know where to take the story or characters outside of the normal formulaic routine. He doesn't even try. Thrown into the mix are Ron Silver (Timecop, Blue Steel), and Ben Cross (Chariots of Fire) who just waste time and are less interesting than the robot they use to assess bomb threats.

It would have been interesting to see what the movie could have been in the hands of a more seasoned or focused director. As bad as Live Wire was, it was still better than other films released in the same decade like Tango & Cash or Raw Deal.

I would tell you how the film ends, but I would not want to ruin the surprise. I will leave you wondering if our hero will get back with his wife once he exposes the Senator, whether anyone will fall from a great height onto a sharp object orwait for itif the final bomb will be defused in the nick of time!

Finally, one postscript. At the beginning of the film, we read that last decade 3,600 lives were taken due to terrorist acts around the world, but due to American's stable political system, the U.S. has been safeuntil now. Somehow in this post 9/11 world, I bet Christian Duguay would want that one back for a re-write.


Let me start off by saying there were several scenes that I enjoyed in this film. And I think Pierce Brosnan did a good job. What I had trouble with was the fact that in the courtroom scene, Brosnan notices the criminal make eye contact with a suspicious-looking man, who then gets up and leaves. Brosnan figures out that there is a bomb in the courtroom and gets everyone out (well, almost everyone) - and he's figured this out by the look exchanged by those two men. He got a very good look at the other guy. Yet, they never follow up on that lead. It's a courtroom in D.C. Surely there is surveillance footage they could be going through to identify this man. They never do that. They forget about him entirely. In fact, Brosnan never mentions this guy to anyone. Also, when they figure out that the terrorists will next target Ron Silver (because of a certain bill that he sponsored), Brosnan goes over to his house - but instead of questioning Silver about who might be against this bill, who might want him dead, he just yells at him to stay away from his wife. And then later when they figure out that what the bomb is, and how it's detonated, they also figure out a very easy way to defuse it. I won't give it away here. But suffice it to say that in later scenes with a bomb, they never bother to try this method of defusing it. It's sloppy writing. A bad script, with some good actors, some poor direction, and a terrible score.


This film is really crap. Pierce Brosnan, who is a good actor, plays an American tough guy who has problems in his marriage. He works as a bomb expert who runs into the man (ron silver) who is cheating on him with his wife. This is the basic storyline and the fact that he is tracking a group of terrorists is completely in the shadow of this terrible script.

If you like Pierce Brosnan, but hate bad movies it is okay to skip this one


Decidedly adult-oriented slapstick-comedy, though it was originally marketed towards the younger crowds, that has two very different brothers (played by comedians Nathan Lane and Lee Evans) suddenly left broke and homeless directly resulting from a couple of disturbing and rather unfunny circumstances. By what seems like pure luck the bumbling brothers inherit a dilapidated mansion at just the right time from their wealthy industrialist father (played by William Hickey) who has just recently passed away. Apparently the house, as they soon find out, was built by some well-known architect in the mid-nineteenth century ultimately making it very valuable and highly sought-after by a number of collectors. In the process of attempting to clean the place up so as to hold a big auction in it with hopes of selling it to the highest and wealthiest bidder the two men realize (much to their dismay) that the house's oldest resident, a tiny little mouse, is unwilling to give up his much loved abode without a fight! From that basic plot hilarity is supposed to ensue, but for a number of reasons it rarely does! One of the many things that bothered me about this flick and made it hard for me to laugh was the big fact that it was so dark, dank and just way too atmospheric for it's own good. Meaning that the seemingly unnamed time-period and or place that it's set in is far too unpleasant, grimy and gritty for an out-and-out comedy, let alone a kid's film! In fact it kind of reminds me of the sometimes graphic and violent "Delicatessen" and "The City Of Lost Children"...dark and amoral, with a fairy-tale like theme and enormous and meticulous set designs. However, unlike those two films this one was inappropriately aimed towards children via the cartoon-like slapstick comedy reminiscent of the old "Wily Coyote and The Road Runner" and sorry but I gotta say it, "Tom and Jerry" cartoons. Some curious cameos are also featured here from a number of character actors that are passable considering all, though to be honest I'm still scratching my head as to why any of them would have actually made appearances in this flick in the first place; the actors I'm in reference to are: Maury Chakin, Christopher Walkin (!?), the late Michael Jeter, the late William Hickey who passed away shortly after this film wrapped and who's memory it is dedicated to in the end credits, and Vicki Lewis. Overall, "Mousehunt" is not the worst film you could ever see that's for sure. However, in my opinion and this is just my opinion mind you, I don't think that it's really too fit for the kiddies out there frankly. Though, a number of the adult's are likely to get a kick out of this to a degree more or less, but I don't think that many of them will find it to be completely fall-down hilarious by any means. (*1/2 out of *****)


The first half of this movie is like a big black hole. It left no impression on me at all. It's neither bad nor good, but exists eternally in a sort of quality limbo.

Fortunately, the second half picks up, and it gets bad enough to provide a few laughs.

Another problem is that the effect of the film's first big surprise is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the copy on the DVD box gives it away completely. On the other hand, it was a pretty lame attempt at a surprise anyway.

One can see why this one sat in the can for over a year (copyright 2000, released 2002) before finally being dumped to video.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Me and my friend were really bored and decided to go to Hollywood video to pick out some movies. Well we found a bunch of movies on sale for 2 bucks, so we're all, okay let's pick some out. So she picked out this really bad one with Jay Leno as the star of the movie (that was entertaining enough)And I picked up this..this neat looking movie hobbs end (Come on, it had a chainsaw on the front!)

I must say this is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. The beginning is really strange, the woman's talking to herself most of the time. I thought the part that was bizzare was when she (catarina) starts sniffing the air, and said "something stinks, it's you isn't it" (to the psycho killer guy) "you need a bath." And then the guy says: "Would it be okay if I took a bath?" And then she says "isn't your timing a little off?" Ummm okay. This is how the movie goes the WHOLE TIME! I started laughing when he started stabbing his arm..that was really classic. Another classic part is when he tells the woman that he has "feelings" for her after 3 hours of knowing her. Well I don't want to blow the movie for you, it's a must see (yeah right) Major BLUNDERS: THERE IS NO CHAINSAW. Okay, I have no idea what the cover has to do with the movie. Another blunder: Who'se that guy creeping around the house, the starwarsy guy. I have no idea!!!!! All I know is that he ends up dead. My mom says it's "Obscenely Insipid" I'm making everyone watch this movie, because it's so painful. I could go on about this forever, but I think you'll have to see it for yourself. It makes me laugh just thinking about it.


...But then, I had to buy it because of my name in the credits. Yep, I was the "key medic" in this travesty of film. And they didn't even list me in the "cast and crew." Bummer! But you know what the best part about this movie is? We all had a blast making it and you get to see the back of my head as I walk with my "family" across the parking lot in the beginning and then again at the end (I'm the guy in the blue "medic" outfit.) And yes, the scenery is majestic, I do forget sometimes since it's in my backyard and I see it every day. The craft service was the best -- I gained about 20 pounds during the shoot -- and they put the food right next to the medic station. I haven't seen most of the cast and crew since, but I still think about all, OK -- some, of you occasionally. Hey Buxbaum, if you ever get to Sandpoint again, call me! And I think you told me you could teach me to barefoot ski....

The acting, particularly Cat's, is pretty wooden and predictable. To me she always looked like she had something really distasteful in her mouth when she talked and couldn't quite spit it out. Maybe it was the never-ending dialog. The best actor on the set by far was Rosie the dog (although I can't remember if she's in the movie and can't bear to watch it again to find out.) As for the plot of this movie -- it's pretty transparent, BUT I'D URGE YOU ALL TO RUSH RIGHT OUT TO BUY OR RENT IT so you can actually see my name in the credits and Polestar can recoup some of the house payments they paid me!


It's hard to express sometimes just how bad a motion picture is. I mean after all, haven't we ALL had someone come up to us and say, "It's the WORST motion picture I've ever seen?" After a while, the term really doesn't have much meaning anymore.

While I can't quite say that this is the worst horror film I've ever seen (after seeing literally thousands of them, that honor I give to "Rat Man" with "Beast in the Cellar" ranking a close runner up), it certainly does rank up there in the top bracket of lameness which I usually reserve for older films (for some reason I expect modern day direct-to-video horror movies to suck).

So what's wrong with it? Well, first of all it fails a usually sturdy horror movie concept (self-reliant woman fights for her life in an isolated rural setting against one or multiple assilaints). Here we get an endless 100 minutes of an unappealing actor trying to hide he's a psychopath (a character as supposedly smart as the woman in this movie should have been able to tell after her first conversation with him, but like the rest of the movie, she remains stone still with a concerned look on her face while he has any number of freak outs), mixed with clumsily directed murder scenes, and an ridiculously repetitive and drawn-out final twenty minutes.

oh yeah, and there's some stuff about this guy being a shape shifting, mind-reading serial killer who may be possessed by the spirit of some kind of dead prospector who has cursed the valley. Oh man...

For better entries in this sub-genera (I'm picking more obscure ones) try, "Death Weekend," "Fortress," or even "Rituals" even though that last one is more of a "Deliverance" copy than anything else.


As the film opens recently widowed Lacey is desperately trying to insist to her friend, Cindy, that she doesn't need another man in her life. However later that same day when she accidentally runs into someone she believes to be the new handyman, she invites him into her house to make amends to this guy who reminds her so much of her husband somehow. Meanwhile the radio is issuing an urgent message about a dangerous convict on the loose. Are these two events linked somehow? You bet your sweet ass they are.

Oh where do I even begin to tell you what was wrong with this film. OK, right off the bat, the whole issue with the cover being so VERY misleading (there's no chainsaw, the population is a bit higher then depicted) has been said over and over so I won't repeat it here (oops just did). Then there's another character that's in the film skulking around Lacey's property that's never really explained. The sheer lack of chemistry between the two leads makes the first 20 minutes are so supremely implausible at best, and a big F you to the intelligence of the audience at worst. Also later in the film when a certain character is portrayed as crazy, the whole film turns into a (unintentional) comedy of errs. To round things off, I hated the soundtrack and the person who did the editing for the movie must have been legally blind.

My Grade: D

Where i saw it: Instant Netflix via Xbox 360


This had to be one of the gabbiest movies I have ever seen. Talk, talk, talk....talk. This is then interspersed with over the top acting and characters that it is hard to give any care for because of how cold they seem.

If you are looking for something different in the serial killer/horror genre this is a good movie to view if you have some patience with ham acting and way too much dialog.

The actors and especially the lead actress is pleasant to look at except that she seemed more cast for those of us 35 and above and not those 20 and under like most mad slasher movies and the very buxom and often very underclad teens like in the Halloween, Jason, Scream, Freddy, Chucky, and other teen scream movies.


Sean Connery plays an old but avid master-thief and Catherine Zeta-Jones a not to be trusted insurance-agent. They team up to the biggest jackpot of all time: 8 billion dollars.

This is the worst movie I've seen in 5 years, probably since 'The Avengers'. Why this piece-of-junk-script was ever sold and developed into a big-budget-movie like this is far beyond me. There are so many plotholes and ridiculous facets in this monster, I can't even begin to describe.

**SPOILERS** Ok, I'll try for the ones that linger most: Zeta-Jones doing those ridiculous ballet-moves to dodge laserbeams; she can dodge in in 2:30mins but dodge out in 30 secs; in the end they give back the 8 billion dollars minus 1 billion; like they didn't notice!

Furthermore, the directing is horrible. The main characters are dramatically swinging from left to right and Sean Connery actually gives a bad performance, which is something to achieve. I wasn't impressed by Zeta-Jones yet and this movie didn't improve it.

I'm trying very hard not to take it personal that these kind of movies get made, because they're a downright insult to the public and solely made for the purpose of making money and making it big. It disgusts me.


Why was this movie made..?! Sean Connery seemed to sleepwalk through his lines. There was no chemistry between him and Catherine Zeta-Jones. Ok, I have to rant a little bit. I will always give good movies their due, but this movie was terrible.

SPOILERS:

1) When they are in the big party scoping out the castle to get ready to steal the mask or whatever, the clock says 10:30 pm. Next we see them under the castle blowing up the floor to match the clock bells at midnight. So this HUGE extravagant party was over and everybody completely cleared out in 1 and a half hours? Maybe they came back the next night, but I don't think so. With this movie's pacing and direction, it was impossible to tell what day was what, when things happened etc.

2) That stupid looking Mega-Tower that they were to infiltrate. Give me a break. Hmmmm, big sky-walk 1000 feet off the ground, I wonder if the thieves are going to somehow end up hanging on it or falling from it...wow what a surprise! They did!

3) The ending was plain atrocious. Sean's friend lets him go because of some stupid fake kidnapping plot? They finally caught the art thief of the century and they are guarding him with..hmm...2 cops? GAWD, I get so sick of this crap.

I could go on, but you get the picture. If you are smart, you will not get THIS picture.


Easily the worst movie this year. If you're looking for character development, good dialogue or a halfway decent plot, this is the wrong movie. Even if you're looking for Catherine Zeta-Jones' butt, you're still going to be disappointed. (You saw it all in the previews.) The only compelling aspects of the completely 2-dimensional characters were due to the fact that he's Sean Connery and she's Catherine Zeta-Jones. But even James Bond with a Hellenesque beauty at his side cannot save this cerebrally-challenged script.

The worst part is that it was too painful to make fun of. If a cheap and bad horror movie is a man falling off of his bike that you can laugh at (and sometimes laughs with you), than "Entrapment" is a catastrophic and very painful train wreck. If your Connery/Zeta-Jones fix is unsatiated. Go rent "Goldfinger" and "Zorro." If you just want to get out of the house, please save yourself and see "The Matrix."


Yes, Catherine Zeta-Jones is good looking and Sean Connery used to be The James Bond. But these two facts aren't enough to make a movie on. The acting is poor and some really good "high-tech" action scenes mixes with some attempts to "love-and-romance". I don't know but there is something wrong when CZJ tries to act as someone who is very clever but just acts like a stupid insurance agent. The supporting acting by Ving Rhames is good, very good, why doesn't he get a lead...


It all seemed so perfect. Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones in a cat-and-mouse thriller. How could that go wrong?

Well I still don't know how, but it did, big time.

The movie opens up well enough. We get treated to a high-tech, Mission: Impossible style break in. A mysterious person watching from the shadows. The viewer gets right into it.

Fifteen minutes later all of the suspense goes right out the window.

The first key to a thriller like this is having characters who remain a mystery throughout the movie. Zeta-Jones spills the beans about her character in the said fifteen minutes, and Connery is merely an art thief that everybody in the WORLD knows about.

Key two: A duel of the minds. You can't tell me for one second that you ever thought that Zeta-Jones could outsmart a stump of wood, let alone Connery.

Chemistry, 0.

Dialogue, repetitive and just plain stupid (ie. "You should take a look at the facts!" "Why don't you take a look at the facts?" "Why should I take a look at the facts?")

Suspense, a bit. The robbery scenes are well done, but they always seems effortless.

As far as continuity, this is basically a big wiffle ball of a plot.

A rental if you're desperate... maybe.

4/10


Trapped was how I felt while watching the film Entrapment. I couldn't wait for the movie to end. I went through the other reviews and was thoroughly surprised to read that there were many people out there who enjoyed the movie. My thinking is that - what was there to enjoy? The plot was unoriginal, the script lame and the acting absolutely soulless. As far as I was concerned, it could have been two unknowns as the lead actors and the effect would have been the same. It is such a waste that big names like Connery and Zeta-Jones were used for a humdrum movie like this.

Much was said about the "chemistry" between the two leads. Romantic, intriguing, charming were some of the words I saw being used to describe the relationship. I beg to differ. I would use more befitting words like contrived, incestuous and downright disgusting. Didn't anyone notice the 40-year age gap between them? Had they kept their relationship purely professional, then the movie would have been slightly more palatable.

There were two reasons why I decided to watch the movie. First was the two leads and second, the filming location. Having being disappointed by the former, I was hoping that the latter would have been the saving grace. Being a Malaysian, I was eager to watch how the Petronas Twin Towers, currently the tallest building in the world, would have looked on the big screen. Of course, a sense of pride enveloped me when the first few glimpses of the majestic towers were shown. It is not often that major movie productions come here for filming. Although some scenes were manipulated (like the scene when Connery and Zeta-Jones were on a boat on the Malacca river with the Twin Towers on the background. Malacca and Kuala Lumpur are over 100 km apart!), I couldn't help but feel a sense of fulfillment whenever a familiar setting was shown. Notwithstanding the fact that none of the actors who potrayed Malaysians were actually from Malaysia. Perhaps "Anna and the King" starring Jodie Foster and Chow Yun-Fatt would do justice to talented local actors. This remains to be seen as the movie is still actively shooting here.

In conclusion, I feel that unless you're a Malaysian, there's nothing that the movie can offer that's groundbreaking. You'll leave the cinema with a hollow feeling and will find yourself hard-pressed to recall a scene that will make an impact in your movie-going life.


I was very disappointed in the story line of this film. The cast did an admirable job with an over-blown, far-fetched plot. Also, there are many discrepancies in the relationships between the characters. Obviously the writer and director were trying to confuse the audience by hiding the "true" identities of some of the characters. There is nothing wrong with that in this type of movie. However, doing so by having characters say and do things that openly contradict earlier scenes is not excusable. The performances of Connery, Zeta-Jones, and Rhames are very good considering what they had to work with as far as dialogue goes. As a gen-x male, I must applaud the appearance of Catherine Zeta-Jones. WOW!!!! It almost made everything else seem unimportant.