Commentator 'vranger' of the United States is obviously full of him/herself when it comes to intelligence and the ability to understand plots, thrillers, intrigue, mysteries and scripts, whilst justifying abracadabra, mumbo jumbo and plain junk. (Thank you...I had to get this out of my craw first in order to prevent serious gagging after reading 'vranger's arrogant drivel.) In short, this film is a flop. Not because of the story per se, but because: 1. director Avnet of the B-variety, has problems to stick to the basics and instead tries, probably with an award in mind, to create a work of art, and 2. the script (which should have been used as 2-ply by Pacino in his powder room after reading). Midway through the film, I was totally bewildered as to who in the hell was who. An endless stream of bland females, appearing too short a time for the viewer to remember their faces and/or their actual relevance to the story. Mix that with nonstop cell phone jangles & calls, and that's how it to pass that I ended up in the category of ignoramuses so perfectly defined by commentator "vranger'.


And this was supposed to be a blockbuster??? This wasn't even up to par with a half baked 60 minute television crime drama. I had heard that this movie was poor. I'd heard that there were no good performances in the movie. I'd heard that the plot was rushed and that I'd regret wasting spending the time it took to watch it. All of these statements were so incredibly understated and did not remotely allow for how terrible this movie really was. I can't believe that Al Pacino found any reasons to actually make this film. I can't believe a studio funded it. I can't believe that it has a 6 for a rating overall. This is one of the worst developed plots; the most rushed story lines; so many short cuts and just an utter waste of talent and time. HORRIBLE!!! I want my 88 minutes back!!!


This is a movie I had a hard time wrapping my mind around. The description sounded wonderful. It sounded like a murder mystery with Al Pacino leading a pack of devoted police officers to find a serial killer. As a huge fan of Pacino, I thought this would give him a chance to stretch and create a character.

Glancing through the reviews, I see that I'm not the only one that found this a disaster. It was bad in so many ways that I found myself amazed. How could an actor of Al Pacino's stature have gotten himself into such a mess? I have no answer at all but can agree with nearly everyone who posted that he should have known better. The day the script was handed to him, he should have realized that it was beneath someone of his abiliity.

This was a pointless exercise in sadism, with so many suspicious incidental characters that it became laughable. The supporting acting was bad and the dialog they were forced to speak worse. The 88 minutes gimmick made no sense, because the film was not shot in real time. At one point Al pays a cabbie $100 so he can drive his taxi, then takes the opportunity to drive around explaining the plot instead of racing to the next location. He's a college professor to, but he seems to only use this as an excuse to sleep with as many students as possible. I'm still trying to get my mind around why his hair was piled so high he looked like Elvis. Sorry, Al. THis might be your worst film.


Very disappointing. As much as I love Al Pacino, the movie writing in this movie was bad. It promises to keep you on the edge of your seat but didn't deliver. Got confusing at times, trying to throw off your suspicions but was just a loss of direction. The suspects were too numerous and got me thinking he had the wrong person in prison. It was too unbelievable and too many twists to be considered worth while watching. It was stupid to think that he had all of his students suspect and outside people too, from the doorman and the motorcycle guy following them around all the time. It should have had clear direction and writing, that's all I can say. I was expecting a 10 and got a 1 out of this movie. Maybe if this movie had backwards time drama like, "Vantage Point", it would have made the movie more intense. For now, try another movie.


Al Pacino, a forensic college professor and psychiatrist, helped put away a kinky serial killer who specialises in torturing women who he hangs upside down. The killer is on death row and on and around the day that he is scheduled to die similar murders take place and Pacino gets a death threat that he himself has 88 minutes to live. Is it a copycat killer or is the guy on death row innocent? Well Pacino has to find out who is behind his death threat and find out who the killer is in an hour and twenty-eight minutes...

The film's good points - It has Al Pacino in it, it's a fast paced thriller with lots going on.

The film's bad points - besides Pacino all the other actors are b-grade, it starts off OK but turns into one of those predictable and tedious thrillers with surprise twists that a 5 year old could have figured out. It has ridiculous scenarios throughout and some of the scenes are completely cringe worthy....

I would like to know what Pacino was on while reading the script, because I don't believe that an actor of his caliber would agree to do this film while stone cold sober.


All movies require the "suspension of disbelief," that elastic band around our rational minds which allows us to get involved in fiction while knowing it isn't real. Some movies pop the bubble of disbelief through bad acting, poor script, bad editing, or myriad problems.

After the bubble pops, you realize you are wasting time sitting in a dark theater.

Pacino can make a recipe for soup sound interesting, but even he did not have enough magic to transform this terrible movie. The problem was the script and its many fantastic plot problems. We can live with some stretching of credulity, but there must be some way to make sense of a story. This story makes no sense. The plot breaks down when we realize none of this could actually ever happen.

I have admired Ms. Sobieski in many prior films, including one of my favorite films "My First Mister." She is extremely talented, and sometimes reminds me of Helen Hunt. She is wasted in this film and plays the least convincing character. Bad directing and terrible editing combine to make this the worst film I have seen this year.


If this movie is considered good, than I am a genius.

I saw that movie yesterday with my date and I feel bad for this loss of time we could have spent home watching DVD's or in bed.

Al Pacino has the expression of a retarded (always an open mouth like a puppy) and tries to be funny somehow. The screenplay has no justifications in anyway and the direction itself of the actors is more than poor.

I wont tell anybody what it's about but I can tell you this: It's the typicall thriller that tries to make you believe that everybody could be a potential killer and in the end they come up with something totally predicable.Just rubbish, so please someone tell me why, the rating of six.


I had the privilege of meeting the great man himself, Al Pacino. He is a God to me. However even God makes mistakes too. This mistake was 88 Minutes. The man who portrayed Tony Montana in Scarface & Frank Serpico in Serpico has really disappointed with this latest release.When I met Mr. Pacino the day after he won his Best Actor Oscar for Scent of a Woman. I was in awe of this man.He was making another soon-to-be classic, Carlito's Way.I remember thinking this is a man who will never drop the ball as an actor- he will never give a bad performance- he will never not deliver....but you know what he has and it took only 88 Minutes.


Al Pacino, is without a doubt, one of the greatest actors to come and step foot in Hollywood. His older movies like the Godfather and Scarface will forever be classics. In a recent string of events he has managed to pull himself on film with a few "halfway decent" titles, but 88 Minutes is the bottom of the barrel.

This has to be one of the most fake movies I've seen in recent years. I can accept movies like Lord of the Rings and Spiderman because they aren't actually supposed to take place in real-time. This whole flick takes itself too seriously, and the ridiculous car chases and explosions make it to show that this couldn't possibly happen in real life. Whoever wrote this needs to go back to school and learn some real engaging material, something that is more real and sophisticated. It's just very unreal.

The scripting was just awful. Terrible one-liners, and the supporting actors all act as if they were on steroids and running rampant as the movie wears on. The female actresses couldn't act to save their lives. And boy, did you ever notice how similar this was compared to other thriller type movies in this era? I mean cm-on it's as if people can't think of something original anymore. Then you come to the ending which is really just a nail in the coffin. Unbelievable and just plain stupid.

I don't know how the same person who played a terrific performance in Scarface can be cast a role in a "mediocre to bad" action-type film. I guess actors/actresses adapt and change over time, but if I knew a movie was going to be this bad, I wouldn't star in it to damage my reputation. Al Pacino, we've seen the better of you.

Avoid watching this. Whether you're planning to see this in theaters or later buying it on DVD, prepare to cower yourself in disgust.

1 out of 10.


You have to wonder if Pacino even read the script for this brutal film. You're going to die in 88 minutes. Oh really, who is this, he asks not batting an eye? Let me just keep teaching my class while time ticks away. C'Mon.

Why can't they make movies where people are actually scared to die? If you got a death threat, wouldn't you be scared shitless. Not Pacino, it's part of the job he says. OK, maybe we can buy that, but then, there's a bomb threat a the university he teaches, no big deal, everyone can just leave the campus. OK we can buy that. His car blows up while he and the red head are a few feet away, are they scared? of course not, they just get up and head to his apartment? OK, not buying that, your car just blew up, shouldn't you be talking to the cops, shouldn't you be scared and sad at your car, it is in fact a Porche no? They get shot at in his apartment, are they scared, nope, just head to the roof? They witness her (red head) ex boyfriend get shot and killed, is she scared, sad, hysterical? Nope, they just keep moving on, Hello, WTF? Can't there be a little reality in these pictures? Deborah Unger's character can't stand Pacino's character? Question is why? We never find out.

Pacino just running around trying to solve everything - this film was 88 minutes too long, not even worth to see as a rental.


*** may contain spoilers ***

In my opinion this was the worst Italian movie I ever saw in my life. The actors were not that good besides Nanni Moretti himself, the worst was Jasmine Trinca, not emotional at all and she have probably some speech disorder too. The stories about Berlusconi, maybe true or not, were in the end the main content of the movie and the main purpose of Nanni Moretti was to scratch the image of this personage. I guess to do effectively so, it's better to make a documentary about him but not a movie. The plot was boring, cursory and sometimes really dumb. I would like to see the movie of Nanni Moretti in the old style and with a better cast, there are plenty of good actors in Italy and everywhere so it is not a problem to find the right one. I saw some low budget movie too and there were by far not that bad as "Caimano" so please Nanni...you can do better...please do better.


I had never seen a Nanni Moretti movie previously and I was pretty curious since he is the kind of "respected author" among the European critics. Actually a bit more than respected and quite frankly a critics' darling. Knowing this I could fear a self-indulgent movie with little creativity and a bunch of private jokes for the gallery, but I was open minded and ready to be charmed by the story of a delightful raconteur.

Unfortunately this movie is a mess, depicting a bland movie producer at a loss with his professional and private life. This alone could have been the subject of a good, even very good movie (Fellini could have shot this with gusto and the necessary grandeur to make us love a pitiful character) but Moretti, maybe feeling he is on a mission to tilt on the intellectual/political side of Italian cinema, wanted to add an inconsistent background story about the project of a Berlusconi biopic.

This background - which is supposed to be the main focus of the story - never blends in with the personal story of the main character. Is there a parallel between the mid-life crisis of Bruno Bonomo and the political vacuum that brought Berlusconi to power in Italy? Nope, we never feel something of that kind. Bruno Bonomo is at a loss, maybe he wants to assert himself and then the Berlusconi biopic project lands in his life where it doesn't belong but it is very difficult to understand why he would be interested at first since he doesn't realize what the project is about. Then he is stuck with it and won't back away which only further isolates this weakened character.

With this big mess of a plot you've got long minutes to get bored, waiting for the movie to get set on a precise track. And beyond this chore trouble Moretti's directing is not worth more than a TV-stint, his vignettes about Bonomo's Z-movies are painfully ridiculous: self-indulgent, have nothing to do there except reassure Moretti that he does shoot A-movies. Almodovar did this kind of Z-movie jokes decades ago because he started his career shooting those cheap yet energetic movies on his way to polishing his skills as a wonderful director with lovely stories to tell. Almodovar doesn't even need to be branded an author, he proves it every time, even when his movies are not on a par with his best works.

I don't know what is supposed to be Moretti's best work but with what he failed to prove here I'm not too eager to get my eyes on it.

PS about Berlusconi: maybe I was expecting more of a fierce political story and it's a shame that, while bragging it is one, Il Caimano's back-story could have been about the private affairs of some Italian soccer star without changing the main story. Moretti could have been brave and have shot a movie about Berlusconi when he was elected head of the Italian government years before. Or even ten years ago when he was already Il Cavaliere riding through Italy the way he liked. Now this movie is not convincing at discussing the difficulties to make a movie about Berlusconi, let alone being a movie that deals with Berlusconi's obscure connections or about his rise to power as a demagogue opportunist.


This movie is a bit like "Aprile", except that it's not autobiographical. It is about a small-time producer, battling against personal and financial problems, who tries to make a movie about Mr.B (as I shall call Berlusconi). The idea has potential, and for about the first half, the movie is fairly entertaining, but it goes downhill from there. In the end, the personal problems of the producer degenerate into the pointless psychological sado-masochism that Woody Allen has recently inflicted upon us, and Mr.B becomes increasingly peripheral to the plot.

People hoping to learn about Italian politics from this movie will be disappointed, but it is still possible to gain a few insights. One insight I had, is that the most interesting thing about Italian political cinema is which movies are never made: Mr.B. has vastly greater resources, but he doesn't bother to make movies or documentaries critical of his opponents. He probably thinks that it would not be worth his time and money. Soon after the Left lost the 2001 elections, Moretti himself said that, with the leaders it's got, the Left is never going to win -- and he got a standing ovation at a rally (of the Left). He was too pessimistic, but at least he is a man who says out loud what he thinks.

For the record, I believe both sides of Italian politics to be about equally bad (at the time of writing), for very different reasons; but, contrary to Moretti, I don't think that Italian politics is worse that that of some other European countries. Anyway, I'll volunteer a piece of advice to the Italian Left: if you want to criticize Mr.B, make a documentary: some of the best scenes in this movie were archive footage of the real Mr.B.

By comparison to that footage, the final scene looks like a lame coda: whatever its artistic merits, this scene did not grip my attention because there is no build-up to it. Also, I believe that the end of this scene grossly overstates the effect of Mr.B's propaganda on the Italian public.

In conclusion: coming from the director of "Caro Diario", this movie is a disappointment; but it might still be worth seeing, at least the first half.


I have not seen a movie, I have seen a poisoned bulk of very low-level propaganda. Yeah, just like "Aleksandr Nevskiy" or "War and Peace" somebody could say, but Moretti is neither Sergei Eisenstein nor Sergei Bondarchuk. The film fits the slot of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine: shouting to politicians. How interesting. The actors' play is very bad, but it's a constant feature of Moretti movies. If you are not a left-winged Italianman looking for politically engaged movies, don't watch it. If you are, watch Roberto Benigni, a real artist. If you simply are a guy other than Italian, looking for Italian Movies, look elsewhere.


When radio singer Lee Bowman refuses to renew his contract, talent scout Jack Carson ventures out to look for a new star. He finds Doris Day - a significant improvement! The story is similar to "A Star Is Born". How Ms. Day goes undiscovered for so long with such a striking voice is not convincing. Day is a single parent (in the film, it is stated that she lost her husband during World War II), which helps set up the film's highlight - a cute dream sequence for her son features an animated Bugs Bunny. The soundtrack isn't exceptional, but Day performs the songs well. "My Dream Is Yours" is colorful and routine.

**** My Dream Is Yours (1949) Michael Curtiz ~ Doris Day, Jack Carson, Eve Arden


My mom often tells me about how, growing up in Galena Park, Texas, the local cinema was the hot place. Among her favorite flicks there were Vincent Price's stuff (deliberate camp); among her least favorite flicks were Doris Day's stuff (the wholesome girl next door).

Watching "My Dream Is Yours", I can see why she had no respect for these sorts of movies. This one is an infantilizing story of a cute-and-nothing-else woman getting her break into show biz. I only knew about the movie because one of the Looney Tunes DVDs showed a scene from it in which Bugs Bunny, Doris Day and Jack Carson tell a boy to wake up to the tune of Franz Liszt's "Second Hungarian Rhapsody". The truth is, Liszt must be spinning in his grave knowing how they misused his song here. And the people behind the Looney Tunes cartoons should have known better than to let their greatest creation get used in this swill.

But as it is, the Bugs Bunny scene is really the only scene worth watching; in fact, if you watch only that scene, you just might come away with a good impression of the movie. As for me, I watched the movie only to heckle it like Mike, Servo and Crow do to the crummy movies sent them by Dr. Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" (the truth is, "MST3K" would have a field day with "MDIY"). Among my jeers were:

(as Jack Carson picks up a phone): "Do you have Prince Albert in a can?"

(as Jack Carson and Doris Day are about to board the plane): "Hey, I bet Mohammed Atta* is one of your fellow passengers!"

"My dream is yours..." "Yeah? Well, my nightmare is this movie!"

OK, so I think that I've done as much as I can to describe how stupid this movie was, so I'll now look at it from another angle. I watched this hunk o'junk a few hours after I went to see "Grindhouse". The only similarity between the two movies is that they're both escapism. But the Robert Rodriguez-Quentin Tarantino double feature was blatantly absurd, and quite proud of being as gross as possible; it comes out very honorable as a result. This one, on the other hand, believes itself to be as much a masterpiece as "Citizen Kane". I would just like to say that this movie reaches that one's quality about to the extent that "Ishtar" does. In fact, it makes you feel like you're turning into one of the zombies from "Grindhouse". In fact, while Doris Day's character was supposed to be cute, I just prefer to believe that she was uglier than any of those zombies.

In conclusion, unless you're one of those people who thinks that any hokey movie turns into a masterpiece just because a bunch of people start singing, you'll definitely want to avoid this movie. In fact, one thing that you could do is rent the movie but go straight to the special features and watch the Looney Tunes cartoon "A Ham in a Role", in which the Goofy Gophers torment a Shakespearean actor. Stick with that one and avoid "My Dream Is Yours" (except maybe the Bugs Bunny scene).

*In case you've forgotten, Mohammed Atta was one of the 9/11 hijackers. If you consider it illogical to mention him and "Grindhouse" while reviewing this movie...well, I consider this movie as much a piece of crap as any of the 9/11 hijackers, and I think that I speak for at least most of my generation when I say that we far prefer gross-out exploitation movies to anything starring Doris Day.


The film may be well-made at points, but the original material, the book "Vengeance" by Georg Jonas, has been discredited.

The POV character, a Mossad agent named Avner, is supposed to represent Jonas' source, Yuval Aviv, but Aviv never worked for Mossad. The idea that the Mossad let its agents hang high and dry is ridiculous and denied by all Israelis involved.

The Steven Spielberg film "Munich" -- based on the same discredited book -- is an ideological statement likely to be very anti-Israel. Spielberg appears to have deliberately hired leftist writers known for anti-Israel views.

The ultimate point of any alleged historical drama is that it is supposed to provide a useful introduction to the facts. Sometimes historical characters can be condensed, for example, but they shouldn't be created out of whole clothe, nor should the conclusion be fabricated.


Buddy Hackett narrated this crap "once upon a snowflake".... pffft!

The greedy people in town are in the dumps because their supply of 'ice-money' is melting and the Russian dictator down the block wants the hottest girl in the village to be his chick... or something like that. Calling Jack Frost to restore a cold weather climate to anywhere on the globe.

Totally charmless holiday special with a sour plot which involves coins, taxes, going broke, and the 'flake-flipping snow gypsies'.... huh?

Produced by Rankin/Bass, though they've done much better.


The first entry in the endless series is surprisingly light on the smutty humour and harmless innuendo that later became the franchise's stock in trade. Future Doctor Who William Hartnell is the army sergeant on the verge of retirement who makes a wager that his platoon will come out on top when their training is complete. Predictably, the recruits are instead totally useless and shamble through their exercises, which makes the film a curious forerunner to the 'Police Academy' movies. The ever-annoying Bob Monkhouse aside, the cast are likable enough, in particular Kenneth Connor (always my favourite Carry On-er) as a hypochondriac chased by canteen lady Dora Bryan; and Charles Hawtrey, who has a whale of a time as usual. Unfortunately the movie is flat, pretty dull at times and not very funny. Which is a bit of a drawback.


While it's of infinitely better quality than the T&A show that is Ghost Whisperer (who would've thought skimpy outfits + ghost mysteries would actually be boring), I still was not impressed much by this show. It's just....too full of cliché's. The tough, honest cop father, the hippie gypsy mother, the star athlete brother (who's facing a crisis that interrupted his perfect life), the nerd super-genius brother, etc.

While all of these caricatures would've been great if this were a Monty-Python-ish tongue-in-cheek show, I get the feeling that they (the producers) are actually serious! It's long, drawn out and slow like a typical CSI-ish drama with just a not-so-subtle hint of religious preaching now and then (discounting testimony's from "God", since we'd expect that, but the "it's only logical to believe in God" speech from the nerd-brother?).

All in all, it's not a badly produced show, per se. One can tell that it's got a good crew behind it. But there's something missing amongst the decent acting (mostly), good props, set, lighting, cast, etc. It needs an interesting story.


I don't like the fact that this show proclaims to know what god would do or say.

No human can know the ways of god (if he exists), anyone and anything that tries to tell you what god ways are is a sinner who tries to scam you.

Anyone who acts like gods spokesman is a sinner according to the bible, and for good reasons, people who believe someone is talking for god might go murder people thinking god told them to do it.

Also, this show has bad looking actors, I don't want to sit in-front of the TV looking at ugly people, there are enough of them in the world I don't need them in my living room.

The girl who plays Joan looks bad, her father looks awful, her off and on boyfriend also looks ugly.

The might not look too bad but I believe if you are going to make a TV show, at least use people who look good.


Right from the word go, this movie is dull, flat and full of poor attempts at atmosphere.

Jackman's performance is so outstanding compared to the rest of the film it's almost painful to see him leave the shot. Otherwise the film is filled with poorly written, poorly shot performances by actors who seem to be very much aware of just how bad the material they're working with is.

While this will probably become a cult classic for those who (rightfully) adore Jackman's work, I have to advise that unless your just dying to see more of Hugh, give it a miss.


Wonderful pictures, attention to detail, and very talented actors. It's a shame that the story is too slow without any actual release. After an initial comment by Mikael Persbrandt's character I personally kept waiting for "something bad" to happen all through the movie.

In the time-honored tradition of Scandinavian drama there will be shouting and full frontal nudity. Typical "wannabe serious moviegoer's" favorite, 4/10.


The 1980's were the decade when many film studios decided to use their new freedom from petty censorship to convince everyone that eye candy in the form of a little nudity was an essential pre-requisite for any modern romantic comedy. Although I have a great respect for eye candy where it is used effectively, many of us need only think back to the unending sequence of films from the Confessions, Porky's, Spring Break and similar stables to be thankful that this phase was not prolonged into the nineties. EGAE probably deserves respect as one of the films which, I assume deliberately, helped the industry to turn their eyes to other things than just candy. Other than this it would be hard to respect it for very much today, but it is still easy to enjoy it on its own terms as a totally zany romantic comedy with a story in which anything goes. It also claims credit as a work of sci-fi and as a musical - both of these claims are pure baloney. Today it is hard to find many moviegoers who regards it as more than a historical anachronism, and a plain bad film. But a significant proportion of these same moviegoers would rate it as an enjoyable film that they would be prepared to watch again. Its creators would probably be very happy with this consensus, they were not attempting to create a future classic - only to create a comedy which would succeed when it was released and would give them a great deal of fun whilst making it. We can still share much of this fun today! My rating is 4 stars


Julien Temple struggles to make decent movies. After the appalling Absolute Beginners, a film that - despite all the promise and potential of a great novel and a decent cast and a soundtrack by Bowie - falls short of the target by miles, Temple manages to barge around with an admirable lack of skill here in this cardboard cutout piece of cheap music hall. Nothing works. The film is slow and stiff with long embarrassing moments of nothing. In desperation a bored viewer may grasp at the flimsiest piece of stale slapstick to let out a yawning chuckle, but mainly the film can only be enjoyed by those who find turkeys amusing.


I'm a nut about Italian films, and Italy in general. I love Sardinia and Sardinians. It's a beautiful island with energetic and beautiful people that are anything but Italian. But... this film is nonsensical. Like a pure experiment on weirdness. Someone already pointed out a very distasteful scene that makes anyone cringe (the idea of man as a pure male beast that only knows sex from beasts). The four stories (should be three, but, oddly, there are four) are disconnected and they don't pull together in the final act (as the Director seems to think).

I wouldn't say anything about the pace. It's just simply that there's no point in this film, no argument, except the possible reference to life, death and the after-world... And this is the first film I remember that four different photographers are involved in... something that shows pretty well... not favourably.


I was so embarrassed watching this film - I couldn't even manage to stay until the end. I was looking forward to a nice surprise: films made in and about Sardinia do not come out every day. Sadly my expectations withered slowly away since the very beginning. This movie has no pace, no acting, no plot, no breathtaking scenery, no likable character, not even the urchins in the first episode. It simply appeals to your "gut" feeling. Everybody - kids included - is appallingly repulsive, performs incoherent deeds, appears to be some subhuman being in desperate need of a shower. I could catch no underlying humour, probably my fault.

The first scene shows some dire, deserted interior, with piles of rotting material scattered everywhere, the most attractive fixture being an overweight sewer rat gorging itself on some unidentified revolting substance. In the second episode we are treated to a candid camera-like take of a cross/eyed shepherd milking the flock and making cheese while feeding his pig. If this is supposed to look realistic, the Sardinian cheese industry is going to lose a good portion of its revenues. We follow the sheperd's trip from his "idyllic" hideout in the mountains to a "trendy" eatery on the coast, whose cheesy owner performs a series of senseless actions and feeds his customers the aforesaid cheese, and so on and so forth. I really could not take much more of that.

I left the cinema feeling queasy, wondering if my indigestion had been caused by what I had viewed.

1 out of 4.


I just want to add my voice to the critics and say, yes this movie is REALLY bad.

It has no suspense to speak of except where the characters start pretending to be serious. No link to reality, what in the world qualifies some oil fire fighters to run cutting edge equipment other than they're the inventor's drinking buddies. THESE guys are going to set off nukes to save the world? No wonder it's about to end.

As for casting, I think the only criteria was who was unemployed when it came time to shoot. Personally though I have to say I did like the Wil Wheaton Molten Shower scene.


Brian Goodman (Craig Sheffer) is a scientist specialized in drilling operations. He aborts a dangerous perforation, leaded by Alan Morrisey (Harry Van Gorkun) and Darryl Simmons (James Russo) and destroys the whole project and facilities. A few years later, he is working with his friends Sam Dalton (Bruce McGill) and Rodney Bedecker (Wil Wheaton, from Star Trek), when he detects an abnormal movement of the tectonic plates, provoked by Alan's new enterprise. Brian meets Alan, and together with Allison Saunders (Terry Farrel), a highly graduated scientist from MIT, try to stop the movement of underground layers of Earth. This flick is awful: very predictable and full of clichés. The characters are badly developed, the story is horrible and it does not work. The best part is the ironical dialog of a married couple, asking for information in a road bar. The Brazilian distributors called it `Catastrophe', maybe a hint regarding the terrible quality of this film. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Catástrofe' (`Catastrophe')


The same flaming digital f/x repeated over and over during the credits hints that there's something wrong with this film. However, if you ignore that warning and continue to watch, all sort of evils will escape from this Pandora's box: a machine that allegedly blows up but only showers sparks like a sparkler; hand-held camera shots with that home-movie look; a cliche villain/capitalist; the cliche battle between the scientist sexes; a brief earthquake scene of a city (looks like a postcard) wherein one tall building starts to crumble like a jigsaw puzzle; an odd puffy-faced (like he just had his wisdom teeth removed) twenty-something Whil Wheaton making a joke about his ex-wife...This is no modern "Crack in the world," no hidden diamond in the rough but a depressing clunker. On the positive side, it makes you appreciate aspects and techniques of good movies you took for granted or weren't aware of.


Chant ten thousand geeks, as Wesley Crusher appears on screen. Does he die? Frankly, who cares. With no characterisation, a plot that could be (and probably was) written on the back of a cigarette packet, mediocre actors, a sloppy score, Amateur Hour CGI and fair to middling awful camera work, it's hard to pay attention to anything happening in this B- movie.

Guys, here's a hint. When the crew turns up with Hi-8 camcorders, it's time to call your agent and see if there's any commercials going, or small car showrooms that need opened. This film does nobody any favours. It's pretty much welfare for C list jobbing actors and crew. Terry Farrel at least has the grace to look embarrased at doing the same old "lean to the left, spout some technobabble" rubbish she did on Star Trek, but Wesley actually seems to be trying to make something of his role. Unfortunately, all he manages to do is to make it highly irritating. Die, Wesley, die.

Low budget doesn't preclude a film from being fun, but this movie sadly tries to hide its budget. So cue "mass evacuation" scenes where five extras run out of a door and are filmed from three angles, sets where the paint on the plywood is barely dry, and muffed lines that are simply accepted rather than reshot (must have been running out of those Hi-8 tapes).

It's not even funny bad, it's just desultory and sad. Avoid.


Difficult to tell actually who is copying whom since apparently Deep Core is dated 2000 and The Core is dated 2003.

At any rate, the similarities (but not the budgets) are compelling: 1)Laser-operated drilling gizmo for going through the Earth 2) Lots of magma around 3) People get snuffed by magma 4) Earth put in peril by misuse of something related to drilling/earthquakes 5) Nukes needed to restore balance 6) Five nukes required 7) Detachable unit(s), at least one required for success.

Draw your own conclusions.

I must admit that Wil Wheaton did a credible job.

I didn't mind him getting snuffed though.

Oz


I have a DVD binder called "Inside The Earth," which contains about a dozen films with the same basic plot: scientists must use "futuristic" drilling machine thingy to drive into the center of the Earth to save the planet by either a) realigning tectonic plates b) setting off nuclear bombs c) allowing volcanoes to explode, thus relieving pressure, etc. or some such babble that makes no sense at all. And I've never even taken a geology course. Or, the other plot option is that they are merely exploring the center of the earth find lost civilizations, monsters, etc.

Quickly, here's a list of all the films, and a brief comparison to this one:

The Core: The Gold Standard. Much higher budget than this one, and a fun B-movie that doesn't take itself nearly as seriously as this one.

Journey To The Center of the Earth: I liked this, even though it had Pat Boone in it. A good old fashioned fantasy film from back in the day.

Mesa of Lost Women: See my review here on the IMDb. One of the worst movies ever made.

The Phantom Empire: Fred Olen Ray directed mish-mash of a ripoff of Indiana Jones, a 1950's alien invasion movie, and a 1930's serial. A lovable jumble of insanity. They spend most of the movie running around in the cave in Bronson Canyon, a legendary B-movie location in Los Angeles. Super fun for B-movie fans. Others might get annoyed.

Unknown World: Another machine-thingy must drill into the Earth to save civilization. Actually pretty well done for a no-budget film from 1952. Black and white of course.

Beast From Haunted Cave: Okay, they didn't go down into the Earth that far, only into a cave. But they find a cool monster in there. Enjoyable Roger Corman produced schlockery.

The Incredible Petrified World - Also 1950's black and white. They find a secret underground world (here comes the twist) under the ocean floor! They descend in a diving bell. Zero budget here. Incredibly boring. Only saving grace is John Carradine, but he can only do so much. Rating real low. Skip it.

Village of the Giants - I think there's a cave in this one? Is that why I stuck it in here?

Sound of Horror - Haven't watched this one yet, but I believe it's about people dying in a cave in Greece.

At The Earth's Core - Classic 1970's schlock! Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs. Classic Saturday afternoon fun fare. Worth watching.

The Lost Continent - People enter the Earth and find lost world of dinosaurs..."so bad it's good." Some hilarious moments. Another black and white low budget non-epic from the 1950's.

I need to pick up "The Cave" and "The Descent," two recent films with people dying undernearth the earth.

DEEP CORE stacks up pretty well against some of these. There is a ton of hilariously bad dialog, and the interior of the Drilling Thingy is really bad and low rent.

I'll give it a four for good old yocks. If DEEP CORE had taken itself a little less seriously, it probably would have rated a 6 or 7 for entertainment value. The Core is much funnier. Stanley Tucci's performance alone makes it worth your time.


The only saving grace (grimace) is that it came before The Core. With much the same basic plot and science but with more "famous" actors and a bigger budget. Similarities: Laser Gatling gun performing the drilling. The core spinning and trying to start/stop it with nuclear bombs, Hero is a scientist, Crew are scientists and mechanics, (Delroy Lindo and Will Wheaton), practically, and they go to the core by digging a hole with: a self-propelled vehicle. The Core was much better done with better special effects while Depp Core looked like it was made on a long weekend in the American southwest. The flames of the oil well, being put out during the beginning of the movie, keep flaming even after it is supposedly put out. This seems to be a premonition of how their endeavors become in making a movie, and saving mankind: another fizzle.


The movie kept me captivated but only out of morbid curiosity. It was simply the worst movie I have ever had the misfortune of watching. The movie oozed badness in every bad scene with every bad line. It is like watching a 90 minute car accident.


I guess this is a good movie to watch in the cinema, though only if you have someone to talk to (or more). Take an early show and bring popcorn. The best part of the movie is the shot after the movies is over, where this guy sings "I guess you're not here about the noise" - so make sure you stay untill the very end.


Special effects was quite cheesy, as you can see a lot of the shots were poor CGG (computer generated graphics). Also the story line was dorky and boring, and quite implausible. The lady character was good-looking. huh.

The vehicle looked like it was from Battlestar Galatica.

Not much more to say, not worth the money to pay to see, but if it's free, I guess it's okay.

That's about it.. don't have much more to say.

The "Wil" character from Star Trek didn't add much to the story line.

The Chinese connection was lame.


STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

In the 80s, few could forget Echo and the Bunnymen's famous anthem 'Spare Us The Cutter', which springs to mind with Chuck's new film. With his most recent film Bells of Innocence (quite enjoyable actually), he used no martial arts at all and I noted how maybe now because of his age, he was phasing this out of his act and concentrating more on expanding his range. Well, he's back at it alive and kicking (unwitting pun) here, duking it out with smaller time fellow fighting star Daniel Bernhardt, but that The Cutter would still be less fun than BOI even in spite of this should speak volumes.

Here Chuck returns as Sam Shepherd, a former detective who quit the force after a mission went tragically wrong, who's now working as a Private Investigator. When a woman's grand-father goes missing, she comes to him for help and he has no reason not to oblige. But then it emerges the old fella's been abducted by a Nazi war criminal and his younger cohort (Bernhardt) and his life rests on him using his expert diamond cutting skills on an artifact stolen from the desert. Digging deeper into the man's whereabouts, Sam and the woman find themselves the target of mysterious assailants here to and everywhere as they close in on the culprits.

He's kept himself in really good shape but all the same you can't help but shake the feeling Chuck is an action star who time has passed by, even with the help of frenetic camera editing and flashy shots. It's an exciting prospect watching two martial arts experts like him and Bernhardt duke it out but their fight scenes feel ridiculously phony, with some ridiculous loud punching sounds used that give them a really hammy feel. Unfortunately, it's not even as if the story can make things any more exciting, a deadly dull affair that drags by with the minimum of suspense or excitement, predictable as punch to boot. He's in remarkably good shape for his age and it's nice to see him make a comeback, but if this is the best he can manage, maybe Chuck just can't 'cut' it any more. **


I bought The Cutter in a bargain bin at a place her called Rogers Video for 5$. Chuck has never been known for his acting ability,but I am a fan of his action movies,so I decided to give it a chance. 85% of the time, I was bored by the lack of action,there are barely any fights,the story isn't very interesting and even Chuck himself looked bored. You have two great legit Martial Artist's in Chuck Norris and Dainel Bernhardt,why not give the fans a special fight,instead of giving us the crap they did. I was just so disappointed in it all,how on earth could they screw that one up?. The story itself is routine and unimaginative,Diamonds??..We've seen this story too many times before and done better at that. Did Chuck need a decent paycheck that badly?..this sure looked like a paycheck film,I didn't see the point of this film being made what so ever. I really should stop watching all these DTV action films,but every once in a while you find a surprising gem in a batch,however The Cutler is definitely not one of them. If you wanna see some good Chuck films,perhaps you should go back to his glory days and start there.

Performances. Chuck Norris looks asleep for the most part of the film. Why did he make this film,if he didn't care about it?. He looked so bored half the time,only showing up for a couple of fight scenes. The charisma is non existent,his dialog is awful..what happened Chuck?. Joanna Pacula is OK. She's pretty but not much else. Daniel Bernhardt is a well known martial artist, But he plays it much too over the top as the villain. He was wooden and his potentially classic showdown with Chuck is never delivered,what a shame.

Bottom Line. The Cutter is yet,another terrible DTV Action film. No thrills,no excitement,boring dialog and amateurish acting. Not recommended unless you want to cure your insomnia.

3/10


Chuck Norris goes the Charles Bronson route and makes a cookie cutter action flick despite his geriatric state. Chuck Norris at 65(!) is still kicking away and if this is any indication of what we should expect from Chuck Norris for the next couple of years, perhaps it's not such a bad idea that he peddles total gym commercials. The boring plot involves Nazis out to steal priceless jewels for some unfathomable reason and so they kidnap an old man and so his daughter (Joanna Pacula) hires out the help of Norris who is less Invasion USA and more Missing In Action. Seriously The Cutter has to be one of the least action packed films of Norris' career, Norris doesn't do many roundhouses and relies heavily on gunplay to get him by. In fact Norris seems to be in his old 80's mode where he was ruthless in his stoic presence however there just isn't enough action. In fact the bus sequence which is meant to be a homage to Code Of Silence, just reminds us how much the mighty have fallen.

A Chuck Norris fact is that the chief export of Chuck Norris is Pain and with this movie, he has exported a good amount on his target audience.

* out of 4-(Bad)


it looks like this movie cost ten dollars to make. I love chuck but damn! this is so cheesy. the camera work sucks, its bad folks. the editing, you name it. what really worries me is the same producing team and company is working on Rambo 4. oh no! avi Lerner eh? looks like we have the next Golan globus. man even they hired better directors! there is no way this cost ten mil to make. that may have been chucks pay. the movie the perfect weapon was probably made for just about the same amount of money when that came out and that looked 100 times better than this movie. chuck! please do something with better film makers.

oh and what sucks is that whenever he encounters a bad guy, hmm he just happens to know martial arts too??? and oh man, the close ups were killing me. the one extreme close up on Tracy scoggins' face were really bad! those wrinkles! oy vey


As far as I am concern this must be one of the worst film I ever saw. For instance the directing, editing and camera work really got on my nerve. I was constantly under the impression of watching a very annoying music video-clip. I wasn't impressed by the performances either, especially Chuck Norris who reminds us that he just can't act and when he tries, it's more laughable than anything else. Even Bernie Kopell's acting job is left to be desired. Some people might ask what was I expecting from a direct-to-video Chuck Norris flick. The answer to this is "not much" and even then I was seriously irritated by this movie. I mean come on even Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steven Seagall are smart enough to stay away from delivering bad one liner anymore. And when they do, they are definitively more convincing than our friend Chuck.

The only good thing that I can say about this film is that it's entertaining. Never for the good reasons, but entertaining none-the-less. Especially if you are among friends and drunk.


Chuck Norris makes somewhat of a comeback after a few years of TV movies. Cleary his sporadic output in the last ten years is Chuck attempting to slowly bow out of the movie business, or at least the ass kicking movie business. Now Chuck is of course a pensioner now and although he's in excellent shape he is, how Gibson and Glover might say "too old for this s**t!" It's true, Chuck has made a living some 30 plus years, kicking people in the head, he is much loved for doing so. Now as far as action stars go, Chuck is one who is a bit of a personality void. He doesn't really have the charisma of an Arnold, and somehow doesn't have star power, he seems to much of a nice guy, everyman, while similarly he didn't get by on his looks either. Sure Chuck Norris was a great ass-kicker, but wooden he most certainly is. Chuck never really had much personality on screen, even wooden stars like Seagal and Van Damme did. Chuck had some roles where he was okay and he plays the quiet, calm hero well.

Anyway what all my anti Chuck relates to is the Cutter. At 65 he now is heavily doubled. The fights are also poorly thought out and filmed in order to make life easier to include Chuck in his master shots etc. There are several fights in this film, all of which are markedly similar. Chuck swings punches like John Wayne cowboy fighting, on his master shot, while the coverage shots are filming his double from behind doing the same dull punching slightly faster, and throwing in the odd kick. In his fights Chuck is generally filmed waste up, swinging lefts and rights and that's it. The thing is he is participating in a good length of these reasonably long fights, especially when you compare that Seagal regularly gets doubled and sometimes isn't even there for his master shots. So the fights in Cutter are incredibly, that's the truth. The rest of the action too is dull, from poorly conceived shootouts, to lame car chases. Daniel Bernhardt, still in his action man prime, is also wasted and of course when he fights Chuck, the simple fact that they are filmed to hide Chucks double and Chucks lack of speed, Bernhardt can't do much.

The Cutter is best described as boring. If compared to Seagal's recent films, it's at least competently made but the plot holds no interest, Norris seems bored, and only Bernhardt, not known for his acting ability, seems remotely interesting as a character and performer. it's really just a dinosaur of a film that is kind of bottom shelf from the 80's and has made it's way to the present day. Only the score from Elia Cmiral goes beyond the mundane in this, and he proves reliable for these sorts of films, however his work here is a long way from his excellent work in The Mechanik and a country mile behind his apex in Ronin. This is I'm afraid perhaps the dullest film I have seen in years. I like Chuck, and it's a shame this couldn't be a great swansong for the legend but as it goes I'll have to whip out a copy of Delta Force or Lone Wolf McQuade and watch in his prime. *


Where do i begin, well to tell you the truth i haven't gotta clue. Initially i thought it couldn't be that bad seeing as though Steve Seagal has made 15 movies in the last 4 years, but i was wrong "DEAD" wrong. The start of the film just was so uncoordinated while searching for the girl his fat enemy who mind you put up a huge fight by being chucks punching bag get's thrown out of a window only to hear Chucks reason for it. "I needed some air" who is Texas Ranger kidding. To cut the story short heaps of bad lines, the acting makes Batman and Robin look like a masterpiece this movie must have been mistaken for a new comedy movie cause it was joking. It was as painful as watching someone chainsaw my penis off while watching a new Steven Seagal movie.


My daughter and I are avid movie-goers. We both agree that the movie market is over-glutted with CGI animated flicks. We saw both "Over the Hedge," and "The Wild," and they left us cold. We may give "Flushed Away" a chance, only because the guys behind the beloved "Wallace & Gromit films, and "Chicken Run." "Flicka" has it problems, such as a female lead who looks far too old to be in high school, a "brother" who acts likes he is flirting with her more than his on-screen girlfriend! and an impossibly perfect mom, but it still does not disappoint. Of course I read the original "Flicka" book as a child AND remember the old B&W TV series! This movie doesn't even come close, but from the moment the rodeo guy took Flicka away until the end of the movie, my daughter and I were crying buckets! I also think that hunky Tim McGraw was superb, and was jealous of Maria Bello when they did the slow dance!


Mary O'Hara must be doing spins in her grave! It was bad enough what Hollywood did originally to her books (all three of them in the series) without this version hitting the screen. This was not a "kid's book" (I've seen the reference...obviously from someone who never read the books); it was a series of books about the complex relationships of a family living in 1940's Wyoming: A loving mother, father, TWO sons, and an infant daughter. The father/son conflict between the younger son and the father, and the relationship between the brothers, Ken and Howard, were well crafted; as was the very deep (and at times) troubled love relationship between Rob and Nell. What could have been a sweeping family saga was turned into a sappy boy loves horse opus for Roddy McDowell (great actor!), shortly after his successes in the Lassie boy loves dog films.

Just once, I'd like to see Hollywood get it right. If the book ain't broke, don't fix it!!


From practically the opening scene, I wanted to slap this girl silly. Nobody but a 12-year-old girl should find "Flicka" appealing, and I would recommend against letting any 12-year-old girl see it, because it rewards bad behavior and sets a terrible example. She's not "rebellious," she's a brat: arguing with her father in a business meeting (what on earth was she doing there in the first place?), disobeying direct commands and being generally unpleasant. The father was an ineffective disciplinarian and the mother spineless. This movie stands up only as an example of how NOT to be a parent. The only redeeming quality the movie had at all was that the rest of the family truly seemed to love each other deeply and had no problem showing it.


I have trained un-broken horses and instructed young riders for a few years. Currently I am a Mounted Patrol officer. Please take what I say very seriously. I am very concerned about children endangering themselves based on "lessons" they might learn from this movie. As an officer on horseback I am used to having children literally run up to my horse. A normal horse, without special training would have injured/run away from these children. It bothers me that parents usually stand back and laugh as their children run at our horses. I believe both children and parents are getting the wrong idea about horses and the way they act based on movies like this one that continue the mis-notion.

This movie teaches: 1) That if you get on a wild mustang's back, that has never had a rider it will miraculously understand! Oh, you may fall off a time or two, but that's alright!

REAL LESSON: It takes weeks, months to even "green" break a horse (walk, trot, canter) Even the process of adding weight to a horse's back and riding equipment is done slowly and gradually. The young girl here goes against the horse's natural nature and defies all safety/acts bratty towards her Father when he tries to correct her.

2) It's okay to steal/run away with a horse in the woods/rainstorm!

REAL LESSON: I think you understand this one.

other things that are just wrong: Galloping a horse in the rain, "talking" to the horse as if its a human instead of using riding cues, not wearing a helmet (Many Western riders do not, but on a green-broke horse this is just asking for trouble).

I'm worried that someone's young daughter is going to wander into a neighbor's pasture and approach a horse thinking it will "magically" become her friend. I've seen a little boy injured because he hid into a strange horse's stall believing it was his "friend."

This movie does not at all encourage realistic, safe relationships between horses and riders. If you do let your children watch this version of Flicka, try to explain to them that horses are animals and Katy's behavior is wrong. If they want riding lessons after this movie talk to your instructor about how to act around a "real" horse. Encourage them to read books such as "Pony Pals" or "The Saddle Club" which usually encourage safer practices/life lessons.

It will be better for your family, I assure you.


This movie, while it was a good story, was horribly acted. At best, it can be described as over and under acted, which is quite an accomplishment. It's obvious that Tim McGraw as limited acting ability and Maria Bello's performance it quite disappointing. It must be stated that the script was as equally terrible as the acting that accompanied it.The best part of the movie is its visible stimulation. The movie location, Wyoming, is stunning and it must be said that the film's makers certainly choose the right locale. But that is as far as the goodness goes. I hear that"Flicka" is based on a book. My advice, skip the movie and read the book. It has to be better than this pile of crap on film.


Which is basically what teenage Katy says to her father over and over and over again. AFter lying (again), not only to her family but the rodeo management, Flicka is seriously injured, and Katy is in bed with a fever. The dad doesn't want Flicka to suffer, so he heads off to put her down. Katy comes down the steps, tears streaming down her face. "Finally!" I thought, "She is going to redeem herself and say she's sorry for the incredible mess she's gotten everyone into." But, nooooo, she says 'it's okay, Daddy, you can kill both of us'. OH MY GOODNESS!! My super-favorite part, though, was at the end, when the DAD apologizes to Katy. What?!! Way to go Hollywood, for emasculating another Father and making him appear totally incompetent.


If you're a fan of the book 'My Friend Flicka' or the original 1943 movie of the same name, you are going to be severely disappointed with 'Flicka'.

This isn't the story of a young boy daydreaming about owning his own horse, and when his dad allows it he chooses one thought to be too crazy to tame, a boy who learns about love and responsibility. It's the story of a teenage girl who daydreams about owning her own horse, goes out on her own to catch a wild mustang, and tries to train it behind her father's back. Her father sells it when she gets hurt, then she turns around and steals it from the rodeo. The moral of this heartwarming tale is that if you disregard your parents often enough, they'll eventually cave in and see that you're right.

So basically, nothing to do with the original Flicka at all.

Good old Gus is reduced to an extra with a few lines (like passing on that 'Flicka' is Swedish for 'little girl) instead of a caring and involved farmhand who disobeys his boss because of a little boy's love. Flicka becomes a mustang, not part of the family's herd, and Katie (instead of Ken) is not allowed to have her own horse as her father is stiff, strict, and - let's face it - sexist. And the cougar takes a more sinister and active role.

The worst thing about this movie is what it teaches young kids about horses. The things that Katie does in the film are unrealistic and downright dangerous, and the father is absolutely right in trying to stop her (though if he had have taught her how to train the horse as he did in the original, things would have turned out differently, but then society these days requires more action).

This movie is the typical childhood Black Stallion fantasy, to the point where they even made Flicka BLACK instead of sorrel. It wouldn't have been as bad if they did not try to use the name of a much loved classic novel to promote their film. Were this a stand alone story, it would have been far more acceptable, but to claim that this film was based on the novel is a joke.

That being said, it was beautifully filmed and Tim McGraw did a much better job acting than I expected.

Bottom line - your kids will love it, but if you're a fan of the original or know ANYTHING at all about horses, this movie isn't for you.


This film is just HORRIBLE! Its not even true to the original at all! This film totally ignores the original book.There are also many, MANY changes in this one from the original, like this one:The main character is changed to female Katy McLaughlin, when in the original it was male Ken McLaughling.Horses even died on the set of this film.And I'm sick of EVERYBODY saying ''No horses died, its just a rumor.'' or ''They just made that up, no horses were killed.'' Well, horses WERE killed! Isn't that horrible? Horses have helped us in dozens of ways and they shouldn't be slaughtered! This is just a stupid, horrible movie! Two words: SKIP IT.The original is much better than this movie.If you watch the original, trust me, you will NOT be displeased.Down with this horrid remake!

1/10


Unfortunately, we did not read a review of Flicka before taking our three children. Our 13-year old son commented during the movie about the father/son shoving scene. Our 9-year old daughter told us how disappointed she was that the girl was rebellious with no consequences for that behavior (in fact, she is rewarded), and our 16-year old said it was too sappy for her taste. I liked the music, the scenery, and the horses. The acting was good too, but the theme is counter to what we think are important values: integrity, respect for one another, and healthy communication. We own a paint horse and it is no where as big as the one portrayed in this movie. Was "Flicka" in fact a mustang?


I was looking forward to this movie a lot.I wanted to watch it with my grand daughters.I am glad I saw it first.I was so disappointed with it.I never got the connection with the horse and the girl,didn't work for me.I also wanted to see the big race?The one that saved the ranch?She said Flicka the horse came they opened the gate for them to run away?Whats with that?Now oh god shes missing get a search party.I would rather have seen Dekota fanning do the part this girl was a bit over weight for it. I was glad I never had to pay money to see it,but it's so weired to see the critics saying,I love this movie so good.My god come on don't drink before you see it.The guy ,father never got his emotions working for me.A I also had a hard time hearing him whispering his lines.He was to bland for my taste.Gary


I thought this movie was terrible. Katie (the main character) is a miserable, thoughtless, rude brat who doesn't care who she hurts in her quest to get her own way. I think this is supposed to pass for "free-spirited", but I just couldn't like her at all. It's no wonder they sent her off to boarding school and kept her less selfish brother around the ranch.

The directing is lacking. I found myself wondering why, for example, I was watching people line dance for a while, and why they went swimming at one point. It didn't go together smoothly and there are many parts that just don't seem to go into the movie very well. There are some creepy parts where one of the ranch hands appears to have a crush on Katie, but that's also there for no reason.

The acting is really pretty good and some of the scenes of the horses and the mountains are breathtaking.

The theme itself is one that most of us will love, but my advice: If you like stories about how the history of the west was written on or by horses, watch "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" -- it's infinitely better.


OH dear. I was channel surfing in the USA and I came across some footage that made me nauseous ,courtesy of SHARK..that showed the wild horse races in the USA!.Disgusting,barbaric, ,appalling and abhorrent.I also note the AHA investigation as stated on SHARK also came up with,like Lord of the Rings..more injured and dead horses..it all sounds all too familiar..problems on set being covered up and not exposed properly thereby letting the self centered film industry get away with it again...-the second time in three years...and again the media covering it up..the bad behavior of the movie industry..I work on films...there is no need for any one or animal be harmed in the making of a movie.Large or small.We have been doing it for a while..we know what health and safety is.We are not all this bad.Kids this ain't no joke.This is not funny.If you have pets..do you let harm come to them in your house and under your care?.This is no different...on TV I saw mid west thugs doing cruel stuff to horses....unnecessarily......thugs with little in the way of common sense or decency treating animals badly ..and I presume there wives. And it sounds like,well Lord of the rings ,not good things happened on set and was covered up.This is appalling and the industry should be ashamed as hsould Americans.(and fair enough..we banned fox hunting in the UK and thats not even apatch on this ..fox hunting is humane compared to this)I for one am unable to support or watch this movie as I know enough about the AHA that although they may not print the whole truth and they may err on the side of caution ..they do get at least the tip of the iceberg out so you know on both those film -FLicka and LOTR things were amiss...and thugs were worse than what the AHA can reasonably say on their site(see film & TV unit of AHA).Disappointing that Tim McGraw allows this and he is not ëyes open yet.You know can one forgive him for this kind of support for these wild horse races.NO.Cna I buy his movie now.NO! He is in a position to make a difference and he should open his eyes consciously and look at what is really happening here and real see it and understand the pain being caused.Thumbs down to every producer,actor and director on this movie.Thumbs up to SHARK for getting the story out and to any sponser who pulls out.Thumbs up to Paul McCartney.Thumbs up to ... tried so valiantly on LOTR to stop this crap happening on film sets..Animal or human, undue suffering is not required.Here,in Africa, UK ,Mexcio,Canada ,or anywhere.Undue suffering in Afirca,Dafur and elsewhere like hunger must end.


After viewing this film,being well aware just how far back the story of Flicka goes,and not having seen any of the other films based on Flicka,or read any books,I came away being pretty darn sure that the story has been told far,far better than this.First,let me start with the selection of Tim McGraw to portray the girls father.He was supposed to be this stern,put his foot down type of ranch owner and father,and he just isn't very convincing in the part.I'm not saying that he doesn't have potential as an actor.Perhaps he does.I'm saying that he wasn't right for this part.Also,the story was not told in a way that kept me interested,thereby leading me to believe that it has been told better.My advice would be to steer clear of this telling and view the classic version.It's too late for me to do the former,but you can bet I'll be doing the latter very soon.


Holy, I can't believe this movie got made. Im a pretty open-minded person. And I was looking forward to being entertained. Yeah, I knew it involved a girl and her horse, but still, I was open-minded, plus my date wanted to see it. I never read the book, but it was way too predictable. It was like I was psychic or something. about 10 minutes into it, I wanted to leave. it was agonizing.The main character who plays KATY was deece. she did a good job and was convincing. was nice to see a normal looking girl in this role besides the other young bubble heads in Hollywood (see Lindsay Lohan and Hillary Duff). Tim Mcgraw is terrible. Holy. His delivery is flat, forced and mono tone, like he is constipated or his jeans are too tight. He is the Mariah Carrey of country singers/actors. Also, like what rancher dad has a fake and bake tan with obvious hair plugs? I could not stop staring at them curling over his hair line. yeah the character worked outside, but he wore a hat. cowboys don't get THAT tanned. Dwight Yoakam or someone more realistic would have done well.at least dwight lets his thin locks flow, and sports a white pastey complexion. The actress who played the character of Nell was deece too. Didn't over act, and was subtle. she looked weathered and her hair was messy at times (more realistic) okay, who was jack? was he just a ranch hand? or a relative? not a realistic character. too pretty boyish. him and Tim's character were more prim and proper than the females in the movie. He seems like a good actor. but not cast well as a Coyboy. more like a mob bosses son or a cop. oh yes, the horse. I felt no connection to the horse. not like the one in Hildago. Sorry horse. other than that the rest of the cast did its job. in closing, Tim McGraw and the story like sucked. Boring movie. Even the ultra conservative residents of Utah will doze off. I bet Mike Tyson could write a more heartfelt movie than this one. ~T~


If you just want to watch a sappy horse story, okay, this movie is one. But if you think you are going to see a movie based on Mary O'Hara's book, you will be sorely disappointed and disgusted. There was absolutely no reason to 'update' the story. Mary O'Hara would 'turn over in her grave' if she'd been forced to watch this travesty. It is not 'true' to the book. It is NOTHING like the book. The original movie "My Friend Flicka" starring Roddy McDowall, Foster Preston, etc. is far far far better a movie.

You should rent it, you'll see what I mean. Better yet, actually READ the book, since apparently you did not if you think THIS movie is 'true' to the book.


Apart from the even worse I DON'T WANT TO BE BORN (also starring the great Joan Collins), this is the absolute worst film she ever made (even worse than THE BITCH). It's so bad and so unremittingly awful that it's a lot of fun to watch--particularly with friends. I'm sure that when Ms. Collins made it big on the show DYNASTY, she wanted to buy up every copy of these films, but they remain as a testament to just how low her career had sunk in the 1970s.

EMPIRE OF THE ANTS is about a Realtor (Collins) trying to sell swampland to a group of tourists. Together, the entire cast looked like actors that couldn't quite make the cut to get on LOVE BOAT. Well, she takes these suckers on an outing but instead of just being a three-hour tour of the area, all hell breaks loose and they are chased by evil, enormous and incredibly fake-looking ants. Okay, so now you are probably thinking "this sounds horrible--it can't possibly get any stupider"--well, if you ARE thinking that, then are you in for a surprise!!! The ants don't kill them all once they are captured. Nope. Instead, the ants use super mind control to turn them and hundreds of others into slaves to work at their sugar factory!!! Will the ants win and Earth be doomed to be turned into a giant Domino Sugar plantation? Well, tune it to see for yourself!! It's best to see it and be forewarned!


There is a reason why Bert I. Gordon's American-International cheapies were paid more lip service than the works of Ed Wood on the now-defunct Satellite of Love: the man carries the dishonorable title of being one of the most inept directors of low-budget schlock. But whereas stuff like "The Amazing Colossal Man" (a man turned giant by atomic testing) and "Beginning of the End" (Peter Graves vs. giant grasshoppers) had a certain charm reflective of the 1950s' "high- concept/low-budget" brand of sci-fi, "Empire of the Ants" is a bottom-feeder from start to finish, trying desperately to capture the low-grade magic of a bygone era. The only real merit of "Ants" is its nostalgia value--yes, I would watch this as a child and be utterly terrified of those bloodthirsty, radiation-grown buggers; years later, the puppet heads being shaken off-camera are less than impressive (as is Gordon's excessively shaking camera during the attack scenes), as is the stock footage blown up to make the ants tower over our human protagonists. The exposition scenes are painfully awkward, the dialog mostly atrocious, and the performances reflect this (with dismal results). The film is padded out with nonsensical clichés (the old couple who wanders off for no reason; the girl who sprains her ankle; another who gets snagged on a branch) and incredible lapses in logic (why can't our zeroes see or hear a cluster of ants that are mere feet away?), which culminates in a third act that apparently tries to wax philosophical in the vein of H.G. Wells' original story (which I haven't read) but falls flat on its face. "Empire of the Ants" is an interesting epitaph for a genre that has long since passed, but its best possible fate will probably be drunken viewing at your next house party.


Whoe! I am a man who isn't quick to point out the bad in something, but this movie is horrid! Horrible, I mean downright horrible special effects and real putrid acting plus the many things that would not possibly ever happen in real life or even imaginary make this one of, if not, the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life! I stayed up late one night, bored out of my mind, searching the channels and found this movie. Now I like older and even corny movies to a point, but this movie was so bad, that even after the point where the ants attack and figured it would start to get interesting, it was killing me - and I was not even in the movie! I FORCED myself to watch this movie to not only see how much I could stand since I was bored anyway, but to see it entirely so I can be totally correct when I say it is the worst movie to ever see. The part that really, really irked me was when this older couple, knowing darn well that there where killer ants everywhere eating everything in sight, decided while running away from the ants (while the other characters were trying to find a boat and go down the river to escape the ants) they were going to take a different route and go DEEPER in the woods - how idiotic was that! I even said to myself "I wonder how they would escape since the old couple could barely walk much less run even though they always kept within seeing distance of the others". I figured the director would kill them off because it was slowing down an already slow pace to the movie - but not like that! They did not even show the ants eat them! The actors probably died before that scene since they were so old! The sounds of the ants sounded like children screaming and when they showed a close up of the ants grabbing some of the people, it looked more fake than the guy who wore the rubber suit for "Godzilla"! Man, this one was bad! I would only recommend showing this movie to future directors to show what NOT to do in making a movie! Ridiculous!


Boy, my boy. Laughable 'sci-fi' that is a hoot. The enticing Joan Collins plays a shady real estate agent along with a boat load of prospective property buyers attacked by giant mutant ants. The queen ant is housed inside a sugar plant/warehouse where she hypnotizes the residents of the small, remote island community. The special effects are probably up to par for the mid 70's. But this thing is so silly it hurts. Not the best effort from a talented cast that includes Albert Salmi, Jacqueline Scott, Robert Lansing, Robert Pine and John David Carson.


When I was young, I remember fondly of my dad and me watching a few movies together on the television. I liked anything horror, suspense, science fiction, "When-Animals-Attack," or a combination of all four. I recall when the opening credits had the symbol and words "American International" he would laugh and say, "Oh, this must mean this will be a really bad movie." I had no idea "American International" was synonymous with a "B-Movie." Or even what a "B-Movie" was.

Later in life, after obviously telling the difference between well-made and "B-Movie," I also learned from one of my favorite television shows, Mystery Science Theater 3000 that not only was "American International" bad, but anything from "Burt I. Gordon" was just as horrible.

Ladies, Gentlemen, my father and the crew of the Satellite of Love were correct here. Take their and my warning, stay away from the Empire of the Ants, an American International Burt I. Gordon feature.

I can't put my finger on how many bad things, or hilariously bad scenes were in this movie. From the ants that look just as bored as the audience, to the ants that change shape/species from when you see the real to the models. From the outrageous acting, to the down-right laugh-out-loud "evil plan" of the Queen. The introduction/narration should be enough to ward off some viewers or the fact that these ants set up shop, adapt to their new environment and workers literally overnight.

Too bad; this probably was a good book from H.G. Wells that I missed.

There was only one bright spot in this whole mess: Joan Collins was pitch-perfect in her role. Obviously the best actor of the group (followed closely by the bored ants,) Collins actually had me convinced in her evil-scheming ways. She couldn't save the movie, but at least the movie got an extra ½ star from her performance.

What we have here is a boat-load of radioactive waste in the form of some silver 5th grade science project, gets dumped in the ocean (there's a message here!) and lands on a Florida coast where ants greedily accept the substance causing them to grow to human size. Meanwhile, the land's being "sold" to a prospective group of people that come over via boat immediately after the waste lands.

Fryser (Collins) and her mate attempt to make the swamp land into investment properties, but the newly grown ants have another agenda. Thankfully, it's not too long for the people to see, or get attacked by the large, screeching ants and the survivors head to a river that will save them. One-by-one they get assaulted until the remaining few make it into a nearby town. There, they enter the Twlight Zone and learn the Queen Ant has been quite the busy lady.

The movie's hilarious. It could fall under that "it's so bad, it's fun to watch" genre. And when I was a kid, bad acting, bad special effects, badly made "giant ants" wouldn't stop me from watching. Heck, if I didn't turn it off after my father's warning, then I was going to enjoy being scared by it. I was 5 then.

As an adult, this movie is just about unbearable. And these were adults making this movie. Have they no shame? You wouldn't think so, when you hear the ants scream, or them "walking on air" in some hilarious scenes. (I'm guessing they were led down glass tubes and blown up to make them look more menacing, but in reality, it was cracking me up to see them just crawl up in mid-air.) I want this movie remade. I want to see this with a budget and without the Queen story. I said that before with a bunch of other B-Movies I enjoyed as a child, such as The Stuff. Perhaps I will get petitions signed.

At any rate, skip this horrible movie. Unless you're under the influence. It might be funnier, but at least you can get through it.


The movie starts out with Marilyn Fryser(Joan Collins) who is suckering a group of people into purchasing phony real estate. What she doesn't know is that a bunch of ants have been eating radioactive waste from a barrel that washed up ashore. The toxic waste turns the ants into giant mutant ants. Now, Marilyn and the tourists must fight for their lives. Once they reach a town, they find a sheriff and contact him and tell him about what was going on. The sheriff and several other police officers lead them to a sugar factory. What they see is a container holding the queen ant and it's farting a mind controlling gas on people. At the end, they blow up the sugar factory, get on a boat, and take off.

There were a few problems I've had:

One: How did the ants manage to convince the sheriff and his posse to build a container and keep feeding them sugar? Surely, if the sheriff saw them, he would have been shooting at them. Nothing like that ever happened.

Two: How did they build the container that holds the queen within a matter of hours? How did they get the queen in there?

Three: Why wasn't anybody else just as terrified as the tourists? They just kept in line and had blank faces WILLING to get sprayed by this giant ant that now controls the whole town!

I give this movie 1 star out of 10. This is the worst insect monster movie I've ever seen!


Joan Collins shows true grit facing down giant radioactive ants in this muddy monster-fest directed, co-written, and co-produced by Bert I. Gordon. An island hideaway turns into Hell for vacationers after the ants have grown to enormous proportions, terrorizing the tourists and sending Collins and crew on the run. Despite good photographic effects by cinematographer Reginald Morris--not to mention a touch of class provided by Joan herself--the results are pretty ridiculous. Based on an H.G. Wells story, the film's third act laughably tries sneaking in sort of an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"-type plot twist--and one is nearly inclined to give the picture some extra points for its moxy. It isn't art, but then it doesn't strive to be anything other than dopey excitement. As for Collins, she performs with conviction; hopefully she cashed a paycheck somewhat larger than these ants. * from ****


Joan Collins stars in this hilarious giant bug epic. Producer-director Bert I. Gordon, the genius behind such stuff-grows-really-big films as The Amazing Colossal Man and Village of the Giants, brings us a cautionary tale of what can happen when pollution, real-estate scams, and social insects mix. Collins, an absolute portrait of the valiant trouper who keeps plugging away no matter how bad the script gets, stars as shady land developer Marilyn Fryer. Marilyn is by only a small margin the sleaziest of a band of characters so repellent it's hard not to root for the ants (who, by the way, grow really big). A ludicrous plot and jaw-droopingly bad dialog make Empire of the Ants ideal for late-night viewing. Watch it with your most vicious circle of friends. DVD version includes the original trailer and French and Spanish subtitles.


For a movie that came out in 1977, this was a very poorly made film. The special effects such as the giant ants were laughable as was the plot. It could be forgiven if it had been made 20 years earlier but it wasn't. Although one of the stars in Empire of the Ants is Joan Collins, it must be one of the movies that she wishes the public would forget. It is entertaining but by no means should you watch this as a serious horror / drama. All around, the quality just isn't there. Although not a complete waste of time, the impression I had was that this was just another blah movie, nothing to go out of your way for but mildly entertaining. I can't say that it was really terrible but on the other hand it certainly can't be called good.


Shady land developer, played by Joan Collins, lures prospective buyers to swamp land, unaware that the worthless real estate has already been "bought" by giant ants. The first half of the film is trite but tolerable. The second half makes absolutely no sense and is full of plot holes. Somehow, I just can't imagine the great H.G. Wells writing a novel that is so inane. Maybe the screenwriters made significant "changes" to the original story.

There are worse b-grade science fiction movies out there. In addition to "Plan 9 From Outer Space", my personal favorite is "The Giant Claw". These two films are more enjoyable to watch than "Empire of the Ants" because they are so awful they at least provide some laughs.


I'm a big fan of B movies but this is truly awful. Ms. Collins outdoes herself and it rates a 2/10 only because even I, in my eternal cynicism, can't believe that those involved in making this film intended for it to be taken seriously (as much as it seems that they do).


Well I must say that I have to add my two cents in on this one. I hate to be one to jump on the bandwagon, but in this case I just have to. This movie was horrendous!!!! So bad to the point where I actually laughed during parts where it should have been terrifying. No wonder Joan Collins has refused to even discuss this dreadful picture when asked about it. The storyline...BAD, the acting.....BAD, the direction....BAD, the special effects....REALLY BAD. I was surprised to see Robert Lansing in this film. He is a fine actor and I guess even great actors fall victim to insipidly idiotic pictures. This was made during the 70's, when disaster films and giant animal horror flicks reigned supreme. Can't find any redeemable quality about it whatsoever. My overall rating: 2. That's being generous, because I would have rated it a 1 if it weren't so hilarious.


This is a cheapie folks, the tragic attempt at special effects is truly laughable, and the story line ( even for a B Horror movie )is really uneven. It is from the H. G. Wells story of the same name. Although I have not read the story I believe this must be blasphemy to it's original intent. Joan Collins leads the cast, some of whom can actually act in a story about a group on a free cruise from a company trying to sell land. Due to kegs of radioactive chemicals ants become large, angry and intelligent! This is good for some entertainment and laughs but not enough. It just leaves you bored.


This movie amazes me. When I first saw it in the theater (if you have seen it you won't believe I just admitted that) I was 8 years old and it was so cool at that time. I had not seen it since, until a few months ago when I caught it on cable. Wow, this is a bad movie. It gets hig camp value in that you get to see Joan Collins (in the movie she admits was her worst acting experience) dive into a sick, gross, murky swamp. Just watching her face you know she wants to be eaten so she can just go home. Lots of cheesy special effects of normal ants on mini models, very obvious. The ant queen part is semi creepy, but the ultra 1977 wardrobe is too distracting to really notice. If the special effects had pulled through, this may have gone on to greater cult moviedom, unfortunately it is just a bad movie. Now, if only someone reworked it and made it today, I bet Joan Collins is still available.....


I can't say for certain but I suspect that mister Burt I. Gordon is a bigot. That's right, even in this movie released in 1977 there was no characters or actors of any kind of minority. All pure white Americans. Joan Collins even speaks with an American accent or at least she tries. Plus the kind of effects used in this movie didn't work in the 1950s', so what made Burt think it would work in the 1970s'. When I was a kid there was a whole week of giant monster movies and my Grandmother said I could watch only one and unlucky me I picked EMPIRE OF THE ANTS. Burt I. Gordon will be forever in the list of history's worst directors, along with Ed Wood Jr., Jeff Leroy, Don Dohler and Nick Zedd You can tell the ants were in a glass case, the way they walked straight up. Plus, in one scene, the ant was walking on the sky. Card board post cards are not a special effect. This movie would offend ants if they could understand what they were watching and I give it the THANKSGIVING TURKEY.


Joan Collins always has the same role in every movie which is snotty and a bitch. Well, here is the best of the worst of the movies that she has been in. The special effects look really really bad. There were some fake ant farms that were suppose to represent the barns and stuff. I could see the ants leg hanging off the edge. Then the ants were rolling around in the sugar and sugar was all over them. The acting was so bad that I was rooting for the ants to win. Then the queen ant farted on everyone's face and that was hilarious. There were some scenes of them going down the river in a boat just like in "Deliverance." I was waiting for the banjo to start to play. No such luck.


By now, you probably already know what this movie is all about. But just in case, here is a brief overview of the film: A ship dumps several barrels of nuclear waste into the ocean, apparently too close to the shore. One of the barrels washes onto a beach and begins to leak. Marilyn Fryser (played by Joan Collins) is an unscrupulous land dealer whose only intent is to take money from people. She hires a yacht owner (played by Robert Lansing) to take her potential investors to the proposed building site to see if she can convince them to invest their money in her project. Her plans fall apart when the group discovers the area is populated by dangerous ants who have apparently come into contact with the nuclear waste mentioned earlier.

I'm actually a big fan of bad movies. My DVD collection includes a bunch of bad films that probably never should have been made. Watching these films helps me appreciate the really good films even more. Sometimes, these really bad films can also be accidentally hilarious because of how poorly created they are. I recently watched Empire of the Ants because I like Joan Collins, but also because I wanted to see if it was really as bad as everyone says. They were right. This movie is absolutely terrible. Watching this film was a complete waste of my time.

The storyline could not have been more boring. Nothing unexpected happens except for one silly thing at the end. The characters are one-dimensional, bland and completely unremarkable. The script was horrible, and the special effects are just awful. I've seen films that were made in the 1920s and 30s that look better than this.

I hope you do not make the same mistake I made. There is nothing here that you should want to see. Skip this movie, at all costs.


This is one of a host of films which in the 1970s revived the atomic mutant animal genre popular two decades earlier (exemplified by THEM! [1954]  which also dealt with giant ants and where the results had been infinitely better). By the way, these same insects  though in their normal size  were the subject of PHASE IV (1974) as well; again, that film is superior to the one under review. Unfortunately, the generally low-grade presentation here  accentuated by the open-matte framing on the DVD I watched  and a cast of future TV regulars (mostly playing stock characters) makes it no better than the typical small-screen product of the era! Joan Collins' presence as  what else?  a wealthy bitch, then, gives the film added camp value.

The ants themselves are fairly ludicrous creations (marred, to begin with, by being allowed too many hairy{?!} close-up shots), while the use of process photography in the scene where they convene in the sugar factory is very obvious  effectively destroying the intended illusion of the situation! The fact that the townsfolk are eventually revealed as 'slaves' of the giant ant community  after having dissed their existence when reported by the vacationers who fell foul of them on a proposed island resort  links the film with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (1956) which, incidentally, was about to be remade (the second of four versions, so far!) around this same time.

Ultimately, H.G. Wells' ideas in this case seem scarier  and more persuasive  on paper than on film. At least, the thing is entertaining enough while it's on  and I'd still like to check out director Gordon's other Wells adaptation, THE FOOD OF THE GODS (1976), eventually...


Empire of the Ants is a very bad film from veteran bad film maker Bert I Gordon. Bert I relied on his usual formula of combining size change with an H.G. Wells story to make a quick buck. I'm sure that at one time these special effects were considered state of the art, but for God's sake he's been using the same damn techniques since 1956. I'm no expert in the world of trick photography, but still there has to have been some advances between "Attack of the Puppet People" and "Empire of the Ants." To boot, all of Bert I's special effects involve making things larger or smaller. What the hell Bert? Didn't you learn how to do anything else in film school? You can only remake the same damn movie so many times.

Here's the plot, or lack there of. Joan Collins leads a group of prospective buyers on a cruise to a piece of swamp land that is going to be developed into condos. The group has the typical monster movie stereotypes; the salty sea captain, the unfaithful husband, the old folks who were just along for the ride, etc. They find a group of giant ants who proceed to devour some of the passengers. The survivors find a town where the inhabitants are brainwashed by ant pheromones and feed refined sugar to the ants. Pretty simple huh.

The acting was OK, but besides that the movie just kind of sucked. Bert I, I'm glad that you've stopped making films.


Bert Gordon's follow-up to his "Food of the Gods" from the previous year begins with a real estate scam headed by bitchy Joan Collins in a remote area. Collins used this character template for her much more famous role as the queen bitch on the Dynasty TV series in the '80s. I believe she was also in a movie titled "The Bitch" a year or two after this. In a strange turn of events, just as some of her conned victims become aware of her scam, the cast is attacked by giant ants. It's a lesson to all con artists out there - one way or another you'll get your comeuppance, if not at the hands of angry 'customers,' then angry giant ants. Ironically, and I use the term loosely, the ants derail a potentially interesting plot; I was waiting to see Collins get tarred & feathered by her victims. Instead, we get the 'pursue and destroy fleeing humans through wilderness' plot, a more tedious 2nd act than I would have thought. Unfortunately, this picture must fall inferior to the ultimate giant ants movie, "Them," from way back in 1954, and which may have had better special FX. The biggest surprise was Gordon's adherence to much of the original story by H.G. Wells, as the audience finds out in the 3rd act. Also surprising was seeing Robert Lansing, who easily gives the best performance - hey, ya gotta put the kids through college somehow, right? Then Albert Salmi pops up as a distracted sheriff or police captain. For more ants with attitude, see Phase IV(74), the TV movie Ants!(77), Matinee(93) and, for a more realistic look, The Naked Jungle(54) and The Hellstrom Chronicle(71).


This film is a travesty. I don't even understand why they decided to term this a zombie movie. The 'things' in this film were as similar to zombies as I am.

Everything about this film was awful. The acting was just shocking. The effects were painfully bad. The story was a joke and the dialogue...What can I say about the dialogue..words fail me, they really do.

Im usually a huge fan of low budget horror but this was beyond the pale.

If you are a fan of zombie films stay away from this terrible film. Its a disgrace to the genre.


Inept crew, cast, and plot, with awful effects, and a low low low budget.

This folks, is a movie where the budget doesn't stretch to the hire of a police uniform. Yep - they make the poor mug wear a black bomber jacket and a black hat. Talking of the budget, surely it could have stretched to at least a visit to the butcher's shop for some offal rather than one sparingly used bottle of ketchup to cover all the gore requirements.

I do have a few favourite moments in this film though...

Who can forget the ridiculous girly fight at the beginning of the film? This was performed so slowly, that I initially thought it was their own low budget version of Matrix type slow-mo. But apparently not. What was that all about?

I also loved it when, in the "police station" (cue outside shot of a police station, before cutting to someone's spare room), the FBI agent asks if there was a phone she could use. - in a police station!!??

But the award goes to the death by lawnmower scene - perhaps the least gruesome, most protracted and badly acted "horror movie kill" I've seen in a long time - you can plainly see no damage is done.

and frankly I'm not going to comment on the ending, except to say that if those two actors were asked to "make out" in front of the camera, then I'm fairly certain they both have serious relationship problems in real life.

There's loads more inept scenes like those - but if you like movie turkeys then I guess you'll like this one - 2/10 for the unintentional comedy.


This movie was horrible. The story was ridiculous. In it some German soldiers surrender, but the platoon that finds them does not accept the surrender and torture and kill the Germans. these Germans then get infected by some insects and come back to get revenge on the American soldiers. they somehow get over to America some 50 years later undetected by anyone. from there they kill the American soldiers, but not zombie style. they shoot them or blow them up. when they shoot the guns no flash or bang goes off, the actors just twitch backwards to show some kickback. The last soldier is then running for life with his 8 year old grandson, a cop, and a supernatural cop. the zombie is then not even after the now senior citizen soldier, instead they want to thank him since he stood up for them. In the end the cop falls in love with the supernatural women, then u find out, duh duh duh, she's a zombie too, but she takes medication so she's not a full zombie. the acting was horrible, there are absolutely no special effects except for two explosions, and the storyline was horrible. the only thing i liked was that the only way to kill the zombies was to use a weapon that was around during world war 2. In conclusion i highly recommend everyone not to waste their time with this movie.


I'm one of the zombies movie's lover, and I've watch every zombie movies I could find out. And most of it, it's good. But this? This is a total crap. Everything in this movie is a waste. Bad script, bad acting (never saw anyone that's stupid enough to let some guys (zombies, if you could call it zombies) put a bomb in his laps, and just stare at it, as it is just a toy or a girl who looks very ready to scream her guts out when something approach her), bad make-up (the zombies look like a man who got a gray paint all over himself), bad music (using some kind of rock music, didn't really up the heat of this movie), and even bad plot (never seen a zombie who wants revenge only.) Overall, don't even watch it on DVD, except if you find the movie just lying around at a street corner. Not even worth your time, I should say.

Rate 1/10