I had forgotten movies could be this gut-wrenchingly awful. I love Mandy Moore, but one has to wonder if she even bothered to check out the script before she said yes to this drivel.

The script is wretched, the editing is blotchy and confusing, and there is nary a character you can genuinely care about here. Everything about this movie is wrong, and in the end, the writing (and the entire feel) is so horrid that not even her screen presence could save it.

Why do movies like this ever see the light of day? {Lets see ... Mandy Moore ... 2003 ... hot teen commodity ... lets do it!}

Yeah, after sitting through 90 minutes of this, the joke's on me. I cant remember the last time something was this painful to watch. If you're alone in a remote cabin on a frigid night and have nothing else to do but watch this dreck, well -- go outside and take your chances with the bears.


I must say that I was incredibly disappointed when I saw this film. I love Mandy Moore, and felt let down by the film. I thought it would be really cute and funny, but it was everything but that. It was like the writer wanted to see how much drama he could fit into a two hour slot. EVERYTHING happens in this movie...from weddings, to funerals, then a pregnancy, and it is thoroughly predictable. I am still a Mandy Moore fan, but I think she made a mistake by making the film...but hey you live and learn. 2.5/10


You can pretty much choose sides from the other User Comments here. No need to rehash it all again. If there is ANY sympathy for boys or men here, I missed it. I say: This is a whiny, preposterous fem-biased look at several inter-related love relationships, told by Mandy Moore at the center. I say: if women were described this way non-stop for a whole movie, this film would be ripped from the malls and somebody would have to start apologizing.

As talented as Moore is, she needs to put a lot of "pout" on just to get through this film.

Why? Because Dads, Moms, new boyfriends, boyfriends of friends, parents of sister's boyfriends -- everybody is just so inept, shallow, faithless, and NOT to be counted on. NOBODY COMES THROUGH FOR US KIDS.

About the only people who really understand love, or can practice it with any decency are teen girls. And even they confess, it's hard to do. (A show of hands if anyone believes that -- besides teen girls.)

And just when you think the film will deliver a laugh or an insight, all it can manage is one of those cheap, spur-of-the moment comments that kids make up in the hallway between classes when there really isn't any time to think things through.

Bad. Bad. Bad.


But, I have serious hopes that she will choose better vehicles in the future. As much as I like her, by the end of this movie, I had the desire to duct tape her to a theatre chair while I extracted my fifteen bucks from her purse that I paid to see this train derailment of a teen flick. Andy, talk to her boy.


After seeing A Walk to Remember, I was confident that Mandy's new film will also be good, but it was rather disappointing. Within the 1.5-or-so-hour film, there were only a few 2-second laughs and nothing more.

I also thought that Mandy will be singing in the film, but since she didn't, a prettier, more proportioned actress would have been more fit for the role. Same thing with her leading man.

The only thing nice here is the Can We Still Be Friends revival in the soundtrack.

4/10


Unfortunately this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. The script was awful. This movie felt like it had been completely recut at some point, because it didn't even make any sense. Two many characters, too many tragedies, not enough connection with the characters. I felt bad for the good actors trapped in this bad movie. Except for the male lead who was a very, very bad actor, though extremely cute.


The story itself isn't too bad. It might even have worked if not for what might challenge for the title of worst dialogue in film history. Those words come right out of some second rate teen magazine photo love story. The cast is not much better but even if they were, there's nothing to save here. You on the other hand can save your time and money and go watch some decent movie. Bad enough, that I had to endure this torture. 3/10 (and that's really friendly)


I'm glad I didn't have to pay to see it.

Not much more to say. The few funny moments are rip-offs of movies like American Pie. The rest is like staring at a photo of a corpse with a lot of smiley faces drawn on it. The corpse, however, will be a lot happier than someone who had to watch this movie.


Out of all the little teen pop starlets of the late 90s, Mandy Moore seemed like the only nice one. She didn't make trampy video clips or a million songs about what creeps guys are or how powerful women are.

But then, she made that terrible movie about being the shy, nice girl who gets the popular hunk... which is completely the wrong message. Why can't a shy, nice girl get with a shy, nice guy? Why would she even want the cocky hunk? If she was truly nice, she wouldn't.

And then life imitated art, when Mandy started seeing hunky arrogant bad boy tennis player Andy Roddick.

And now another horrible movie where Mandy has turned her back on the sweet and innocent image that helped set her apart as different from the Britney Spears and Christina Aguileras. And makes another terrible movie featuring her opposite some disposable pretty boy where they get together for all the wrong reasons.

She has about as much acting talent as any other pop star (ie. none) but it's the characters, the roles she is picking that are the true tragedy. It's not like it's a stretch for her to play a shallow, vapid teenager and unfortuantely that's who she has become, not just on film but in real life.

It's such a shame and such a waste to think of what a nice image she used to have, and now this. Just another empty, vain and self absorbed Hollywood clone.

Mandy, please quit acting or choose different roles.

1/10


I can sum up the movie in a couple words. Terrible acting, sub-par fight scenes, and ridiculous cliché plot. Is this suppose to be a cross between a kung fu film and a zombie one? That is the worst idea ever.

Insulting to real martial arts films. Not even deserving of a title as a parody... it wasn't funny at all. I consider it to be more of an abomination of poop and urine. It seemed like I was watching an amateur audition tape for a low-quality zombie movie whose plot was written by a very imaginative 8 year old. It is deemed more worthy of being on YouTube than on DVD.

You're better off downloading it, or better yet, don't watch it at all. I find staring at a brick wall more exciting than this 'movie'.

D+ for effort though.


This is a film that that is bent on making it into the long list of 'Terrible Dragon Movies' and it takes to its task with a dedication that's admirable. The actors are sometimes slightly bearable. The plot is ridiculous. There is absolutely no humor involved.

The film starts off with a prologue of two Chinese guys (we do not have the luxury of names) in tacky costumes whacking at each other with weapons and saying grand, helpful things for the sake of exposition such as, 'Demon, you are strong. But I still have the dragon spear!', followed by holding the spear up so we can see he is telling the truth and does, indeed, still have the dragon spear.

One time during the fight, the bad guy says 'After I kill you I will feast on your flesh' and the good guy says 'You have bad taste!' in a cocky, self-confident tone so the film's entire fanbase can cackle delightedly at how daring he is, while, apart from those two people, everyone else can hold their heads and moan.

The two warriors both die after the dragon spear gets lost and the good guy gives his blessing to a little baby he just left out in the desert nearby, perhaps to watch the battle and cheer him on. (Wooo! Go Daddy!)

Cut to 900 years later. Johnny Tao is a supposedly eighteen year old with the most annoying frizzy hair I have ever seen, who lives in the sleepy town of Dry Springs, manning the petrol station which is going out of business, just like the rest of the town.

Johnny has a friend named Eddie. Eddie is a UFO searcher. This occupation is not mentioned again for the rest of the film, it is merely an excuse for Eddie to be using a metal detector so he can find the blade of the dragon spear.

So Eddie digs it up and is immediately cursed by the spirit of the demon. Eddie's eyes turn flame-red, and he starts wearing a pair of black goggles. Why? Probably to cut costs. All that red-eye stuff must be pretty expensive. Evil Eddie also enjoys pulling grotesque faces, saying 'Feed me' every eight seconds in a deep, synthesized voice, and stomping around town, turning the local people into zombie followers so they can eat food for him. That's right, all the bad guy wants to do is eat. Feel the fear.

This is where Mika comes in. She is a supposedly eighteen-year-old Chinese girl. She rides into town and assesses the situation. She meets up with Johnny, Lenny and Jenny (?) to tell them what's going on and why they need to find the dragon spear. When Mika is giving vital exposition, the film helpfully provides us with a spooky sound effect the whole way through so we can't actually hear what she's saying.

This is the turning point for the film. This is where things- (*gasp* could it be...?) yes, they actually GET WORSE.

Extras run around with digitally red eyes, stealing food and making snarling noises. Actually I'm not sure that these people are even extras, they're probably just random locals who wandered onto the set by mistake and were too polite to ask if they could leave.

Somehow, Johnny ends up in a gorilla suit wearing a pink graduation hat, fighting the bad guys in the shop. Why? Because the movie thinks seeing a guy in a gorilla suit punching people is FUNNY. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HELP ME I'M DYING FROM LAUGHTER.

Our film is then interrupted for a short documentary on lizards. Maybe the director thought that things were getting a little too violent and exciting, so he decided to let us rest for a while by letting us look at a lizard on a tree.

Lenny calls for backup and a girl police officer by the name of Angela arrives to help. She is easily the best character in the film. However, the movie gets her recruited into the zombie-clan within five minutes and then she disappears. I think it was at this point I lost all patience with the film.

In between some scenes, we cut to a shot of the moon, perhaps to assure the viewers that there is no need to worry, it is indeed still nighttime.

Evil Eddie's gang then all go to the Wise Dragon fortune cookie warehouse to eat all the fortune cookies. Johnny arrives at the warehouse and fights one (1) zombie and wins, because then Evil Eddie's voice can growl out of the shadows in an amused tone, 'Your kung-fu is impressive', so the viewers can quake with fear at how powerful Evil Eddie must be. Needless to say, Johnny wins the day with his 'dragon flight' move in the Wise Dragon warehouse so he can reclaim the dragon spear and Eddie returns to normal. The whole town returns to normal, and business thrives because of the publicity.

Here's how the whole thing SHOULD'VE begun and ended:

Director: I have this really great idea for a film about a dragon spear and a guitar and lots of red-eyed zombies- Studio Executive: Thankyou, next.

Or, even better:

Director: I- Studio Executive: Thankyou, next.

I can honestly say that the title is the most exciting part of the film. But, I suppose, when someone makes a film THIS bad, all the studio can do is make up a really cool name for it and hope that somebody buys it by mistake.

I mean, obviously the director had a small budget (i.e: ten dollars), but that does not excuse him from anything except special effects. You do not need a huge budget to write good dialogue, or to think of a good, original story.


Hated it for all the reasons mentioned in the other posts. The acting was bad, the plot badly tied together. How am I to believe the FBI would mount such an operation on one highly dubious telephone call. I assume they would first try to investigate quietly. And again. This had nothing to do with x-files in the first place. One thing in particular annoyed me: Cancer man in the "past-life". If he was a gestapo member during world war II, wouldn't he be much younger? He was at least 20 in the fifties, wasn't he? If the writers were so desperate to pack all of Mulders's loved ones in his past life, where were his parents? Where was Skinner for that matter? And if this Melissa was so important to Mulder in a past life, how come she appears so briefly in this one? The whole thing was just plain ridiculous.


This has got to be one of the poorest Morgan and Wong scripts I have ever seen. I guess when you win you win and when you lose you lose. I think they used up all their creative energy on "Home" and then just threw this crap together at last minute. First of all we will talk about script inconsistencies and unbelievability.

Scully talking to Mulder at the beginning of the episode as he walks outside into the yard to search for the extra victims says something like "intelligence reported no hiding places in the vicinity of the yard". Then Mulder walks out about 20 feet and finds a wooden trap door in plain site. Nice thorough job intel. Next thing that really bugs me is how much Scully is against trying to get information from Melissa/Sidney/whatever just because Mulder believes her personalities are past lives. Scully, the fact remains that this is the person that knows where the weapons are and you need to find that out really bad so get over whether or not you agree with Mulder or not about the origin of the personality and do your job. Which brings us to Kristen Cloke. This is another of Morgan and Wong's favorite actors to use in their shows. She was in Millennium for a season and was one of the main characters on their Space Above and Beyond show as well. I didn't mind her that bad in Millennium although she could get annoying occasionally and she was actually quite likable on Space Above and Beyond, but she drives me crazy in this episode. Why? She is way too eccentric with her alternate personalities. Especially Sidney who is some kind of old guy with serious problems and for some reason always acts like he is holding a cigarette. Anyway I don't really like that character at all. I did watch the deleted scenes where she acts out a couple more personalities that were actually pretty humorous and its too bad they cut them out because they could have boosted the episodes quality. Back to writing. Its sure a pretty darn good thing that the civil war lady memorized her journal entry with the exact date. Seriously this sounds like one of those actors reading the journal entry that you hear in historical documentaries. Its also a really good thing the the library keeps a drawer of civil war era photos and that they just happened to have both Mulder's and Melissa's past personas there. Then there's the hypnosis scene. I don't think I've seen a more unbelievable scene acted by David Duchovny. Its really too bad because I don't think its his acting that's the problem but it seems that way because of the terrible writing. First of all no one that goes back like that is going to take the time to explain who all the modern counterparts are to the people they are describing and they aren't going to explain the philosophy of reincarnation just in case someone in the room doesn't get it. C'mon guys give the viewer's a little credit. Then there's the fact that Melissa is either Mulder's husband or wife or something in all the past lives but in the current one she is a brief nobody. Yep that makes lots of sense. OK I think one more thing then I will move on to the things I liked. I wish they would have used the Jonestown theme in an episode that was more about a Jonestown cult and not one that was focusing on reincarnation. Anyone who is familiar with the true story of Jonestown knows that the story is a lot darker and creepier than what it is portrayed as in this episode and they could have done a much better job with that theme.

What did I like? I really like the music in this episode. Mark Snow did an amazing job with the score despite the cruddy story. It actually makes the viewing bearable. Then I also love the following dialog between Mulder and Scully:

MULDER: Dana, if, um... early in the four years we've been working together... an event occurred that suggested or somebody told you that... we'd been friends together in other lifetimes... always... wouldn't it have changed some of the ways we looked at one another? SCULLY: Even if I knew for certain, I wouldn't change a day. (She heads for the door then looks back.) Well, maybe that Flukeman thing. I could've lived without that just fine. (She smirks and walks out. He smiles. Later, he and Melissa are listening to the tape of Melissa's regression.)

Great moment between them. As I watch I find myself wanting to like this episode but just can't because of the poor writing and trying to force the explanation onto the viewer without letting them come to their own conclusion. I don't know if that made sense. Let me clear things up by saying 3/10.


Honestly, by the time the cult members were drinking poisoned kool-aid, I was mixing up a batch of my own to put myself out of my freaking misery. Honestly, what were they thinking? Mulder discovering a past life where he was a Jewish woman during the Holocaust?!?! Seriously!! Oh, and he finds his soul mate from multiple past lives, never to be heard from again. And am I really supposed to believe that people get to choose with whom they return, and Cancer Man follows Mulder across the ages to torture him. Really? He can't find someone else to bug every other lifetime or so. I think Scully ought to get a medal for putting up with Mulder's crap. She lets him waste their precious time (time that ended up resulting in dozens of people chugging the red kool-aid) to go into his past lives, and he doesn't even stinking remember where the other bunkers are!!!! Wasn't that the whole point? I love Mulder and Scully, and the acting was passable, but I think I'll go ahead and pretend that this episode never happened. I get the idea that that's what the creators, writers, and directors did, since the supposed "insight" into Mulder's character is completely irrelevant for the rest an otherwise excellent series.

muldernscully - I'm with you


Oh, where do I start with The Field Where I Died. I'll start with the beginning; always a good place to start. The teaser is the lamest teaser I've ever seen. It doesn't peak your interest at all, just Mulder standing in a field with a voice-over. Boring. That also describes the whole episode. The concept of reincarnation, and Mulder somehow being involved in it, is completely ridiculous. It has no place as an x-file. Maybe this story done on a different television show with different characters would've had a chance. The agents are involved in this case because of a contrived reason. Skinner says it's because of Ephesian's paranormal abilities. However, Mulder and Scully quickly discount that he has any such abilities. So, why are they still involved? And why is Melissa even being cooperative? Multiple wives in cults are very loyal to their husband. She wouldn't be submitting so easily to their requests. Every single aspect of Mulder in this episode is completely out of character. From him jumping full force into the whole reincarnation idea to calling Scully "Dana" has you not believing a word of his dialogue. And then when he goes into hypnosis and describes himself as a Jewish woman in World War II Poland. Samantha is his son, Scully his father, and CSM is the Gestapo(how original). Oh brother! I think I missed half the episode from rolling my eyes so much. And then to top it all off, Mulder raises his hands and starts walking across the field toward the barn where they were firing from moments before, doing his best "Dances With Wolves" impression. Lucky for him, they had already stopped firing and had drunken the poison. Because they sure as heck would have shot Mulder without the slightest hesitation. The one decent line in this episode is spoken by Scully when she talks about that she "could've done without the Flukeman thing". That still isn't enough to give this poor excuse for an episode a full point, but IMDb doesn't allow a rating lower than a one. There are plenty of funny things I could say that I would rather do than sit through this mind-numbing episode again, but I'll leave that to your own imagination. One last question to the writers of this episode, Glen Morgan & James Wong: What were you smoking when you wrote this episode and why didn't you share?


First of all, I do not understand why not a Hungarian girl was playing the role of Lora. It is really disturbing that she is translated back to Hungarian.

Furthermore the movie is full of dull stereotypes, cheap jokes. Nice looking artistic girl after three years still suffering from the dead of his over-self-confident boyfriend, who was cheating on her with her best friend. The younger brother brings back her to life.

There is everything in it you need to call a movie liberal lesbian, gay club, rabbi, catholic priest quite few blind person.

It was a complete waste of time to watch.


Just when you're thinking of the worst movies you've ever seen, along comes this grade Z clunker zooming into the frame! Anyone who is aware of this Aussie film will know that it was banned by the censors for a long time. It's a pity, in many ways, that the censors eventually relented, as depriving viewers of catching up with this dross would have been something of a bonus. In reality, it has very little in its favour. Okay, it may well be the first Australian horror movie, and a pre-runner of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, but it doesn't take very long to become monotonous and downright irritating. The actors couldn't have been too concerned about learning their lines, as there simply arn't any. It's probably the horror equivalent of "The Plank"!! Put simply, this is a total waste of time.


Tiempo real was all shot in one take. It made the Guiness Book of Records. Now, in my opinion any work of art that applies for the Guiness Book of Records is questionable. Without doubt it is a logistically fairly impressive effort to shoot an entire movie in one take, but so is delivering a paper round on a bike without brakes. What I'm trying to say is that this movie is little more than a circus trick and as a movie itself quite poor. There is no real need for improv acting in a movie, that is the great thing about the medium. In the same way, there was no need to do all of it in one take, if stopping to do it in more takes would have improved the imagery of the movie. Now the movie is neither visually attractive nor well acted. The actors repeat themselves, are clearly lost at some points and all of it looks like a few buddies had a fun afternoon with a video camera.


How else can one explain just how bad the acting/plot/script really are? I had the misfortune of seeing this trash when I was in college, and my test scores immediately dropped by 10 points across the board.

Some reviewers here on IMDb have touted the movie's "great special effects." For the budget, I guess they're not bad. It's obvious that, as I referenced in my summary line above, approximately 99.99% of the budget went toward special effects because the film does not contain a single competent acting performance. And honestly, the special effects, even for their day (1990), are not that great. With the amount of latex used, one would think the filmmakers had hired the shock-metal band GWAR to make all the creature models and so forth.

In any event, even brilliant special effects cannot compensate for a dreadful script/plot, and abysmal acting. We've seen this story a million times before--usually much more convincingly told. The special effects in this one might hold one's interest for five minutes or so, but after that, good luck!


Please allow me to present to you: dumb and redundant Alien/ The Thing clone number 5.276All the elements that fill you up with irritation and annoyance are cheerfully presented. The scientist of a lab gets bitten by alien tissue and undergoes a transformation. Guess whatsoon he's loose in the facility and on a killing spree. The children of a random, unimportant victim (the night guard) perpetrate the science lab and avenge their father! Oh, how interesting and fascinatingNOT! The cast is filled with lousy amateur-actors and the special effects are atrocious! This film was made in 1993 and the `horrible' creatures featuring here still look like typical 80's cheese. And can you dig the presentation of the makers of this? It's like the 10 millionth rip-off of `The Thing' but monsters seem explode out of chests like they invented it! Because it's so dumb, the film quickly becomes unintentionally funny. You can't hide chuckling when you see another stupid character running straight into the creature's mouth or. simply hearing the entire screenplay, which is as dumb as they come. Example:

`We believe this tissue is alien' `Alien? You mean from another planet?' `Yes, doctor'<br /><br /> Oh my God! Is it possible to write a line more stupid like this? The characters are perfect stereotypes and endlessly boring. The typical `fat & fun scientist guy'-type is there (these are usually killed violently) and the cute blond girl turns out to be a Princeton math-queen. Her boyfriend seems to have escaped the of the `Revenge of the Nerds'-cast. The rebellious teenage daughter didn't look too that much like a rebel, neither. Movies like this are a waste of good money (both yours as the producers') and they're destined to go straight to the lowest shelf in unpopular video stores. It is there where idiotic people like me pick it up It could be worse, though. I used to be in contact with someone who regarded this as the `greatest horror movie ever made'Now this kid has got serious issues. Hunt down a copy and burn itjust for the fun of it.


Oh my lord, I can't believe the rating system here only goes as low as 1 star. I was hoping to give this ridiculous pile of trash a heavy minus but I guess thats life. Where to start? Well, this was originally supposed to be a sequel to the 1983 low budget classic 'The deadly spawn' which for the meagre budget was an exceptional advertisement on how to make a horror movie with a few pennies.

Deadly spawn had decent acing (for a bunch of nobodies) good direction a decent if slightly simple plot and a brilliantly put together monster, not to mention bucket loads of gore. This supposed 'sequel' is amazing, it has none of that. The acting is excruciatingly poor, (I've done better acting trying to bunk a day off of work and failed) the script is unbelievably bad to the point of ridiculam and the rubber 'hand puppet' monster and childlike stop motion effects provide more cringes at how poor they are than scares. There's some blob monster that honestly looks as if it is being pushed around on a stick, I mean, c'mon.

I can't say I have ever seen a horror movie quite this bad and I consider myself a fairly tolerant person. Some films are so poor that they become laughably enjoyable or mildly entertaining and then there's this, which is just downright painful. The thing that makes it worse is that the film had a budget of near $3m almost ten times that of its predecessor. and yet despite being made 7 years on (when effects have supposed to have improved) 'The deadly spawn' makes this film look like a college exam entry.

If you want to live a happy and fulfilling life, then avoid this at all costs, however, if you decide to watch it someday, please purchase a pack of razor blades to accompany the viewing. Trust me, you'll thank me for them.


This movie is crap. How else can I put it? Its... beyond bad? This movie is the ultimate badness. It has all the elements of a sub-B-grade movie.

Firstly, forget the sci part of sci-fi. There is not even a pretense of real science in here. To be fair, there is also no attempt to call it science. Its a cheap monster-flick, and makes no effort to be anything else.

Now, this can only be appreciated as a comedy. It is that bad. From the rather strange monster to the annoying computer-voice to the blocky white-painter architecture of the lab, its the representation of its genre: Those films that are so bad you have to laugh.

Funniest moment... Alien Thing gets shot with the full output of a building-sized particle accelerator. Huge blue glow, sparks, and out steps a perfectly normal, unburnt human.


I saw this film at the LA Film Festival and found it to be a boring talk-fest between two largely unsympathetic, unconvincing characters. If Hawke was trying to channel Linkletter's Before Sunrise/Sunset, he should have also created characters whose motivations and reactions are at least somewhat plausible, even if they happen to be 20 year olds. On the other hand, the character portrayed by Laura Linney (the mother of male lead) is refreshing in her contribution of realism to the story. Otherwise, if you like lots of self-involved rambling about nothing much, punctuated by music videos and a few moments of soft-core porn, this is your movie.


This is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen.

Walking fraternity-stereotype Jake teams up with timid wing man to score chicks. The wing man turns out to be the heir to the throne of some fictional Mediterranean country and has to get laid before his 21st birthday, or whatever.

The plot must not have been much of a concern for the "creative force" behind this game. That is how they label themselves during the end credits.

The whole film is basically Jake spewing tired platitudes and inane one liners and come ons.

Perhaps this is one for the fraternity boys out there who could not get enough of Stifler from the first three American Pie films. His character was at least somewhat tongue-in cheek, and was balanced out by other, less annoying characters in the cast. There is no such awareness or balance in this "film." To quote Kevin Smith, if you "have an IQ less than your shoe size," or if you are white and regularly use sayings like "fo shizzle" this might be the greatest film of all time, right up there with American Pie: Beta House or Booty Call.


It seems in recent years, the company known as National Lampoon seems to be obsessed with flooding DVD shelves with terrible movies aimed at college kids. One of their more recent releases (although the IMDb says it was made in 2003) is Jake's Booty Call, an animated comedy using two-dimensional computer animation not unlike that used in South Park, but still with the characters looking like cardboard cutouts.

Based on an Internet cartoon series, Jake's Booty Call is about a 20-something skirt chaser named Jake, whom speaks in broken urban slang, looks stoned throughout the film, and has a grin that never seems to go away and borders on looking disturbing. He seems to have an ego that would anger Kevin Federline and uses pick-up lines that are beyond corny, yet he does appear to score with women. His new friend, Siton, is not so lucky. In fact, it turns out that Siton is a prince of a fictional European country who can't seem to lose his virginity. Jake and Siton set out to go skirt chasing in some domestic and foreign locales, while Siton's evil brother, Lickapon, and his thugs follow their every move.

God, this movie is bad. From the plot to the humor, JBC is terrible. The only thing remotely decent about this film is the animation, but that's about it. All through this movie, I wanted to beat Jake within an inch of his life for being such an obnoxious, over-the-top character. All of the film's jokes either fall flat or are on the level of grade school children. I can honestly say I've seen better writing on an average Adult Swim show in contrast.

In short, avoid JBC. It is truly a waste of valuable time and money.


This lame movie is strictly Hollywood formula, and tries to ride on SE7ENs success, but without coming within an inch of that movies style and sophistication. The plot is unbelievably far-fetched, the directing bland and unoriginal. One or two moments are mildly effective, the killer on the internet, and the descent into the killers basement, but the end result is hugely disappointing. A waste of time and money. I like Chris Youngs scores but I hope he finds better films than this in the future.


This was a potentially great, atmospheric thriller wasted by the scriptwriters' inanity and their ridiculous goofs regarding computers. I hate "realistic" movies that make such idiotic errors about computers and they always lose all their potential appeal in my eyes. The writers of this movie have no idea about anything computer-related, and they try to make computers one of the key points of the plot. They would probably mistake a typewriter and a TV set for a computer when faced with those. Their inanity can be seen best when the killer sends dr Hudson an e-mail with a video clip attached. The clip has its own icon and ACTS LIKE AN EXECUTABLE. It has its own code! Great Lord, does a concept of a program seem so bizarre to those Hollywood people that they cannot comprehend it? Of course, this "program-clip" is referred to as a virus, a generic Hollywood name for anything that is not from AOL or Microsoft, even though it is the precise opposite of a virus - not only does it not replicate, but it removes itself. In addition to this ridiculous, ill-informed, annoying idea, Dr Hudson uses a weird, non-operating OS that looks like a bizarre amalgam of X-Windows and CP/M (and Final III from the C64 :), but acts as neither. The pictures "download" and zoom in a strange, nonexistent way, the net access is ridiculously unrealistic... The killer manages to send totally anonymous e-mails and nobody even bothers to trace them - yeah, right. And how does Helen contact him later? She sends a mail "in the open". Just sends it. Without any recipient, without anything. And nevertheless, the killer gets it. Sigh. I would give the movie ten stars. For those computer-related idiocies, I take four stars back, and two stars more for Holly Hunter's annoying voice and the boring, cheaply artificial character of Daryll Lee Cullum, played by a wooden and unappealing actor whose name I won't even bother to remember. This leaves the movie with a final score of four stars. Oops. Tough luck, guys - hire better scriptwriters next time.


Good idea, but a very weak scenario filled with ridiculous and useless new developments (hostage taking and death of the colleague of Holly Hunter : do you believe it ?). But both actresses are great.


Perhaps one of Sigourney Weavers worst films to date, her portrayal of a criminal psychologist with post traumatic stress disorder grinds from the first scene. Sigourney Weaver plays Dr Helen Hudson, the brilliant criminal psychologist, somewhat reminiscent of Denzel Washington's Lincoln Rhyme in the more recent and marginally superior 'The Bone Collector'. She is haunted by the memory of being attacked by a serial killer and has now become the new unhealthy interest of a copycat serial killer. Holly Hunter plays M.J. Monahan, a tough cop with a distinctly unexplored history. A very shallow character who does little to bring the film to life. The film seems to want to explore the two female leads, though it does so with no emotional attachment for the viewer. I sat unmoved during scenes supposedly trying to tug at my heart strings. Only hinting at the contents of their hearts and minds, a token poorly executed sub-plot does little to open any of these doors. A boring, predictable, unimaginative plot married to over-the-top incidental music eventually leads to an equally uninspired climax. I saw the film through to the end, my horror being that I wasted 123 minutes of my life.

If you have the opportunity to see this film, don't.


This Charles Marquis Warren-directed western might be OK if the constant background music would let up for five minutes.

Elvis Presley seemed like a nice man, but he could not act and this film's aimless storyline doesn't help as everyone in the movie wanders around for 98 minutes yelling about one thing or another. This was another movie that was supposed to represent Elvis' transition to that of 'serious actor' (the first was 'Flaming Star', 1960), but he just couldn't hack it. Ina Balin co-stars for better or worse while Victor French ('Mr. Edwards' on Little House on the Prairie) does his best to spark some vinegar into the proceedings.

Plays like an episode of 'Gunsmoke'.


The only singing you will hear from Elvis Presley in Charro is the title song over the credits at the beginning. After that Elvis is all business in Charro!. He even wears a scraggly beard to emphasize this film won't be your usual Elvis funfest.

I liked the idea that Elvis was expanding his range as an actor and maybe he might have done more westerns after this if Charro! had been good. Presley had done two previous westerns Love Me Tender and Flaming Star and he acquitted himself well in both.

But this one was plain ridiculous. Victor French and his gang which includes his idiot brother Solomon Sturges steal a solid gold cannon from the museum in Chapultepec near Mexico City and then schlep the item to the border where French then proceeds to pin the crime on former gang member Elvis Presley. He even brands him across the neck with a running iron to simulate a bullet wound the leader allegedly got. Now that little journey is about 2/3 the length of Mexico.

Never mind, Elvis captures Sturges and holds him in a jail and gets himself appointed deputy sheriff to make it all legal. Never mind that, French threatens to use the cannon to level the town because he was smart enough to bring powder and shot and has in James Sikking one of Stonewall Jackson's old artillery men.

In that other film about a cannon, The Pride And The Passion the weapon was symbolically a phallic symbol and the illusion is drilled into our heads, especially with the ridiculous ending that Charro! has.

Colonel Tom Parker whose instincts for film properties were pretty good and knew Elvis's type of films were going out of vogue in the late Sixties, tried to take him in a new direction cinematically with Charro!. It was just the wrong western to do.


After 30 films of watching Presley sing to everyone including the guy he just beat up, can you imagine trying to take Presley serious in a western? Not for fans like me. This film could have been a hit for Clint Eastwood or John Wayne but Presley...no way. Presley sings only the title song and only a fan with more time on his hands than brain power could sit through the first 30 minutes. Presley was showing obvious signs of extreme boredom during this film and you can tell his movie contracts were close to being finished. The unshaven, dirty western appearance of Presley was not tolerated by fans in 1969 and fans have not changed, So even from the biggest fan, Charro does not come with a recommendation.


I had originally seen this on video as The Nightmare Never Ends, and recently watched it on video as Satan's Supper. Evidently these two versions, and the version titled Cataclysm are all slightly different. Additionally, this movie was edited down to form one third of the wretched horror anthology Night Train to Terror.

Night Train to Terror can be found on DVD. Nightmare Never Ends is on DVD in a "Troma Triple B-Header" box with two other movies.

I'm not sure how the versions all differ. Evidently Cataclysm begins with James and Claire Hanson going to Las Vegas, where Claire gets hypnotized and had visions of Nazis killing some musicians at a dinner other Nazis are having. I don't recall if Nightmare Never Ends began that way; Satan's Supper begins without the Vegas trip and with the Nazis, and Claire waking up from it as a nightmare.

A Jewish Nazi hunter sees Mr. Oliver on TV who looks like the head Nazi from Claire's dream. He gets a police detective played by Cameron Mitchell to take him to see the man in person. They must spend ten minutes with the Jewish guy insisting he's found his man, and Mitchell saying the man is too young to be the guy from the photo he was shown. The Nazi hunter is incredibly annoying, the worst sort of Jewish stereotype personified x100. He repeats himself incessantly, stuttering and gesturing like an idiot. Not that Mitchell is on the top of his form here either.

Of course, their bad acting has a lot of company in this movie. Moll is pretty dreadful as James Hanson, and Faith Clift playing his wife is like a lobotomized deer in headlights.

The guy playing Mr. Oliver is pretty awful too. He's evidently Satan himself. The monk who tries to warn Hanson is quite awful as well. A number of these people acted in other movies together, including a movie about Joseph Smith and Brigham Young! I can't imagine the horror! James Hanson has written a book "God is Dead" that took him four years. It's a runaway best seller, and he's even allowed time on TV to pitch his message, which is hardly new. Whole families appear to watch him.

For some reason, Mr. Oliver thinks Hanson would like to work for/serve him. Since an atheist no more believes in the devil than god (as Hanson in fact repeatedly says), this makes not a lick of sense.

The movie is terribly shot, terribly edited, terribly acted, and at the base of it all, terribly scripted. It is a worthless movie. I'm quite curious as to the story behind its making, how it wound up with three directors, and how there came to be so many versions of it.


This ''film'' is seemingly a collection of unrelated scenes strung together by three different directors who must have hated each other and the business of film-making . Faith Clift the lead actress looks and acts like a dead zombie who's been lobotomized and then drugged , Charles (Richard) Moll , with the ever changing wigs looks and sounds lost , Marc Lawerence in a dual role is horrible in both ''roles'' and finally Robert Bristol the prissy Satan rep on earth is about as scary as whipped cream . The nightmare however does end , but only after you've suffered a wasted 70 or so mins of this mess .Fans of bad films will enjoy this , it could also be used as an example of how not to make a film .


I rented this film under the title of 'The Nightmare Never Ends'. On the surface this film appears to be pure amateur. The acting is quite horrendous on many occasions. The character of Weiss played Marc Lawrence is a Nazi hunter, who mumbles throughout the picture (that's until he's bumped off). Cameron Mitchell plays a detective who investigates Weiss's death. He starts to follow a rich playboy, played eerily by Richard Bristol. He begins to suspect that Olivier is responsible. Another subplot involves Charles Moll who plays a professor. He writes a book called 'God is Dead', which starts a controversy. Rich playboy, Olivier, approaches him. Bristol is basically the devil's representative on earth. A crazy monk approaches Moll's wife, played by Faith Clift (who could not act if her life depended on it). He warns her that her husband is being seduced by satan. People start dying left and right as they attempt to stop Olivier and his minions. Even though the film suffers from poor dubbing, synching (it feels like you're watching an old Hong Kong Kung Fu flick), the film has a sense of dread from beginning to end that grabbed me. It doesn't have a happy ending. And that's the way I like it.


This film has only one thing going for it and that is Faith Clift. I have not seen any of her other movies but she has entered my Pantheon of all time deliriously awful actors on the strength of this 'performance' alone. I have never before seen an actor get EVERY line of a movie wrong before. OK the script she has to deliver is pretty dire but every single word she utters is so misread it is brilliant. Almost expressionless she just points her piggy little nose in the general direction of someone else in the scene and delivers her lines as if she were reading them off idiot boards two words at a time. She's so gloriously inept she's worth the price of the admission alone. Incidentally, the old lady who says something unintelligible in the bookshop is also called Clift. Faith's mother doing a cameo? I would love to know the story behind the making of this film. Any movie that can get through (at least) three Directors and two Directors of Photography has more potential interest going on behind the camera than in front of it.

The editing was atrocious, some scenes were cut off mid word (the version I watched was called The Nightmare Never Ends in the Nightmare Worlds boxset - this movie has, apparently, been re-edited several times).

Some of the Music was pretty good, but as it was library tracks of Gustaf Holst's Planet Suite that's hardly surprising.


Nobel prize winning novelist James Hanson (Richard Moll as Charles Moll) & his wife Claire (Faith Clift) who is a Doctor and has been suffering from nightmares lately, both set off for a holiday in Las Vegas. While watching some in house entertainment at a casino Claire is hypnotised by an English clairvoyant named Cecil Howard. Claire suffers a vivid hallucination about a sadistic SS officer named Olivier (Robert Bristol) in a Nazi concentration camp. After the show Claire talks with Howard and invites him to supper. Soon after she leaves Howard is killed by what appears to be a red light (don't ask). Meanwhile a old Jewish man named Abraham Weiss (Marc Lawrence) who is a Nazi hunter spots Olivier on a T.V. programme and recognises him as the man he has been after for years. Weiss immediately tells his story to bitter, overworked police officer Lieutenant Sterne (Cameron Mitchell) who lives just across the hall from him. Sterne agrees to look into Weiss's claims but eventually admits there is nothing he can do, especially after Weiss gives him some newspaper cuttings from 1944 which appear to show Olivier but since the paper is over 30 years old and Olivier would now be in his 60' or 70's and the guy on T.V. is still in his 20's & therefore Weiss's story is psychically impossible. That night Weiss is found dead in a parking lot. Lt. Sterne decides to take a personal interest and investigate even further. Claire is starting to lose her mind. Her husband James is about to publish a book called 'God is dead' in which James claims God does not and never has existed. Claire as a stout Catholic is deeply against the book and tries to convince James not to publish it. Olivier, who runs a cult of Satan worshippers, feels James would be a good person to have on board and attempts to convince James to join him and his organisation. A guy with a beard named Papini (Maurice Grandmaison) tries to warn James about Olivier, Satan and his book denouncing God. Various people die including Claire's nephew Jim (Klint Stevenson), Claire decides that she alone must put an end to Olivier and Satan himself. Claire and Jim's girlfriend Ann (Christie Wagner) conduct a bizarre plan that Claire believes will destroy Olivier for good, but will it succeed?

According to the IMDb's credit list Cataclysm was directed by three separate people, Phillip Marshak, Tom McGowan & Gregg C. Tallas as Greg Tallas. I am not sure if this information is correct but I don't think I've ever heard of a film directed by three different people and maybe that's why it turned out to be a bit of a jumbled up mess. The script by Philip Yordan tries something different and for that it should get at least an extra point. Even though at the end of the day it's still a mess with the story all over the place. Things just happen for little reason, characters aren't that likable and the dialogue in certain scenes isn't up to much. The story becomes occasionally confusing and unfocused. The script comes across as heavy handed at times with it's religious overtones and story arc. Almost as if Yordan wanted to make a thought provoking horror film with a message, obviously it fails, badly. Cataclysm starts out very interesting and draws the viewer in by not revealing too much, too soon. Unfortunately this decision to try and make the plot more mysterious back fires during the middle third as it gets somewhat boring waiting for something to happen but then things explode into a gore drenched finale. The acting is OK for this type of low budget nonsense, except Cift who seems to speak her lines really slowly compared to everyone else. And it's always nice to see genre veteran Cameron Mitchell. Some characters appear dubbed throughout. There is very little, in fact none, blood or gore in the film until the last 10 minutes or so when the red stuff is splashed everywhere. In this sequence there is some real surgery footage in a blood soaked over the top climax to round the film off. I think the film itself was shot on location rather than studio's and has a generally good feel throughout, the production values were much better than I expected. While not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination the photography, editing, special effects, continuity and music are all reasonable enough and I've sat through a lot worse. I'm sure a lot of people will automatically call this film crap as it's an easy target but for those of us who like this sort of off-beat grade-z low budget horror film from days gone by than this one may interest you and is probably worth tracking down. Just because it dares to try something a little different if for no other reason, it doesn't always succeed but at least those involved tried. Overall I'm glad I watched it, certainly not the best film in the world but then did anyone really expect it to be?


What can be said about THE NIGHTMARE NEVER ENDS? Well, it's NOT a quality film. Everything about it is bad: acting, dialogue, script, cast, cinematography, etc, are all way below average. It's a truly wretched film of cataclysmic proportions. For instance, take the dialogue: Cameron Mitchell says at one point, "I see swastikas swimming in my oatmeal!' which had me rolling on the floor. It's my new all time favorite line of dialogue. In another scene, a vigilante sorts named Papini wants the Nazi war criminal killed. He's been stalking a doctor (played by Faith Clift) and wants her to kill the criminal. One day, Papini storms in her office without her permission and asks her why she didn't kill him when she had the chance. So how does she answer? "I'm a doctor, I cannot kill." That's it. No anger or anything. It's priceless. Faith Clift is the worst actress of all time.

With that being said, the film is totally unforgettable, not just because it's so wonderfully bad but because there are some truly effective moments in it. Yes, even with its staggeringly inept quality there are several moments that elicit real horror or shock. More so than any horror film made these days. The state of horror films today is truly sad when a disaster like this is more effective than 90% of all horrors films made today.

The effective moments come out of nowhere: when someone takes his shoe off...didn't expect that! A nightmare inducing scene; the nightmare sequences are so bizarre and weirdly shot that they're oddly effective; the discotheque is...eh, weird. It makes me more uncomfortable than anything else in the film; the actor who plays the Nazi war criminal is just weird; and last but not least the ending which has to be seen to be believed. My jaw was on the floor.

Needless to say even with those effective moments the film is still crap. Well worth watching if you're a fan of obscure horror flicks or "so bad it's good" movies. Everyone else should abstain.


Found this at the grocery store on a 2 movie DVD for a buck! Almost no one in this stinker can act, especially Faith Clift. Noticed there were 3 directors! Explains a lot. This was filmed at the beginning of the 1980's; so, a couple of scenes are filmed in an "evil" disco which seems to be owned by Olivier, a demon/devil/servant of the devil . . . who knows what he is? Never was quite clear about what this film was about. A few good scares and camera shots. Richard Moll appears to have significant greying on his temples in some scenes, and jet black hair in others. Some out-of-date references to energy conservation: so 70's. The whole "God is dead" thing was so 1960's--and, certainly a dead issue by 1980. Series of inexplicable scenes; never explained or tied into anything else. Did I mention Faith Clift couldn't act? The film has something to do with Satan's wish to recruit her character's husband, while a number of people get in the way. Knuckleheads. But, other scenes make it appear that the devil is after Faith herself. What do you expect for 50 cents?


I`ve rented this film from my local video store under the title "Shiver".Until that moment I could never believe that it could exist such a bad movie.All the ingredients of the movie`s recipe are extremelly bad.The actors are playing terribly,the story is ridiculous,the technical part is awful and directing is unexistable.I am sure that I`ve never seen in my life worse movie than this and I am very curious how Philip Yordan ,a brilliant writer had participated in this. As I saw in credits the directors were three.Probably is required a special talent to make a combination of so many bad things.A miracle of bad taste!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Imagine being lectured at by Muslims on the awfulness of slavery. Being lecture at, in other words, by the people who were trading in African flesh centuries before the Europeans reached Africa, who taught the Europeans the slave trade, and who are trading in African flesh today in places like Sudan, Mauritania, Mali, and Niger.

This movie is produced by Halaqah Media. Although the movie's Islamic flavor is kept tastefully toned down, you cannot miss the message, since you will get hammered by it from beginning to end, for the whole of the movie's seemingly interminable 116 minutes. The message: the Atlantic slave trade is the worst thing that ever happened.

And why, exactly, the Atlantic slave trade was worse than the Muslim slave trade? Hey, why don't we ask some African slaves to see if they think so. You will have to go to some Muslim majority country to do that.

Naturally, our Muslim documentarians do not do this. They explain that when an African was ripped from his family and from his community by Europeans, this was awful, awful, awful. But when Muslims ripped an African from his family and his community, he just became a member of a new family. Really. That is what they said in the movie. No kidding. In other words, Muslims come with guns and knives, raiding and killing, because they love Black people and want to take Black people into their families. Unlike the Christians who must have been very bad people.

Finally, they manage to interview just about every race hustler in the U.S., including some representative of the Nation of Islam. My favorite was Frances Cress Welsing, author of the book, "The Isis Papers". I read that book some years ago and I am sure Welsing is mentally ill (she thinks the word "semite" comes from the Latin "semi" meaning "half", as in "half a man"). You will not get that impression from the movie, however, since they did keep her appearance mercifully short.

Well, if you want to see how propaganda is done, this is the movie for you. Otherwise, go have a cup of coffee, instead.


A king turned evil sorcerer from the dark ages is conquering civilizations and he has his eyes set on the Emerald land next. The home of the infamous 'Amazon" female warriors. To stop this from happening, two Amazons Dyala and Tashi head out on a dangerous quest to retrieve the powerful "Sword of Azundati", which is the only weapon that could put a stop to this tyrant. But could a history between the two Amazon warriors' families hinder the important journey.

I wasn't expecting a miracle from this chunky and bottom-of-the-barrel schlock of sword 'n' sorcery that was inspired by the commercial success of "Conan the Barbarian". Although I didn't think this Roger Corman produced, obtuse turkey was going to be "this" boring. How boring? Hugely dull and unexciting. And how's that? As you can't go wrong with a stunning lot of fur bikini clad Amazon women. Well, you would like to think so. T & A features constantly, and they like baring their breasts in regular intervals. Too bad about the rest of the feature and the great cover art on the video case disguises and promises more than it actually delivers.

Everything else is pretty bland and pedestrian. Vividly magical and unique this fantasy world is not. From the flaccidly lacklustre fight sequences to its sloth-like pacing, which feels like its always-trapped in slow motion. This is caused by many irrelevant stoppages (naturally getting sidetracked) in the quest that makes the 87 minutes running time come across like an eternity. I'm just so glad there was eye candy on show. The acting by all is plain stiff and strangely well-mannered (!). Mindi Millar, Penelope Reed (who's character gets knocked out cold and caught in trouble a lot) and a titillatingly feisty Danitza Kingsley are scratchy, but do look fine nonetheless. Joseph Whipp takes the cake in the woodenly droll evil sorcerer who shoots thunderbolts from his fingers. Truly malevolent hell no! The special effects are as cheap and clumsy as can be (look at the transformation scene). While, the cheapjack cardboard sets don't add up much too primitive reality, but in all, these trusty elements were expected and were its charm.

The drolly soft-centred story is the traditional set-up, and easy as it comes. Some oddly resourceful and quick marks shape its way into the jumbled material. The shabby script that suffocates the feature just doesn't matter here, as thinking about what they say will hurt your head. And who came up with these horrendously obscure names?! Oh right, you don't want your head to explode. Filmed in Argentina and directed by Alejandro Sessa. Nothing makes a huge dent, but there was one okay atmospheric piece, that went crazy with the lighting to go all spooky. Unfocusedly murky photography and being lampooned by a chaotically corn-riddled music score reminded me what I was watching.

This fantasy sub-genre has its share of crap and "Amazons" deserves to stand along those titles. There are too little unintentional laughs that you would expect from this type of inept film-making. I wanted to enjoy this gloriously incompetence, but it had me yawning for most part.


- I don't know who Alejandro Sessa is, but the Executive Producer on this piece of trash was Roger Corman. Amazons is just another example of the garbage that Corman allowed his name to be attached to in the 80s. Why Roger? Why?

- Amazons is almost devoid of any real entertainment. It's boring, dull, and lifeless. The dialogue and action are ridiculous. The "acting" (and I put that word in quotes because I'm not sure it's appropriate to call what these people are doing "acting") is abysmal. And the plot is pointless. The real plot is about having scantily clad women run around with swords - end of story.

- So, why do I rate this a 3/10 and not lower? Regardless of how bad it is, I have a soft spot for these 1980s Sword and Sorcerer movies. No matter how bad they are, every four or five years, I rewatch 'em. Sick, huh?


Yikes! Sixty-some years after first seeing this movie as a child, I remembered only how cool I thought the bed in the wall was. Now that TMC is recycling it, no other positive memory comes to mind. I regret in a way having to rate it so low, but this really is a very flaky production even for the desperate years in which it was made.

The first and most important fact to keep in mind if you have the good fortune to view it is that it is a turkey masquerading as a fantasy. It cries out for deconstruction. Giving boys' names to the seven eponymous knockout beauties is a Freudian howler. Especially when the gals are matched with an odd assortment of young male actors who had somehow avoided the draft long enough to appear on this 1942 set. And the real Holland, Michigan today is to a large extent a Spanish-speaking community that reflects how quickly times change in the real world -- not that it ever was in the first place anything close to what this film fantasy conjures up. Indeed, the image of tulips and windmills seems calculated to stand in stark relief to the reality that was the Netherlands under the Nazi heel in 1942, ironically demonstrating that the generally pro-German neutrality in that country and in the real Holland, Michigan during the years between WWI and WWII was a fool's paradise.

But enough of that. Baby-faced Van Heflin in his over-sized fedora playing the role of a hard-nosed photo-journalist seems in any event miscast. His best role would come a decade later in the movie Shane. And warbler Kathryn Grayson would later stand out in the classic 1951 movie version of Showboat.

Even as sheer entertainment in its own time, this film is unadulterated escapism, worthy of no more than a glance by film historians.


This film, originally titled Outer Touch but now called by its American title, Spaced Out, is getting a bit of a cult following though why this should be is a bit of a mystery because it isn't really that good. It is written in the style of the British "Confessions" films but without the panache. The sets were left-overs from another film and bits from Space 1999 were spliced in. The humour is distinctly British low-brow with the expected sexual innuendos.

Three gorgeous female aliens crash-land on Earth and take four (three male and one female) prisoners. Never having seen men before, it's not long before the men are subject to intense scrutiny and testing. How is it that this alien species which has never experienced men have all the female bits that men lust after? Charles Darwin has a lot of explaining to do. Of course, in typical sex comedy style, once they experience earthmen, they can't get enough of it.

There are some good moments in this film such as Glory Annen examining Tony Maiden, and Ava Cadell testing Michael Rowlatt. Barry Stokes is like Clark Kent but without the charisma. The voice of the Wurlitzer was changed for the American market as well as the music. The ending for the American version was also changed. Compared to the US VHS, the US Region 1 DVD (both R-rated) has been panned and scanned to cut out some of the flesh. For the UK DVD, the film (double-billed with Sex Clinic) looks to be the original British version.


I loved the first two LOTR films, and was keyed up almost beyond endurance to see ROTK the first week it opened. When the film was over, I was stunned by the depth of disappointment I was feeling. In fact, I went back and watched the movie again a few days later; I could not believe that it really had been as bad as I'd experienced. The fault must have been mine, I thought; I'd been too wound up to really take it in. With a cooler head, I'd be able to enjoy it and the magic would work again, as it had with the previous two movies. Alas, no. The movie was just as bad as I'd thought, and it somehow managed to posthumously poison my pleasure in the other two movies as well. I've never been able to enjoy any of them since.

I came to really hate Peter Jackson, especially after watching all the "making of" interviews on the dvds. I believe he is an undisciplined, self-indulgent egomaniac, and these characteristics progressively took over as the film series continued. Fellowship of the Ring was the best of the lot, and I feel it's because it was a gamble. Now that the series is over, people forget that before FOTR premiered, there was no guarantee that the film would be a success. LOTR was a notoriously difficult book to adapt, and many worried that it couldn't be done. In that atmosphere, Jackson and his co-writers were at their most deferential to the original Tolkien text, and almost humble in their approach to such a daunting task.

After FOTR was a big success, they became more confident in their own skills, and felt bold enough to try a little rewriting for The Two Towers, even while assuring fans that it was only a little strategic reorganizing, and the original story would be preserved in ROTK. By that point, however, Jackson was so deluded by the sycophantic flattery that surrounded him on all sides, he was convinced that the fans would adoringly accept anything he filmed, simply because it was the product of such a genius. ROTK could not contain both Tolkien's story and Jackson's ego, and guess which won in the end? The story flopped all over the place, with Saruman's storyline simply chopped off and left unresolved, while Jackson wasted time indulging in invented scenes back in Rohan, when the story should have moved decisively to Gondor. That, however, was not the part of the story that interested him, so we had to have more loving photography of carved dark wood beams and animal-skin rugs, plus a vastly overdrawn love connection between Eowyn and Aragorn. When Jackson finally had to tear himself away from this romantic Viking paradise and turn to Gondor, he revenged himself on the story by turning Gondor into a sterile, dead cement city, full of cowards and idiots.

Worst of all, I felt that by ROTK Jackson was even getting sloppy on what had been a trademark of the films until then - set design and scale. For a scene where Gandalf and Pippin are on a balcony, looking towards Minas Morgul, he had both actors on the same set, with Pippin merely kneeling at the balcony, while Gandalf towered over him. However, the brain can quite clearly calculate that the scale of the balcony in relation to the bodies of both characters is wrong - in FOTR, Jackson would have built a larger-scale model of the balcony for Pippin, to keep up the illusion that he was a smaller figure in a setting made for people of Gandalf's size. This time, he couldn't be bothered, as if he felt that he'd paid his dues being accurate in the first two movies, and now he should be free to play around and have fun.

That was amply demonstrated with the stupid green goblins, the endless battle scenes, the noise, the shaking camera, and the labored "humour" in every Gimli scene. What annoyed me the most, however, was that Jackson seemed to have no grasp of what Tolkien thought was important. In the movie, only the "stars" are able to act (and yes, that includes the Hobbits), whereas Tolkien showed that nobility, courage and heroism are EVERYONE's business. In the books, the individual soldiers of Gondor had personalities, felt connected to the greater cause, and debated how best they could do their duty. In Jackson's movies, Aragorn and Gandalf do all the fighting, while crowds of women blubber helplessly and soldiers blunder about uselessly. This is why his removal of the Scouring of the Shire was both execrable and inevitable. Jackson can't recognize any drama in ordinary people in ordinary settings facing crisis and either failing or rising to the occasion - to him, the Shire is just dumb peasants who were too stupid not to leave home for adventure, and there's nothing more to be expected of them. Tolkien's whole theme was that adventure and crisis are NOT the sole property of noble heroes, but that it can touch anyone, and how we react when it does is as important as Aragorn's struggle with Sauron or Denethor's descent into madness.


I went to see ROTK for the 2nd time yesterday and aside from the myriad of minor flaws, want to concentrate on major issues surrounding Jackson's character development.

ARAGORN is the first big problem. In the book he is both a ranger from the north, but also a man destined to be king. He knows who he is, and he has an expectation of that destiny. Likewise in the book he has 'spiritual' awareness. Aragorn is descended, not merely from men, but from Numenor: so he already has in him some of the blood of the Elves. Now Jackson gives all foresight to the Elves - making the men merely, men. But the whole point is that the-man-born-to-be-king has the spiritual awareness of the great kings of old. Thus, in book II at the river it is Aragorn, not Legolas (as in Jackson's version), who is aware of a shadow growing in his heart. And, more significantly, it is Aragorn who in the book takes the palantir by his right (Gandalf actually bows to give it to him). Gandalf counsels him not to use it, but Aragorn knows who he is. So he looks in the palantir and shows Sauron the sword. He challenges Sauron, and then wrenches the palantir away from the Eye to use as HE wills, not as Sauron wills. In so doing he sees the black fleet, and so knows the threat. That's why he takes the path of the dead. And when he goes under the Dimholt he REALLY summons the dead. The exchange in the film between Aragorn and the Geoffrey-Rush-Pirates-of-the-Caribbean-look-alike ghost is feeble in the film. In the book Aragorn does not doubt who he is: he calls them, not barters with them.

Now Aragorn's action here is part of a much larger cohesion in Tolkien that is entirely absent in Jackson. As a result we're left with a desperately anti-climactic coronation. Why? There's simply been no character development of Aragorn. He's been denuded of a sense of who he is.

SAURON is the next big problem. It's true that in the book he is mostly referred to as the Eye. But he also has personality. In the film, apart from the opening sequence to film I (which was brilliant) all we have is a plasma lamp sometime searchlight. Since in the book Gandalf has told Frodo that 'Sauron is taking shape again' why on earth didn't Jackson then develop Sauron from the figure in film I? In the book, we are told of Sauron's gnawing doubt. We hear of reports about 'spies' entering Mordor. We know that he is consumed by fear of the upstart heir of Elendil. None of this is developed in the film. (And the Ring seems to lose power on entering Mordor, not gain it!) Result? There was no sense of elation at the fall of Barad'dur.

Now this is a serious theological error that I suspect Tolkien would have detested. Personify good, and you must also personify evil. Tolkien's epic was all about those forces being personified: and how you discern them. Sauron is a personification of evil. He's not actually the worst - that belongs to Morgoth (of whom the Balrog is a servant). Whilst Tolkien rightly loathed allegory, he nonetheless never would have countenanced such a weak and ineffectual portrayal of the enemy. The whole point, and if this isn't obvious in the world today then Jackson is even less astute than I imagined, is that evil in many guises takes human form.

OTHERS

The same lack of characterisation in Aragorn and Sauron goes on with many of the others. Notable exceptions are GANDALF and SARUMAN (both well acted). Jackson made a mistake in cutting Saruman out of III having made so much of him in I and II (more than the book). ARWEN is drippy throughout. EOWYN is changed in the film. Miranda Otto was excellent. But Jackson plays up the love between her and Aragorn so much that we are left wondering how Eowyn is apparently beatifically happy to see him with Arwen. On the subject of Eowyn it's such a shame Jackson didn't do the slaying of the witch-king better. In the book the battlefield pauses - a cloud goes up and everyone in Minas Tirith is happy. It's one of the truly great moments, lost by Jackson. The reports even leak back to the orcs in the tower above Shelob's lair so that Sam and Frodo hear that 'No.1. has been done in'.

As for the HOBBITS . I think this may be a question of preference. Personally I think Sean Astin's acting as SAM is execrable, but some like it. For me, the simple gardener becomes a mini-philosopher and I find his soliloquy both at the end of film II in Osgiliath (to which they never go in the book) and on the mountain (twice) truly toe-curlingly dreadful: pap I'm afraid. And, oh dear, we even veered towards Titanic-music-moments at the end of film I and again on the mountain. BILBO was fine until the end. Yes, we know he ages fast now he's lost the ring, but the Salieri-style prosthetics are poor. Jackson loves the slow-motion work so much that we have to endure some particularly dreadful sequences with the Hobbits (most notably the already infamous bed scene) and at the end (where I really thought Frodo was going to give Sam a full-on smacker!). A similarly tacky piece of directing occurs when the elves appear - the soft focus lens is deployed with 'celtic' singing. Argh - this is kindergarten film production.

I expect the film will garner the Oscars ceremony. But I hope some people in Tinsel town have the courage to acknowledge that whilst some of the visuals are outstanding (though many are not - e.g. the oliphaunt descent by Legolas, the Merrick-style leader of the orcs, and the Army of the dead), the film is not actually very good.

Peter - I'm afraid you've let us, and J.R.R. Tolkien, down.


This movie was.... interesting. It was overall quite novel, but it suffered from a couple of draw backs.

The first is that while the alien female cast is definitely attractive (and I am not saying the human cast isn't), but it appears as if someone had instructed them to try and act seductively while playing a part and they just end up coming across like the actors in the crappy porn movies my flatmates used to find amusing. This is generally OK, but it really gets annoying in some places.

Also, if you were hoping for a "Species" or an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you will be a little disappointed. The storyline in most places is fairly obvious, although there are a couple of features which make it different enough to make the film not a complete waste of time.

Other than this, the special effects are certainly fair, the acting is decent (barring the notes above) and it's definitely watchable. It might not be a movie I would recommend to others as one to search out and watch, but if you have some time to kill or it's on TV there are a lot of other movies that are way worse than this.


Well, I didn't see the first one. I suppose I thought that this would be a major breast-fest, and it isn't. There are a few brief, but nice boobie scenes, some of which are ruined by the special effects, but you can't catch this film just for those. However, there's not much else. The plot is complete and utter B-movie sci-fi dreck. The direction and production values are OK. The acting is as good as the material will allow, in some cases, (See Dina Meyer, Kailin See, Tobin Bell) to acceptable, (see Kim Poirier) to atrocious (see most anybody else) Have to hand out gold stars for pulchritude to Kailin See, Dina Meyer, Kim Poirier, and Jessica Kennedy Parker. But other than checking out the pretty girls, there's not any reason to see this.


Sometimes you have to take things to a point to make a point. Michael Moore has many times been accused of lying or being naive and not showing the whole picture but the truth is that if you are documenting the type of phenomenons that he is you have to take things to the very edge to be able to show your point of view. Even further, you can't tangle yourself in semantics and rhetorical endless discussion if you want the regular ordinary man on the street to get interested. This is Moores dilemma. He's trying to make very complex matters simple and it's not an easy task.

Now, I'm the first to agree on that he's not always accurate and sometimes not even right, but he finishes his mission which is; To make people think! And this is far more important sometimes than being 100% true.

He even got Mr Wilson to make a movie about him. And that's why we are here.

Wilson is trying to use Moores own rhetoric back on him. He is even got a attorney / author (sic!) to claim that Moore has some personality disorder. He uses the same techniques as him and gets the man on the street to air his opinions and as a coincidence, they are the same as Wilson's. To boil it all down, he is trying to make a Fahrenheit 9/11 about Fahrenheit 9/11.

Now, of course you should challenge Moore's ideas. Of course you should make up your own mind and try to find the facts yourself. That's the whole point of democracy. But where Moore is brilliant with expressing his points and political viewpoint, Wilson is far too blunt. It even gets to the point where you get the feeling that Wilson is not even challenging Moore but is in it for his own personal witch hunt out of some personal dislike. Which is exactly what he's accusing Moore for doing to Mr C. Heston and G.W. Bush. And this, of course, is not good since as a fact he then becomes Moore.

At a point I could almost see him crying off camera because Moore doesn't return his calls. And, come on Wilson, why did you try to make a point about if he cursed or not? A big difference between Moore and Wilson is also this; Where Moore gets people to speak their mind, Wilson will get to use the interviews as long as "they don't look bad". Don't look bad? That's the whole point of investigating journalism, if it looks bad it probably is and you should bring it out in the open. Not the corporate approved statements and views.

Further more, the sections with Penn (yes, Penn from Penn&Teller) screams "You should only show what is government approved". I can't help to recall what the late Bill Hicks said: "You are free to do what we tell you! Here's 16 channels of American Gladiators to choose from".

Now, it might be that we in Europe are more used to harsh journalists that dissect everything, but I get a feeling that Wilson does not fully understand how and why you do an investigating documentary. If peoples toes are going to be stepped on? Sure. If people are going to get mad because things are shown that wasn't supposed to be? Of course. If this is wrong? Not a bit.

A cause, belief or movement that can't stand to be investigated or made fun of, is not meant to survive. It's as simple as that.

I could go on and on and point out the errors I think Wilson is doing this film. The truth is that Wilson should have practiced a bit more first before taking on a challenge as this. He is accusing Moore of editing his movies and then he does the same thing himself. He makes a point of Moore using comments and interviews out of context and then, yes you guessed right, he does it himself. He twists and turns from challenging Moores movies to challenging Moore himself. It all turns into a amateurish soup where you have no real thread to follow. I even felt, after the shop door incident, that he was trying to do a "Cops" episode.

No, Wilson, this is not good. You should have practiced by making some Youtube movies first to get warm in the clothes before going for the trophy; Michael Moore.


Michael Wilson has a thesis and pretends he doesn't. The thesis is in the title. He sets out to prove it, locating people happy to get attention slamming Moore like Maysles and puts out the film just in time to cash in on the release of Sicko. Wilson figures his own deceptive practices can be excused by admitting them, but when you're out to slam someone else for doing the same thing, one should practice what one preaches. Moore should have granted the interview; the film would then have lasted about 10 minutes. There's nothing unique here that hasn't been done to death on numerous "Moore-watching" boards or the earlier film "Fahrenhype 911". This is about someone making a name for himself off Moore's career.

It's helpful that the film again reminds Moore to be more careful about errors and improve. But the film is not a work of note, just a work feeding off the creativity of others, namely that of Fahrenhype 911 and Moore. Wilson puts the spotlight on himself by showing us his family photos at the beginning and portraying himself as intrepid reporter on the beat throughout while complaining that Moore is making films about himself.


First, I should say that I consider myself a fan of Michael Moore, but not that I believe or support everything he says in his films blindly. I also like horror movies but that's not because I think psycho-killers should murder people. Moore has a message and he makes films that support his message. They're not meant to be taught in place of American history class. That said, American history textbooks have more than their fare share of bias as well, but that's another topic. On to the review.

I read the reviews of this film here and decided that, as a Michael Moore fan, it would be interesting to see this filmmakers arguments and also to see what a jerk Michael Moore can be. I'm sure he's an arrogant SOB, like anyone with the kind of fame, money and influence he's built up might be.

Well, I have to say that this person's arguments are just flat out weak and indefensible. The best I can tell is that this guy has taken extreme offense to Michael Moore's message that America is a screwed up country that strongly favors the rich at the expense of the poor. This is not really a debatable issue, by the way. It's clear to anyone who studies history that this is not just the way America works, but the entire world has functioned this way since the dawn of civilization.

On to one of the key moments in the movie, which is the part I really wanted to see - Micheal Moore blowing up at this guy during a public Q&A session. I really had my hopes up expecting to see Moore light this guy up with no justification. You know, the way Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh do when someone calls in with an intelligent argument. The guy introduces himself with "Hi, my name is......and I'm making a film called 'Michael Moore Hates America'....can I have an interview?"

Obviously, this moron has been waiting his entire life to drop this wonderfully loaded question onto Mr. Moore's lap, but he clearly did not think it through. You're at HIS book tour event, in front of HIS fans, and you ask him for a favor by saying "You Hate America." Let's just think for a second about what Moore's possible response options might have been. 1) Say, "Oh thank you sir for disagreeing with my message so vehemently, and trying to embarrass me in front of a huge audience of my fans. Yes, I would love to give your ridiculously low-budget and hopeless film massive amounts of credibility by appearing in it personally! That way, you can judiciously edit the film in much the same way you accuse me of doing - that is to say, so I look like a complete idiot - and also get to become a millionaire in the process." 2) Disarm the entire situation in a way that makes YOU look like the angry idiot, makes my fans applaud and cheer, and all by simply defending my position in much the same way I do everywhere - that is to say, with a little bit of vitriol.

His other major complaint against Moore is that he......you might want to sit down for this.......EDITS his films! That's right. Can you imagine that he actually used select bits and pieces of speeches to show the parts that support his view and not show the speeches in their entirety? Okay, so that's ridiculous, but still, this filmmaker is suggesting that Moore owes it to the NRA or Charlton Heston that his film also includes all the nice things he said at his NRA speech? It's not as though he stitched together individual words or cut sentences short to change their meaning. This is called "editing" and it's a commonly used technique to make films bearable and concise. If you need to see the whole NRA speech, you should go the f'ing convention yourself.

Point is, this guy doesn't have any real strong arguments against Michael Moore. I'll be the first to admit that Moore distorts and stretches the truth to suit his purposes. But he's just giving a big dose of the same medicine the other side gives whenever it gets a chance. Think "death panels", "destruction of the fabric of our nation", etc. etc.


I'm not a Moore fan (though i do agree with some of his conclusions) and it was originally this and the promise of some insightful discourse on the nature of his technique that attracted me to the film.

But as many have said... the film was completely rubbish. Aside from any previous bias, the propaganda and technique of this film was so heavy handed and basic as to be actually insulting.

Wilson starts out with a few family photographs portrays himself as being an honest American Joe living the American dream (blind hope?) with his unemployed father and being unnecessarily distressed by Michael Moores dissenting opinion. He then goes out of his way to slander him, and put forward his own image of happy go lucky magical America in which everyone, and i paraphrase 'loves everyone around them, and is safe all the time'.

His attack basically summated runs like this - point out obvious documentary theory (nothing in the lens is objective), point out very minor examples (and some bigger ones, but with very little back up to his claims) in which Michael Moore altered a situation to give a situation more emotional impact. On top of that he goes on a crusade to interview real America - in a town of stark unemployment that amazingly consists of only people who own businesses and intersperse with talking heads giving ludicrous commentary in an authoritative tone.

In this entire film Wilson comes up with one original tool for propaganda- he shows himself deceiving someone (very lightly, because he isn't the bad guy here) - him and the producer then have a ridiculous moral conflict about the action - then they show Wilson realizing his mistake and apologizing to the camera. Funnily enough, as opposed to cutting the part he keeps it, with his realization - for fairly obvious reasons.

Suspiciously all the other alterations of fact are left in tact. Every interview is chosen not as a truthful account, but as a vehicle to get across a visceral point. Suburbs are happy, filled with black loving grandma's who feel safe all the time - towns where the infrastructure is ruined are still okay because the American dream lives on in a boy who makes coffee.

When this (perhaps psychologically based) grudge turned veiled objective turd of a film finally winds down and Wilson realizes he has actually made no points whatsoever merely rehashed 1950s corporate propaganda (Everythings Great. Futurism is here! Communism is Evil!) and an attitude so pathetically ignorant and desperate as to be laughable (In America we play hockey! That's how great and happy we are!) - he suddenly makes a sharp veer in his course and ends the film on the note of -

There is no truth, only opinions. And my opinion that Michael Moore hates America is just as valid as Michael Moores opinion that there is an effect on the individual by corporate interest. Because after all, different opinions are what makes America great, and Michaels Moores different opinion that different opinions are wrong is why he hates America and doesn't deserve his opinion.

Still as a sociology student i did walk away with one thing - the complexity of multi nationals, infrastructure and politically influenced neo capitalism don't cause a necessity of poverty - You just have to believe and you can achieve. Damn, someone should tell the Africans to change their lazy attitude!

Finally - the dichotomy between 'objective' and 'subjective' documentary styles was broached upon, studied and had already been split into two very distinct schools as early as the sixties. A commentator in this film said it clearly enough " There is no such thing as an objective documentary, as soon as you point the lens you are capturing something at the expense of everything surrounding it". What everyone failed to mention was that this was widely understood and incorporated into documentary film making. Moore's style is nothing new, and at the very least - he embellishes without fabricating, and is usually cohesive.

I actually finished the film as a Moore sympathizer.


Micheal Moore hates America as this movie likes to call itself is a mockumentary on the documentary "Bowling for Colombine" by Micheal Moore. If you are going to make a critique about somebody's waffle, by making another waffle. Please make a waffle that isn't so bland and utterly boring. I don't care much what ingredients Micheal Moore uses in his waffles, as long as it isn't the same ingredients used in this waffle right here.

Come on, I watch movies to be entertained, not to hear some dude tell me how wrong a movie is for being entertaining. And with that said and told, I don't believe for one single second that Micheal Moore hates America so much as the producer of this movie wants him to.


Well, this is just a bunch of pointless people (elderly film makers, psychiatrists, failed showmen, some angry psycho called Andrew, the film-maker him self, etc) trying to make Moore look bad, mostly by calling him names (check out Penn Jillette swearing! what the f.. was that about?). No real arguments are made here about the subjects of Moore's documentaries, besides that these people have just discovered film editing - wow! maybe they should also check out how the evening news are edited. Nothing here but a boring and desperate attempt to convince us that everything is fine in America, while trying to make Moore an America hater and a liar, in a country that is full up to the neck, with lies.


this is a well-made documentary. it points out that Moore denounces the epidemically separating rich and poor while being himself "a rich white man." But even if he has made money in his life, his messages are still important in that they expose, more than any other source, the failing of our nation whether by chance or design. The fact that the US has terrible ratios of health care and education to its financial status was demonstrated through the Sicko documentary and reached a whole lot of people who probably weren't previously aware that the 1st world nations outside of the USA have for the large majority much better civic systems in place. This documentary denounces Moore for being openly critical of US policy and for helping to repair the ignorance of the people therein to the short-comings of their governance. This documentary will be frustrating to anyone who is already done with the US war policy, but it will help assuage those not yet ready to admit they made a mistake when they voted for Bush. This documentary takes a boy's defense of his father's work ethic and aims it at a man who has done a great work toward opening the eyes of a nation toward the misdirections of its leadership -- a great work ethic in itself. Long live Michael Moore and the style in which he empowers us with knowledge. Meanwhile, may this documentary based on an attack on his person remind us that we cannot save everyone because that is why it takes a Michael Moore to awaken those who can't find the light switch on their own. The real shame in this documentary is that this man's father suffered the same fate as Michael's own father (twice apparently). But while Moore used the shrinking US job market as an entry point into a career exposing the economic slavery being imposed on this nation (and others), this fellow chooses to attack a man that should very well be a hero to his father and surely his own self.


I'm not inundating MW is a cross dresser, if I would use his marginalization of the finer nuances. "Casus belly" There is a huge difference by saying "I hate America" or "I hate how America is acting under George Bush" If I would have been MW's English teacher catching him misusing this phrase, he would not have passed the dictionary lesson. Selling himself as the naive "little farm boy" from Minesota doing a Mocumentary on MM, exploiting his weaknesses and elevating MM to a Media Goliath, doesn't make MW a David. He might convince the blissfully ignorant and uneducated , but an increasing silent majority know's who the real Media Goliath is: The Media run by Corporations, reflecting the advertisers opinion. Now this Media could have done a Rebuttle Documentary on MM's Mocumentaries, but they know it wouldn't look sexy, if they would use sleek corporate Media Spinmasters to run it. So they might have sponsored MM, threw in a cheap Comedian team : Pen & Teller (Rush Limbough was probably too expansive)and some other cheerleaders to make it run. Also trying to move MM into a leftist corner, calling him a communist sympathizer, makes me believe MW doesn't know real Communist Agitators like John Hartfield, Eduard Schnitzler, Ernst Bush, Hans Eisler and Wladimir Mayakowski. Clearly, the Neoncon Movement wants to destroy Middle-class America. All they want is slave labor for their shopping temples like Wallmart, and Massfeeding institutions like MacDonalds. Small Business people are just a nuisance for them. Obviously they are succeeding, by using the Media to sell us lies, lies like "Michael Moore hates America" Joseph Goebbles the Propaganda Minister of Germany during the Third Reich quoted: If you tell a Lie, and say it is the truth....Repeat it often enough and it becomes the truth. May be the American people are bound to believe now one of MW's quotes: Canada's Crime rate is twice as high, as the US's. I would like to know his source of statistics, lol. Given the fact that our Canadian population is 10% of the US population, I'm left in disbelieve, that my chance's are twice as high to become a victim of a mugging, shooting, robbery, fraud or whatever in a City let's say Toronto, after I had to fend for my life in Atlanta, where I got lost in city traffic: I had to evade carbage on the streets and duck behind my Cabriolet Steering wheel evading an angry mob throwing objects. Buffula looked pretty grim to me, after I traveled through there. Burned out buildings after an alleged Gangwar. I just don't buy MM's statistics. Left alone now the white collar crime, that ripped of Middle Class Stock Investors, where the corporations loaned money to Deadbeats to make statistics look better and to raise their profits. They also knew when to hit the breaks, and take their money out in time first: Insider Information. Does Enron rung a bell here ? Hey Mike Wilson : "Where is my Money?" Yes, I lost money after the Morgage and Loan scandal too. Oh, I also like to take MW's challenge on playing Hockey in the vicinity of the Capitol ! He said: "That's only possible in the US " I bet a travel ticket , that You and I can play Hockey at the Parliament in Ottawa, at the Elysee in Paris, at Reichstag in Berlin at the Duma in Warzaw and on the Kremlin's Red square. I don't know about Bejing, haven't been there yet. Travelling wouldn't hurt, may be it would supply you with a better education, Buddy !


I thought Moore's Bowling for Columbine was brilliant, but Fahrenehit 9/11 was a little too much propaganda (although he hit some heavy notes such as the failure of the media, corporate irresponsibility and class-ism) for me. This movie, however, is more of a far-right conservatives response to intellectuals' claims against right-wingism. What has been happening, particularly most recently, is that academics and others such as liberals have been holding up a mirror to conservative America and conservative America doesn't like what they see, so they try to shift the blame on liberalism by screaming anti-patriotism. I don't think Moore hates America, I think he hates corruption. I remember at the end of Bowling for Columbine he said something along the lines, "I think as Americans we're better than that" regarding gun violence. I don't think this man hates America, he just doesn't roll himself in the flag before he goes to sleep every night. Criticism against a government or politician doesn't constitute anti-patriotism or hatred for one's country, except in fascism. This movie simply set out to hate liberals and charge them for anti-Americanism instead of presenting issues logically and coherently. What is most unique is that when I voted on this movie, the most votes were 10s and 1s. Something like 36% said 10 and 39% said 1, with small percentages in between. More polarization adding to the continual decline of the United States.


Well well, people warned me not to watch this one. But I had to. I had seen the trailer on youtube and thought, worth watching. But I can tell you that, if you watch the trailer then you have seen the whole movie. Again made as a reaction on Sleepaway Camp and other female flicks and even made at the end of the slasher era it is clear why that scene crashed into oblivion. Nothing really happens, except for the fact that the killer survives almost everything, falling from a window, being hit on the head,...must be an ode to Halloween, but there it worked, here it doesn't. The killings aren't gory at all let's even say, they aren't bloody at all. It's obvious that it was a low budget horror. Look at the girls, not attractive at all. The clothes are worse and the hairstyle is worser. Okay, what makes a slasher is in it, some nudity and first person shots but still it is missing suspense. It could have been much better if the red stuff was flowing. All I can say is that it is indeed a massacre!


My friend and I got together and we were looking for a movie on satellite. Return of the Sith? Nah, too long. Sideways? Nope, too heady. Sorority House Massacre? Charge my card immediately!! Throw this movie in with cheesy, 80s horror flicks. Other films like "Slumber Party" Massacre come to mind. All are pretty much knockoffs of Halloween, the godfather of modern slasher flicks (I don't think Psycho was, for it was of an earlier generation). But it's all there, the bad 80s hair and outfits, actors that can't annunciate, and a killer that doesn't die, even after repeatedly being stabbed, punched, and hit with a shovel. This guy must be made of steel.

If the girl having visions about murders in her dream isn't a complete ripoff from Nightmare on Elm Street, nothing is. True, this freakish girl doesn't die in her dreams but everyone around her goes by the wayside. I'm surprised she wasn't subjected to more abuse, as she really was weird and had an eerie resemblance to Kyle McLaughlin.

Not to say I expected Shakespeare when I watched this rubbish. Bad acting was expected, some mindless T&A to go with several dead bodies, and that's what I received. The money shot occurs when the murderer is coming after the sorority girls, falls two stories off a ladder, then is able to spontaneously crash through the window minutes later. Even Altman couldn't pull that one off.

So ya, this is your basic 80s slasher flick. Not necessarily funny but mildly amusing. Make sure you watch it with a friend and crack jokes through it's entirety. And if somehow this movie scares you, get a cigarette and a shrink.