I find it ironic that many of the comments being circulated from outside (rather luckily, I'd say) the hornet's nest of U.S. news media are doling out the most thoughtful and reasonable opinions on why "Black Hawk Down" is such a rank slice of flag-waving propaganda. Those who say, in so many words, "leave your politics at the door" are the ones who are missing the point of a democratic society--even in something as simple as film criticism, dissent is not a privilege, but a right for all people who disagree with the preset opinions of others.

"Black Hawk Down" is a film that offers up an indistinguishable cast of characters, Army men devoid of personality but all trailed by gold haloes (heavy irony here, as one reviewer mentioned, one soldier is presently in prison for rape), as they carry out a rescue mission that goes awry (although the plot becomes a moot point even before the troops arrive), which turns into the type of loud, exploitative, and soulless bloodbath we've come to expect from the prolific, oh-so-patriotic Jerry Bruckheimer. (At least "Con Air" had John Malkovich for comic relief.)

Inking his soul over to the devil, Ridley Scott employs the mandatory, quick-edit style of pretentious music-video directors the world over, and rather than drawing interest into the almost nonexistent story, instead makes the film bomb even harder. The shameless cliches that are trotted out do nothing to build the characters (the phone call that came one ring too late; the 'kissing of the family picture', etc.), therefore it is impossible to relate to or care about anyone, even more so when they choke out the typical "Tell my wife and kids..." line.

On the other side of a particularly one-dimensional, racist "script" are the Somalis, who are presented with even less personality than the soldiers--their video game objective is to yell, wave automatic weapons, and act like utter psychopaths. What better way to establish the Good Guys, eh? Just give the Bad Guys even less personality! Personality is overrated, anyway--especially when the gory consequences of war are shoved in your face with unflinching horror! BHD piles on the gore, mostly for dramatic effect, but since the characters are such cliches, it becomes pure shock value...gore for gore's sake. I've seen better, more justified use of the red stuff in Lucio Fulci films.

Unlike "Apollo 13," this is not a "successful failure," but became a success (financially, that is) by being such a typical exercise in Hollywood sensationalism. Riding high on the wave of nationalism, revenge, and general intolerance brought about by the 9/11 tragedy, BHD arrived at an opportune time, and gave audiences exactly what they wanted--a sink-your-claws-into-the-armrest propaganda film where the U.S. Army's angelic duty boils down to blowing away foreigners (a testament to this film's racial and nationalistic bias is the fact that 19 American soldiers died in contrast with 1,000 Somalis). As if this shallow exercise in war pornography couldn't attest to its own ulterior motives, many critics hailed BHD as "the best war movie ever," among other ostentatious remarks, right as the full-speed "War on Terror" campaign was gripping this country (makes you think, doesn't it?). As for myself, I could only raise a skeptical eyebrow at the proceedings, as I pondered U.S. foreign policy, racial stereotypes through the years, and Hollywood's ability to make a mint by ignoring history. This forum seems divided--as is the case in America right now--between gung-ho 'patriotic' comments and dissidents. To disparage the flag or this film is unpatriotic--but is it patriotic, then, to accept everything you see and hear without question? Or is it more patriotic to bask in the jingoistic arrogance of BHD? If you believe that to be true, then by all means see this movie. As for everybody else, "Bowling for Columbine" will soon be out on video.

1/10


Black Hawk Down is definitely the worst Ridley Scott film and for many reasons. Some being on the acting side, some on the technical aspect, others on direction and so on. Black Hawk Down though is only colourful in its rich choreography, which to me is what doesn't completely destroy the film, but only supports it on it's last legs. The acting isn't so good and clearly shows especially when the film is watched numerous times. And the funny thing is, that it has a heck of a lot of strong actors for each role but they don't shine. On direction terms i think that it isn't Scotts best and shows us that he isn't capable of directing a well balanced war film. The main issue though was the excessive amount of action that, to me isn't that bad but when it takes over the basis and substance of the story it becomes quite hard to continue watching.

Black Hawk Down is a big disappointment and reveals Scott's weaker side to direct a memorable war film.


I just saw the movie on Dutch TV. Unfortunately I did miss the first quarter of an hour. I think the movie described well enough how a US military action can fail. In reality it did really fail. But from what I saw only the US side of the conflict was showed. Maybe good for the US viewers, but a bit stupid for European viewers. People all over the world aren't monkeys anymore, as we believed in past centuries. They are even as proud as some US citisens are and that's what ore small world keep spinning around. In my country there are a lot of people that want to see both sides of a developing conflict, especially when killing is involved. I red comments from outside this site over this movie. I met there the word "war porno" and I read about the economic interest of the US in Somalia. Leaving the portraits of the opponent soldiers behind, except just one and leaving the economic question behind makes this movie to an McDonald food, cheap and fast food for the mind. And why a four on the scale of ten: I saw it as an anti war movie.


You cannot make a movie that is nothing more than a two-hour shoot-out. It just doesn't work. Apart from the fact that the 'shock' of the fight wears off after a while, having a battle scene that takes up 75% of the film's run-time leaves no room for character development - and hence you could not give a monkeys who lives or who dies. This was the same problem with 'We Were Soldiers', where all of the storyline was condensed into the first 30 minutes, freeing the remaining screen-time to be dedicated to nothing but non-stop gratuitous violence. You need to even out the action scenes with advancements in the plot to give the story any meaning and to keep your audience's attention.

What's even worse is that the battles aren't even that impressive. Certainly the visuals, sound and editing were better in both 'We Were Soldiers' and 'Saving Private Ryan' (a film made some years ago now).

There are obviously certain historic issues that need to be addressed, but when a movie is this dull anyway, who cares?

Any film that has me fighting to stay awake on a Friday night must have something seriously wrong with it.

3/10


And that is what makes BHD a horror movie rather than a war movie really. What we have here is a case of mixed genres. This is not a film about the evils of war, or even really about war itself. Is a propaganda piece for thinking locally and acting locally and horror movie designed to make one paranoid because it turns out that the people who are supposed to be protecting us, are incompetent in all the ways that we usually figure that they would be.

Now, having said that, what makes this movie a particularly bad piece cinematic endeavor is that Scott and company are afraid to allow the force of that insight to shine through. Plenty has been written about the 'Fog of War'--that is, the fact that when the bullets start flying, not only do politics go out the window (regrettably the politics seems to have gone out the window when the film cameras started rolling as well), but so also do the best laid plans and what small levels of good sense there were to begin with. But, you see, Scott hasn't the stomach for that film. So he front-end loads the reasons for the fog of war.

We find out that in the midst of the Delta Force and the Texas Rangers, we have asthmatics and epileptics. I did a little checking, and discovered that asthma and epilepsy (and I don't mean to knock anyone who has either of these ailments--you can live perfectly normals lives with both of them), are generally considered reasons for reassigning soldiers to desk jobs in Ft. Worth, or Laramie.

So what we have is Scott afraid to make a movie about the fact that war goes wrong just because war always goes wrong, and instead making a movie about how war goes wrong because our Special Ops are populated with people who either can't breathe when the going is tough, or having seizures when the going is tough. You see, it makes the world safe again. All we need to worry about is that the next time, we don't send in any asthmatics and we can be sure that the operation will be a tidy success--just like Afghanistan was (with certainly no errant bombs and no mis-information). Once, you have that set-up, that's when the politics really is deplorable--because of the fall back on such idiocies as 'heroism' and just looking our for your friends. I am less interested in heroics than I am interested in people (not just soldiers but them too) thinking about why we are in such places as Somalia in the first place. I'll forgive a movie about the brotherhood between soldiers as long is it seems like those soldiers are aware that they have a place in the wider world, but this is not that movie.


It is truly a shame that a Turkish filmmaker can make a truly awful film with all the advances in modern technology, books about film-making and online film courses about Ingmar Bergman and Alfred Hitchcock. Who do these filmmakers think they are...........Americans? As a Turkish-American, I am perhaps one of the few people who can criticize the output of films from both countries. After great recent films like "Uzak-Distant" and "Hajar," it seemed like the Turkish industry had completely divorced itself from its infamous past and Cuneyt Arkin's films were ones in which people could only watch after a six-pack of Efes Pilsens. But, "Buyu," which was sent to me by a Turkish friend from Australia is indeed a reminder that bad- truly bad films can still be made in Turkey. The film is predictable, boring and the special effects are woeful. "Buyu" also features shameless sexism and absolutely sick sequences, such as women being raped by spirits-no, I'm not making that up! The acting is really awful. The directing is even worse. And, the editing is truly pathetic. I just hope they don't make a sequel!


Büyü ("Magic" in English but the meaning is more associated with black magic) was filmed in a small village in Turkey with a handful of actors/actresses, it does not make much use of CG; so, to sum up this is a low-budget movie. It has a lot of problems; first of all, the scenario is not original and is slow-pacing. Dialogs are very straightforward and unsuccessful; this is one of the biggest problems about the movie in my opinion. In many aspects, the movie may be termed as a "plain" movie. This fact added with the problems above makes it uninteresting. It is termed as a horror movie here in Turkey, but in today's standards it is not scary at all. Watch it if you are curious about how a Turkish horror/thriller movie would be; else don't even bother...


"büyü" The worst movie I've ever seen . Nobody can make worse than this. Orhan Oguz is the worst director of the world. He does not know anything about horror movies.This movie is a trash. I have seen before "Turkish exorcist" at the theater. It was an old movie but was the only real Turkish horror. Except that, new generation Turkish horror movies have really bad scenarios ,actin' and direction. "Büyü" cant be like a "Turkish star wars". Cause star wars is a strange movie. But "Büyü" is a really terrible bad movie. Now at last I must say "dont watch any Turkish horror movie". "araf" , "gomeda" , "dabbe" are not much worse than "büyü". But have you got enough time? Don't waste your time.


While at the time this was an important film for the career of Katherine Hepburn, today it seems incredibly stilted and dull. This is because it is a very stuffy costume picture--just the sort of film that emphasizes costumes and stilted language (oh joy) over action and characters. Plus the main idea of the story just seems ludicrous and silly. The film begins with Katherine in love with Franchot Tone but he doesn't realize it. He soon goes off to fight in the Napoleonic Wars for 10 years and when he returns, he sees a radiant woman who he thinks can't be Hepburn because she seems so young. Now here's the silly part. Instead of telling him that she's just well-preserved, she pretends to be her own niece. Sure,...an IDENTICAL niece--in movies, this sort of thing happens all the time (and if you believe this, I'll sell you some oceanfront property in Kansas). So we have a ludicrous idea and an incredibly stilted period piece--just the sort of film that will bore most anyone who tries to watch it. My advice is try seeing some of Kate's other films--almost all of them (except for SPITFIRE) are better. I just can't see why some of the reviewers liked this film so much--it was so very, very dull.

By the way, despite all this criticism for the writing, Hepburn DID do a great job and she looked positively beautiful. I really admired how she cried real tears in one scene.


Actually, its hard to describe whats wrong with this film. Everything should be in place. Hepburn,Tone, Stevens, good supporting cast. Good photography. Ah, yes, the writing. That's probably the problem. The writing is syrupy sweet, the dialog appropriate for the 19th century, and then it was probably over the top in social correctness. The plot-well the plot is in the simply dumb.

As any film buff knows, Hepburn's career was not like a meteor. She had a good start, but had a sucession of terrible films which didn't make money. From a business point of view, for most film producers, a film is good if it makes money. Most do not care if the film is loved by the critics. Its nice if everybody praises the film, but bad films and bad box office have usually ended many promising careers. Hepburn's greatest accomplishment was overcoming her "sophomore jinx" There are many "flash in the pans"- in sports, the arts and business. What counts in the end is staying power. Just look at her life accomplishments. She ended her career like she started-one of films greatest stars.


No wonder KATHARINE HEPBURN was considered box-office poison around the time of QUALITY STREET. As a James M. Barrie heroine, she's as mannered and coy as ever in a silly, very dated comedy of manners that never manages to be the witty romp it strives to be.

Only FRANCHOT TONE gives the story any semblance of wit or reality, looking handsome and fit as the suitor who finally sees through the deception around him.

James M. Barrie has had little success in being transferred to the screen, except, of course, for his PETER PAN. His other works became feeble domestic comedies on screen--namely "Alice Sit By the Fire" which became DARLING, HOW COULD YOU? with Joan Fontaine, and worst of all, QUALITY STREET. Both deserve to be forgotten.

I would venture to guess that this is the sort of dated period fluff that gives films of the 1930s a bad name. (Unfairly so, since many films of the '30s were deservedly praised). It's so stylized in its comedy, so forced in its humor that even the wonderful ERIC BLORE is at a loss as to just how many double takes he should do. Even such wonderful actresses as ESTELLE WINWOOD and FAY BAINTER have a hard time doing anything with their material.

Do yourself a favor and skip this one. Not even the staunchest James M. Barrie fan will want to sit through it.

Trivia note: If you're alert enough, you can catch Joan Fontaine in a bit role.


Gosh, I hate to disagree with the previous posters/reviewers, but this is awful! Watching it was like taking a ninety minute dose of mental Castor oil.

Hepburn is WAY too old to be playing such a silly, frivolous part. One can almost see her teeth lengthening as the movie goes on! She looks ridiculous as the ingénue and more ridiculous as the "niece". Franchot Tone, who was a real hunk in his day, looks exhausted and bemused, as well as totally embarrassed to be in this stinker. Joan Fontaine is in the movie for about three minutes. For those three minutes, she is insufferable.

Fay Bainter is excellent as her usual vague, dithering self, but dear old Estelle Winwood looks like one of David Ickes lizard people! Her sole contribution to the movie is some stellar eye popping. I kept wondering why they ( the sisters) didn't just lock their doors!

Perhaps this movie is simply hopelessly dated, but after awhile, I just wanted it to be over so I could crawl up to bed at 1:30 AM.

Even my Mother, who is old enough to have seen this when it was out in the theaters, said, " That was the worst movie I ever saw. why did we stay up this long??" Good question, Mom!! Maybe we just couldn't believe Katherine Hepburn actually did this to herself.

James Barrie needed to stick to Neverland.


"Mad Foxes" is what happens if someone grants a bunch of drunken loonies access to a camera and simultaneously offers them $20 to make their very own movie. This whole thing probably started as a bad joke among friends in a sinister bar and after having too much to drink already? They all wanted to make a movie, none of them had any talent or even any clue how to begin filming and since they couldn't decide what to focus on, they simply processed every imaginable exploitation theme into the film. Oh yes, you name it and "Mad Foxes" has got it! There's Nazi bikers, foggoty race cars, kick-boxing, castration, the rape of virgins, disembowelment, sailors dancing, scenes from a guy in the crapper, public sex, an Oedipus complex, an S&M Dominatrix, hideously inappropriate metal music by a band named "Krokus", skinny-dipping, sluts with big breasts, sluts with small breasts, grenades, males that wear girlish panties over their own pants, randomly crashing cars, exploding bikes, suicide bombing, wheelchair catapulting, exaggerated fake laughter, demented dialogs, stabbing, death by hedge clippers, bathtub sex, no coppers, massive loads of pubic hair and the inevitable greatest dubbing job in the history of cinema! Every new sequence in "Mad Foxes" is literally a new & adventurous journey into a universe of grotesqueness and disbelief. At several times whilst watching this piece of exploitation-extravaganza, you're guaranteed to rub your eyes and wonder: "Is this real?" Am I really watching this? Did somebody actually make this film??". Not a drug in this world can offer you such a dangerously intoxicating and flamboyant trip as Paul Grau's "Mad Foxes". Now that I've seen this gloriously retarded highlight of euro-trash cinema, I can die a happy man!


Here's exhibit A in crappy dubbing - these guys ignore all syntax as they lurch around waiting to pounce on the next lip movement. "My name. Is Hal." "I'm so glad. We met." That offers some much-needed levity in this yucky biker-revenge movie where a buncha scumbags rape wifey and shoot up the cute-as-a-button parents of the hero, a total a-hole embodied by Robert O'Neil. His contract gives him at least three softcore romp showcases, and not only is he completely disgusting - he looks like a cross between Willem Dafoe and Potsie - HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO KISS. His mouth's open and he's slobbering all over the face of his unfortunate partners. There's a lot of aimless, onanistic pelvic thrusting. This softens the blow of the atrocities a bit; are we supposed to empathize with HIM? And anyway they're just setup for him meting out some rough justice as you may have predicted. The shock ending is kind of gratifying in a stupid way but it's not worth the pain.


This film has earned its cult reputation due to the fact that it's ridiculous - and as you might expect, this reputation isn't exactly unfounded. Mad Foxes is just as ridiculous as it's meant to be and then some...however, while I enjoy a good silly flick, the inconstancies and illogical nature of the film don't help it as the plot doesn't move well at all, and the film gets confusing too often, which isn't good when the plot is as simple as the one here. The plot is pretty much routine for a rape/revenge flick, and focuses on a guy and his girl who end up getting on the wrong side of a neo-Nazi biker gang. The gang beat him up and rape his girl, so he vows revenge on them...blah blah. The way that the plot moves isn't very fluent, and usually just jumps from one scene to the next; which can be irritating. There are a few good sequences in the film, and these include things such as a man being blown up on the toilet and a Nazi-style bondage session towards the end. In fitting with the rest of the film, the acting and the dialogue are both terrible; but the film is very funny on numerous occasions, and while I can't say I overly enjoyed Mad Foxes; it might appeal to those who enjoy seeing movies at their worst.


I don't remember ever seeing such bad dubbing as in the version I saw of this film. It doesn't even seem like the voice actors were watching the movie! When the actor's face on the screen would seem to denote that he is yelling, the dubbed voice sounds calm. When the actor's face on the screen would seem to denote that he is in pain, the dubbed voice sounds calm. In fact, the dubbed voice ALWAYS sounds calm!!

Not only that, but the actual writing of the English dubbed version leaves a lot ot be desired, to say the least. We are treated to such scintilating, saucy dialogue as:

Man in bathtub, to woman: "Come here." Woman: "Okay."

Even further, we have a biker gang that rides around on dirt bikes (?!?!) and a group of the laziest karate masters ever as their karate kicks don't even rise above their waists!!

I'm a big fan of "bad" movies but this one didn't make me laugh at all. It just made me wince in pain.


This one has to be seen to be believed. In what is easily one of the worst "films" I ever saw - it hardly deserves to be mentioned as such -, Nazi bikers, Kung Fu fighters and hardcore pornography mix up. The plot is so unbelievably dull it seriously raises the question of how story lines like these can actually be turned into a movie. Who would ever finance or produce crap like this? Obviously, someone was in for it here. Perhaps the strangest thing are the numerous male nude scenes. Nothing is veiled and all details are explicit - entirely without reason, excerpt for the dare itself. Not to forget the Nazi symbolism that is present throughout the film with the evil biker dudes. Inevitably that is also used for a sexual encounter, and it's one that's more than strange. In total a film that may be suitable for punishment and torture of true lovers of cinema. If possible, I'd give it zero out of ten points - probably less.


One thing I remember when home video rental took off was people would hire films they`d never heard of , the only way you`d get an idea of what the film was like was reading the blurb on the back which often wouldn`t do justice as to how bad the film was , and let me say no blurb could ever do justice as to how awful THE MAD FOXES is. The plot outline on the back gave the impression that it`s an action thriller but doesn`t state it`s badly dubbed by people who are half asleep , or that the evil bikers are a bunch of 40 something overweight men most of whom seem to have a problem riding a motorcycle , or the fact that THE MAD FOXES doesn`t really have a plot . Worst of all the blurb doesn`t point out most of the running time is taken up with hardcore explicit sex scenes !!!!!!! The video company who released this might have mentioned how much rumpo there was going to be in this movie as either a selling point or as a warning that it`s not exactly a family film . Not only did I have the misfortune of watching this I had the misfortune of watching it with my parents and my dad had the sense of turning it off just as another sex scene was about to raise its head , namely the scene in the woods where the hero shoots at concorde and his girlfriend decides to undo his trousers , so I never found out how the film ended . I have to admit though I am curious as to how the film ended . Did the bikers turn up to fight the hero or did the film end on a massive sex session ?


Judy Landers plays Susan. She jumps out of the shower, puts a pink aerobics outfit on, walks downstairs to seeing her mother strangled to death by Ray Sharkey(playing a killer named Silk). She runs out of house and into a construction site, meets up with Sharkey and falls. The fall doesn't kill her but gives her amnesia, so with some strings pulled by the man behind Silk's deeds - Susan is put into a sanatorium till she recovers her memory. Unfortunately for Susan, she is admitted to a mental institution run by Dr. Fletcher - the sultry Mary Woronov - who enjoys being sado-masochistic and experimenting on patients in a basement called Hellhole. The hospital is like no other. Most of the wards are playboy playmate caliber-looking girls. All of them disrobe quite freely. In fact this film has a lot of nudity in it with a cat-fight in the showers and a mud bath as standouts...anyway,...ah the mind wanders...Susan is being stalked by the man that killed her mother all the while learning about the atrocities committed by Dr. Fletcher. I found this film somewhat interesting for a number of reasons. It is outwardly a sleazy picture in many ways. It has a spin on the women-in-chains motif. Nudity and shock effects override storyline through much of it. The acting ranges from weird and bizarre(Sharkey) to competent(Richard Cox as the hero) to camp(Mary Woronov doing her best Dyanne Thorne impersonation) to less than credible(Judy Landers((but hey who cares right?))). There are a number of cool cameos by genre notables from the past. Terry Moore from Mighty Joe Young fame has a nice role, Marjoe Gortner has an intriguing yet thin role as a doctor in league with Woronov, and the aforementioned Dyanne Thorne has a brief cameo as a patient that thinks she is an actress. Director Pierre De Moro even has flashes of talent here and there. The opening sequence is somewhat chilling and the settings of Hellhole are very well-utilized in terms of atmosphere, lighting, etc... The ending is wholly predictable but somehow satisfying for a film of this ilk. But make no mistake, while outwardly a horror film, this is also a sexploitation film equally. Watch for Renee Vicary as Silk's girlfriend. Just lovely!


Cult cast highlight trash movie regarding a poor young woman who finds a leather-clad, slick-haired, Elvis-sideburns, hood strangling her mom to death with a scarf. He was simply supposed to retrieve bank statements for a corrupt psychiatric doctor and he just got carried away. The poor woman is Susan, portrayed by the petite beauty Judy Landers. The killer is Silk, portrayed by Ray Sharkey who seems to be enjoying his part as a hired vulgar fiend who torments his victims with relish. Susan, attempting to escape Silk, falls from a building, bumping her noggin and garnering amnesia. Matters only worsen for her as Susan is sent to a mental hospital under the care of the sociopathic Dr. Fletcher(..played cold-blooded by Mary Woronov)who enjoys performing experimental lobotomies on patients who "misbehave." Working along side her is Dr. Dane(Marjoe Gortner), who wishes to help the patients, while Fletcher seems to enjoy them for homicidal kicks. The Hellhole of the title is a prison and lab for those patients who are mistreated to the lobotomies..we get a look at one of the failed procedures as Dane and Fletcher insert a large hypodermic needle into a religious freak and watch as she trembles and convulses into catatonia and death. Will Susan be treated to such a punishment as she pursues an escape route or will the kind orderly Ron(Richard Cox;who is actually an agent trying to infiltrate Fletcher's operation so that the lobotomies to innocent patients will end)be able to save her from a horrifying fate? The crooked doctor hired by Silk to recover the bank statements(..and later recruiting the slime-ball to pose as an orderly within the hospital to torment and terrorize Susan for she saw him murder her mother and to find out about where those bank statements are hidden)is Monroe(Martin Beck). Robert "Maniac Cop" Z'Dar is a hulking guard named Brad who, along with other men, forces patients into the hellhole and has a rather lame/disappointing fight with Cox's Ron towards the end. Edy Williams gets naked a lot as wacky patient Vera, often engaging in lesbian encounters. As a matter of fact, this film carries several Women-in-Prison characteristics such as the copious amounts of female nudity when the patients are in the showers(..there's even a hilarious cat fight between Vera and another patient over another woman ending in bare knuckle fisticuffs!). Silk wishes for Vera to find evidence on Ron for he doesn't trust him..Vera is basically a love-doll for Silk to sexually ravage, and she doesn't seem to mind it at all. Sidnee Hammond(Terry Moore)is the one Ron communicates with..she needs hard evidence that will convict Fletcher of her inhumane crimes.

The film wallows in sleaze and the presentation is scuzzy and imbalanced..with a more polished screenplay this could've been a lot better. The motivations of the characters are often in question(..even Susan makes a few dumb decisions which leave you scratching your head, such as places she runs to hide)such as why Fletcher makes such a outrageous, hasty decision towards the end regarding her experiments(..and not escaping from the place opting to instead confront Dane who is releasing the damaged lobotomy patients) and allowing Silk to run free throughout her establishment boggles the mind. So many problems like how Susan remains unharmed for so long and how someone as sadistic and obviously psychotic as Fletcher could hold such a high-level position over an institution, exist, and the flimsy set up of the story..a killing over bank statements..really doesn't help matters. And, why would a doctor as Monroe ever hire such a loose cannon as Silk

is anybody's guess. Poor Marjoe Gortner is stuck in yet another lousy movie, the guy just couldn't catch a break. And speaking of Gortner, why would his psychiatric scientist agree to work with such a disturbing individual as Fletcher knowing that she was unreliable as a doctor and human being? And, why would he continue working in such an absurd environment with individuals he doesn't get along with? Even decisions he makes at the end as Fletcher wishes to abandon their work, kind of lacks logic(..he'd be willing to jeopardize his career releasing patients that had been tested on like guinea pigs he himself contributed to), although maybe the filmmakers were hoping to humanize him a bit because in working out a formula he was hoping to cure brain ailments.


Maybe the golden years of sleazy & campy "Women in Prison" were long history by then already; maybe it didn't get properly promoted or announced in trailers (like "Reform School Girls", for example) or maybe it's just not good enough to compete with other & more successful films with a similar theme, but "Hell Hole" is a totally anonymous & overlooked 80's exploitation flick that only a handful of genre fanatics have heard of. The obscure status of this film honestly surprises me, as it has a fairly interesting cast (including Ray Sharkey, Judy Landers, Mary "Eating Raoul" Woronov and even Robert "Maniac Cop" Z'Dar) and a plot outline that certainly appeals to fans of rancid exploitation. Landers stars as a twenty-something and supposedly sexy young woman who witnesses her mother getting killed by cheesy and unconvincing killer Sharkey, because he's looking for "papers" that apparently are very important to him as well as to the people who hired him to kill the woman and to get rid of any other possible witnesses. Just what exactly are these papers? Damned if I know Throughout the entire movie, the value and importance of these papers is continuously emphasized, yet not one character ever reveals anything about their content. Anyway, Sharkey fails to get rid of Landers properly, but instead she falls down a construction site and suffers from amnesia. She's brought to a sanatorium where a she faces a whole new series of issues, like sadistic wardens, lesbian and power-mad inmates and  of course  the female head doctor who submits patients to grotesque lobotomy experiments. If all that isn't enough, Sharkey shows up in the clinic as well (as a fake doctor) and uses his charms on other patients to get rid of Susan. "Hollhole" is a crazy, incompetent and overall ridiculous film. The screenplay doesn't make any sense and seriously lacks coherence as well as basic logic. There seem to be very few wardens and security personnel in the clinic. Most of the time, the patients  who are supposed to be dangerous and severely unstable  are left completely unsupervised and whenever a riot or cat-fight breaks out, it literally takes several minutes before someone in a white coat shows up. Dr. Fletcher's experiments in the basement of the asylum are quite stupid & pointless, and don't expect to see much gore or sadistic images here, neither. Admittedly there's a fair amount of sleaze and female nudity to enjoy in "Hellhole", but the same girls exclusively provide it over and over again. In case you're hoping to catch a glimpse at Judy Landers voluptuous curves, don't hold your breath Apparently, her contracted stated that she could keep a robe on at all times. The last half hour of this movie is indescribably retarded and boring at the same time, which certainly isn't the best combination. It's fun to watch Robert Z'Dar playing a crazed sanatorium warden, but he as well as Mary Woronov are given way too few screen time. Only recommended in case you're really, really bored . Or in case you feel the urge to check out every single variant of Women in Prison movies that ever got released.


Can I be the ONLY person to see this? Haven't we learned yet that there is no such thing as a "value-free" education? This product of the post hippy-flower-child 60's crap-a-thon (that I lived through) is a perfect example of that impossible goal. It is simply the replacement of one set of values and judgements with another.

Tradition, gender roles honored and functioning for thousands of years are now to be mocked and abandoned. We are not just to tolerate differences but to celebrate them, even the deviant and previously anti-social ones. "It's all cool!" we shouted. "You gotta do your own thang!" we cried. Until we found out that we were lonely, lost, and needed money. Then, suddenly we realized how wise previous generations were.

Please spare your child this vapid tripe of political correctness. They'll learn more and better values by watching old Frank Capra films or any of the old Warner Cartoons.


"Sometimes They Come Back...for More" is a fairly routine and forgettable horror film that offers literally nothing new.The first half is actually interesting,but after it the film goes quickly downhill.Two military officers(played by Clayton Rohner and Chase Masterson)set out to investigate a remote Antarctica based governmental outpost where a mysterious occurrence has killed crew members.The only survivors are a medical officer(Faith Ford)and a tech officer(Max Perlich).Before long,the bodies are discovered all over the place."Sometimes They Come Back...for More" has nothing to do with Stephen King's short story.The plot tries hard to surprise,but all its twists are pretty silly.There is only a little bit of suspense and gore,so I was disappointed.Give it a look,only if you want to see every horror film.4 out of 10.


Based on characters created by Stephen King is as good as it gets. Sorry, but this story is too similar to THE THING starring Kurt Russell to get very excited over. I did like the setting of the snow bound radio shack and the sounds of the harsh weather. Missing people return as the undead and the lurking evil is traced back to the half brother of one of the Marine rescue squad landing in the cold arctic.

Faith Ford is adequate in this non-comedic role and is the most talented of the cast that also features Max Perlich, Clayton Rohner, Jennifer O'Dell and Daminan Chapa. If the weather has you trapped in you might appreciate more. Not a total waste of time, but close.


Great concept, poorly executed. Anything that has to do with Anctartica is going to be very interesting and even more when Horror is mixed on.

The problem with "Sometimes They Come Back...for More" is that it falls downhill terribly after a cool beginning, typical for quality B-movie standards.

The action is quite good at first but then , towards the ending, it looks like a cheap footage from typical direct to video mediocrity.

Also, the movie gets pretty boring because of the lack of action and excessive useless dialogs.

The best thing about it is the acting. Solid performances by Faith Ford and Clayton Rohner. They took seriously their cheesy role. Great concept, poorly executed.

Anyways, if you have hunger for a regular tending to bad B-movie, watch this one and you will probably will be satisfied. But in my opinion, a movie with such good potential ended as a mediocre B-movie that is only one of the bunch.


I expected this movie to be something similar to The thing with Kurt Russel, which was a pretty good movie. Unfortunately the Ice station was degrading exponentially as it approached the end. Two sons of Satan meeting in the Antartics and playing around some pentagram altar is a bit below my taste of a good screenplay. It was a complete waste of money and time to see this movie, so I advise everyone to spend them somewhere else.


I was actually hoping this film didn't have anything to do with the last two installments and that the titles were just similar..man was i wrong. If this p.o.s can be called a sequel then Hollywood is truly an awful place to make films.

The movie starts off a lot like The Thing (a much better horror film)but slowly degrades into a manure pile, having to figure out who's killing who, where the bodies are being taken, zombies are around, someone is dead, now they aren't, now they are, the guy's brother is behind it all, and oh yeah, hes a demon and turns out our protagonist is a demon too, but, you know, with a good heart, who falls in love with the girl and saves the day.

Thats pretty much the film and it sucks, so now I've saved u the pain of watching it, go do something better with your time. Really folks, skip this one.


While watching this, you may find yourself waiting for the horror, so the sudden credits may be the only shock you experience in this movie.

Another "I swear it - the corpse was here two minutes before!"-movie, this reminds me of some X-Files parts - Mulder and Scully would have far improved this movie.

All in all, this tells us that the Stephen King-movies may have a good script (his books!), but are poorly converted, and even nice cover pictures can't make me watch one more.


...but he never really gets here, does he? Seriously, how many films have you seen already that are all about preparing things for Satan to walk the earth? And in the end, what always happens? Some idiot ends up saving the day, and we're only offered a mere glimpse of good old Satan at best, before he's flushed down his infernal toilet again. Guess what this film shows us at the end? We don't even get to see the Devil himself. Instead, we get an image of a shiny Maria. For no reason, really. No, this is not a spoiler. I'm saving you from a major disappointment here. And what's more, the first hour of SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK... FOR MORE isn't even about resurrecting Satan. It simply has no story. And best of all: I actually liked it better that way!

What on earth was all this? Like THE THING meets THE SHINING while falling flat on its ass? Either this is a really bad film, or a psychological masterpiece. Honestly, my brain just couldn't fathom the logic of this film. It also has very little to completely nothing to do with the original Stephen King short story (this film was released as a second sequel to SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK, so go figure...). It has ghostly belly-dancers, a mobile unit called "TomCam" (you're looking at a miniature tank with a camera mounted on top here) and has a character making fun of POLTERGEIST. It plays it all dead-serious and has absolutely no clue what it's trying to be, or where it's going. Zombies or ghosts? Demons or evil minions? Demonic possessions? Hauntings? Hallucinations? Too much sniffing gas? Cabin fever? Two immortal brothers? Sons of Beëlzebub? A sacrificial mine-shaft on Antarctica? The coming of Satan? What the hell? Who knows and who cares?

You'll have a hard time believing this film, I can tell you that much. In that sense, once you've seen it, you should be able to remember it. So why I forgot all about it, is beyond me. Perhaps it put me to sleep once.


It's amazing what can be done with a low budget film. You can provide work for shoe salesmen to be actors and for plumbers to be directors. I don't know what the budget for this epic flop may have been but I doubt it was more than seven dollars and twelve cents. What part of "dreadful" do the producers not understand? I've seen many bad films. I've seldom seen one that so effectively combines bad writing, bad acting, bad production and bad staging. It's appearance on television should have been delayed until (the US) Thanksgiving because few families will be able to manage such a giant turkey,


As everyone seems to indicate, the beginning of this very strongly smelled of The Thing, but once people started turning up not-dead-anymore the smell went bad.

This was only a sequel to the second of the "Sometimes They Come Back" films, by way of the demonic characters wandering about in it. Those who have seen it will probably be aware that the original movie in this 'trilogy' had nothing to do with demons coming to Earth, unless you consider the ghostly bullies being sent Hellwards at the end demonic. But the film makers did try to make this one fit in with the franchise by inserting, at around 44 minutes, the names of the leading characters from the other two films (Jim Norman and John Porter) on the pentagrammed-up map of the demonic world. Nice try, but it's a bit of a weak connection.

Plus the whole movie ends up generally ruined by curious spacial continuity (eg. Demons run faster than elevators), general predictability (guess where the ring ends up), unfortunate acting ("Oh my, I can't go on" *collapse* (to be fair, that must have been in the script)) and a dire ending. And, as has been noted by others, Leeta was a much better female lead than Ms Faith Ford. Sorry, I meant Chase Masterson, not Leeta... Silly me.

Don't avoid this movie. Just be aware you might not enjoy it...


I hate this movie!!! Why do they use the good name of Stephen King just to sell some bad movies like this one. What does this have to do with the other great movies??? Rename it to Sometimes They Come Back... For No Reasons At All, Sometimes They Come Back... When Their Heads Should Be Buried In The Ground!!!!


Altough it may star some hot TV stars, this is a bad direct-to-video sequel (Arriving to video on September 7th). An Army base in the ice gets attacked by demons that torment the cast. Average horror adventure which won't even entertain.

Rated R for horror violence, some notable gore, brief profanity and sexual situations/nudity.


Superior to the first two movies, anyway.

The film maintains a good deal of tension for the first half. Then it all falls to pieces. I think the writers gave up & just decided to make it up as they went along. The thing between the two half brothers was pathetic & ruined an otherwise average movie. Oh yeah, by the way I'm the son of Satan.


Even if "Faith Ford" is beautiful this TV/Movie is very boring.

How it's possible to spend one cent for this kind of "thing". I think Hollywood producer think everybody are idiot.

The "story" of this film have no sense. And like 99% of time, director don't know what is winter and what is cold.

When human talk at -30C they are steam outside of mouth. And in this movie it's suppose to be -70C but we know we are in Hollywood studio at 24C.

Music is like this TV/movie. Boring. Actor/Actress are middle but it's not possible to be good when the story is so idiot.

I don't know for what Hollywood think they are just Stephen King who write book. It's a shame cause they are so good writer who are never "show".

If you want lose your time watch this "movie". Else do any other thing.


When Ballad for Americans became a big hit in 1939 out of the WPA Theater Project Musical Sing for Your Supper, MGM quickly bought the screen rights to the song. Both Paul Robeson and Bing Crosby made hit recordings of it that same year, though the song is pretty much identified with Robeson now.

MGM waited three years before putting it into a film and it went into one of the products of their B picture unit, Born to Sing. This film is no doubt something that Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland rejected for one of their 'let's put on a show' films.

It's just that kind of film. Crooked producer Lester Matthews and even crookeder press agent Charles Lane, plagiarize the work of Virginia Weidler's father, Henry O'Neill for their show. Topping that all off they frame Ray McDonald, Larry Nunn, and Leo Gorcey on an extortion rap.

As they're being taken to jail, they're riding in the same paddy wagon as gangster Sheldon Leonard. They go along in an escape his gang has planned and he in turn gets ensnared in their machinations. Which as it turns out is to put on a show before Matthews does and showcase O'Neill's music.

So help me that's the plot of this one. It's all quite innocently and charmingly done, but the presentation leaves one breathless.

Tacked on to the end of the show is Ballad for Americans where the lead singer is Douglas MacPhail whose career came to tragically to an end the following year. Staging the number is Busby Berkeley and the staging of it is similar to some of what he did in Ziegfeld Girl the year before.

Why MGM didn't put Ballad for Americans into one of their A films is something we'll never know.


As my summary said, this is bad. The script is bad. The acting is, even though you wouldnt think it's possible, worse then the script. I won't even comment on the directing, nor the whole idea behind the film.

This is the problem with Norwegian movies. They suck. Elling was good, note that Elling is the exception. This is nothing like Elling. Not warm, not funny not well made. Not based on a cool book by a cool guy. This stuff was just ridiculous. Soooo many cliches. There where no suspense, no question as of who did what they did nor why they did it. They just did it.

Only thing that kept us motivated trough out the film was the violence and the fact that it was so bad we where laughing. So would I recommend it? If you are really drunk or something I'm sure this could've been somewhat fun. Not as a good comedy, at all (see Elling instead) but as a mockery to film in general.

I don't know what else to say. It has some blood and gore, but not enough to make it a slasher. It doesn't have the humor of one of those (like bad taste or Evil Ed.. you catch my drift..) nor is it good enough to be one. Bottom line is, it's a bad piece of movie. Sure, it's Norwegian. Wo-ho. It's not good. It's bad. Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad. Not as bad as Diplomatic Siege, but still bad.

Stay away.


I saw this movie when i was about 14 years old, and i thought Disney's "Cinderella" was more frightening. It was predictable, and to me it looked like a bad copy of "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer". At least, it's the first horror movie that made me cry...of laughter! So, if you want to see a good,Norwegian horror movie, this is not the one you want to see. see "Villmark"(Dark Woods) or "Fritt Vilt"(Cold Prey) instead.(But no-one of them scared me so much either...) The only horrible with this movie, it's the fact that it was ever made!!!

DON'T BUY IT! DON'T RENT IT! DON'T SEE IT!


This is supposed to be the first Norwegian slasher. It is the first norwegian movie to be worse than Dis, that's it. The makers should watch Braindead and Cannibal Holocaust and learn what a slasher is. I have no words to describe how much this suck. And now my waste of time on this POS is up.


I was looking forward to take a break from my boring exam in Design History,to watch this movie a late Friday night. Well, The movie began 20 minutes ago, and now I'm here, just relieved to be back at my computer. I'm just gonna write this review and then go on reading about fabric-hall design in the early 20th century. You can just guess what my opinion of the movie is. The images were sharp, the colors were descent for DV-format, even the editing was satisfying.There were some people in the movie too... I might go back again and watch another minute of the movie later, while I'm having a cigarette....or maybe it's time to stop smoking...


I like low-budget horror-flicks. A lot. But this movie is just plain crap. No charm, no heart, nothing. Some low-budget horror movies are cool because you can tell that the people who made it really has an interest in the genre, and that they love what they do, but the people who made this probably decided to make a horror movie because it's cheap, went out and rented a bunch of old old classics, and started filming without much of a plan. The "story" is so paper thin it makes most horror movies look like Oscar material. No cool gore at all. I thought I might give it a 2 since they obviously had no budget at all, but it's just to bad for a 2. One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Avoid


A Nordic slasher. Who would have thought such a film would ever see the light of day? Though this goes by some of the rules of slasher flicks, something's missing for it to be a genuine slasher. It's hardly gore, false scares or daft teenagers... heck, there's some of all of that within the first five minutes, *and* gratuitous nudity to boot(something that is a rarity in the newer slashers, but somewhat dominant of the older ones, or so I've been told). The plot is something of a mess(and seemingly stitched together through various other slasher plots), with subplots and back-story all over the place, little, if any, of it providing much other than a way to pass the time to get this past the minimum length requirement of a feature film. I would be lying if I claimed that I understood even half of the characters actions. There are definite problems with character development, as well... in fact, it hardly seems to exist, except for possibly one character. I found myself having trouble telling them apart(strange, due to how few there are), though that did get easier as the movie goes along(for obvious reasons... a monumentally strong hint would be which genre film it is). The dialog, acting and editing are amateurish, but they(well, the last two, at least) do show signs of legitimate attempts made for more than that, which can't always be said. The effects are clearly cheap and mostly, the camera simply covers this up, which works OK(better than bad effects paraded in plain sight). The cinematography is fair; somewhat experimental but often there are too few or too bad angles, and I far too often found myself wondering what was going on or who was doing what. This was shot on DV(as opposed to film or HD), and while the film does show, I think they did fine with this format, one I myself have had the pleasure and good fortune of working with. The sound is somewhat uninspired, with rock music(a rather unlucky habit that seems to have formed recently, with low-budget slashers) in the chase scenes. Sound effects are terribly exaggerated, making for close to comic death and suspense scenes. All in all, I enjoyed the slasher elements of this, but that's about it. I recommend this only to big fans of slashers who can lower their expectations and enjoy a discount version of what you're used to. 3/10


Let me tell You, Norway is a country that is good in many things, but filmmaking is not one of them. 22 is a movie that sucked big time. The structure of it was awful, the murderer was in about three places within five minutes,

or so it seemed. No, I won´t waste my time to write anymore about it. Now You folks have been warned. I hope You´re wise enough to take it seriously. Do not see this movie!!


It took three sittings to get through, but I made it through this low-budget sci-fi kick-boxing thriller. The two elements that really killed this film are the script and Gabrield Dell Jr's channeling of Rob Schneider (on crack). Mars is so full of clichés that the cast should have been given awards for keeping straight faces throughout the production. And Dell's character is so loud, obnoxious, and unfunny, that the single best line in the film, and perhaps it's most dramatic moment, occurs when Greunier tries to get him to shut up.

Shari Belafonte is beautiful and Olivier Greunier looks good too, but good looks don't help a bad script. Some of the acting is poor, but mostly its the absurd script that makes good acting almost inconceivable. Belafonte carries her lines better than the rest of the cast. Greunier is pretty good at looking apathetic, angry and detached, but I have to say that the whole casting non-actors as silent unemotional heroes thing is really wearing thin.

Knowing how low budget this film was, and knowing a little about how it was made, I have to say that the production values are really not that bad, and the directing is actually pretty good. The director, a tenth degree black-bekt and Undefeated Florida Full-Contact Heavyweight Karate Champion, has made some absolutely hideous films (The Watchers http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096425/ being the worst example), but Mars is a big improvement over his earlier works. The film keeps a reasonable pace and doesn't try to do very much with what it doesn't have (i.e. a useful script).

Though I just finished watching this last night, I am struggling to remember the plot. Greunier is Caution Templer - a "Keeper" - a kind of corporate intelligence officer. His brother, also a keeper, has been murdered on Mars, where the company has a mining interest. Almost as soon as he gets to Mars to investigate, he connects with Belafonte, who has just made a startling and troublesome discovery, and people start trying to kill them both. There really isn't much more too it.

I recommend this film for kick-boxing fans, and would give it a very mild recommendation of low budget sci fi fans.


This has to be one of the worst movies I have seen. I generally like science fiction and was interested in it because it was a Mars based movie. It was hard to completely watch it though. The acting was poor and the editing was horrible. Scenes would cut to other scenes or jump around making it hard to follow the movie. The story line is really pretty weak with transparent characters and very little plot. It is pretty easy to predict what is going to happen by the end of the movie. There are some interesting fight scenes but that is about the only positive aspect of the movie. This is obviously a lower budget made for video movie. But all in all do not waste your time. There are much better science fiction movies out there.


MARS is probably the most boring film you can find starring Oliver Gruner. NEMESIS was an okay movie (despite it being made by Albert Puyn), but this little "action"-movie is very boring.

The story is stolen from all other Mars-movies, and is of course about that evil corporation that has a mining enterprise on the planet. Gruner is to find out what happened to his brother, who was murdered two days ago. And that's about as exciting it gets...

The bad-guys have VERY disappointing dialogue and the script is poorly written. The main idea is not at all bad. The production could have been so much better with some re-writes. The cast isn't necessary all bad either - especially Lee de Broux (RoboCop) is nice to see, even though he doesn't have much to work with.

Gruner himself isn't all that bad either, but the lack of a good script, the bad directing, the VERY bad sets and props and especially the terrible dialogue is making this film a very boring and very bad movie. Yes, it is in the league of Creepozoids and Timewalker.

I give this film 1 out of 10.


The budget for Mars was about $1 million US. That wasn't much money, and almost all of it went to the film's paltry CGI effects, and one explosion scene.

The film was shot by a first time director in an abandoned shopping mall. Most of the places you see in the film are converted retail stores like Gap or Foot Locker. The surface of mars is a truckload of sand that someone dumped in the food court and died red. If you look closely at the costumes, you can see that the futuristic breathing equipment is made from pool toys that were spray-painted black. You just can't make this stuff up.

Sharon Belafonte tries to make a comeback in this film... and fails. She looks good for her age though. Grunier does a good Terminator impression, as in, shows little or no emotion for the whole film.


Best described as the poor man's version of Total Recall. And I'm not saying that a movie needs a big budget to be good, but in this case the script, the set and the actors are poor as well. It's like the cast from 'The Bold and the Beautiful' are trying to fill the shoes of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But what I hated most about the movie was the horrible side-kick. Save yourself the time, do something useful like watch paint dry or something.


"Mars" - a very hard name to carry off for what is at very best a "B" movie. After all, Mars is dramatic territory explored before by Edgar Rice Burroughs, C.S. Lewis, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Asimov and Philip K. Dick (among many others).

The writers of this turkey should have stayed home. It's no crime to realize your limitations and work within them - and these guys might have a promising future in the porn industry if they apply themselves. As serious screenwriters they seem outclassed.

Olivier Gruner fails to impress the viewer as the protagonist Caution Templer, a lawman who must defend himself from attackers while investigating the mysterious death of his brother (also a lawman) on the Martian outpost Alpha City. (Fans of French science-fiction cinema will recall the classic "Alphaville," whose protagonist was named "Lemmy Caution.")

Shari Belafonte turns in a better performance, but her character is a dim copy of Frances Sternhagen's frontier quack in "Outland" - but without the dramatic scope of the original character. Rae Dawn Chong joins the throng of name actors who sleepwalk through their parts - whether this was the fault of the part she was given or her own acting isn't clear. And they're the TALENT in this picture.

The plot's uninspiring in the way of nearly every French science-fiction film except for "The Fifth Element." I generally felt robbed of the time I spent watching this turkey. It shares all the weaknesses of the films from which it cribs, but shares none of their high spots.

Your mileage may vary if you like this sort of film. It sure has enough action to carry the attention of a hard-core fan of slasher sci-fi - say, if you thought the face-suckers and gut-ripping scenes were the high points of the "Alien" movies. If so, feel free to indulge, there's plenty of that stuff there to keep you happy.


With a title like MARS, you instantly think of movies like TOTAL RECALL, RED PLANET or even the slightly abominable MISSION TO MARS. Now those movies at least showed the planet Mars in all its glory. In Jon Hess' MARS we get a story that could take place anywhere. We only get two CGI top-shots of the Mars-based Alpha City in the beginning and the end of the movie, and we also see some actors stumbling around on a pile of red sand. The rest of the dull and clichéd story takes place on card-board interior-sets. It all looks real small and they don't even have enough extra's to populate the sets. The story itself is predictable involving a company-man (Olivier Gruner) arriving on Mars to investigate the death of his brother. But still the plot manages to be structured like any decent police-investigation story. You can immediately spot who the bad guy is and the plot is just an excuse for a lot of kicking and fighting. There's also supposed to be a big successful mining-company on Mars, but all we see is three man drilling outside. The bad guys just can't act and Olivier Gruner is incapable of showing emotion but does kick a few good punches (that's why he was great playing a cyborg in AUTOMATIC and a cybernetic human in NEMESIS). But please don't give him any meaningful lines to say, 'cause you won't be able to stop laughing with his straight face. In the end this movie even loses track of its own purpose. Is it about the drugs? Is it about the ore? Is it about the health of the Marsians? Who cares. But it will have you laughing when the bad boss is killed at the end. So, to many, MARS might be a waste of time, which it probably is. But still, I've seen worse. Mars belongs in that same bad sci-fi vein as PRECIOUS FIND, but at least that one was fun 'cause it didn't take itself seriously.


This is one of those low budget affairs that purport to present an alien world or a bleak future whilst looking like they were filmed in a warehouse for about $20,000.... which Mars probably was. Tedious and unexciting.


I can't believe I sat through this film. I didn't find much to recommend about this film. Save yourself 90 minutes of hell. Watch something else.


A movie very disappointing in many points of his plots... why should Germany and France sign an agreement for enlarging the 60-years old Maginot line? How is it possible that only Jean Reno and his friend can survive the flooding of their room, when they are bonded and all the other people present have their arms free? How can a people dressed like a 10-centuries ago monk walk freely into the restricted area of an airport with a nail-firing gun under his dresses?

These are only some examples of the many questions taht does not have answer in this movie, or admit a very confused one. I don't pretend perfection but at least a decent story.


This sequel is just disappointing. It starts with the great Vincent "Dobermann" Cassel not being in the second part anymore, but he wouldn't save that stupid story anyway. There are many interesting ideas, but when it comes to tie them all together, the end is mostly stolen from "Raiders of the Lost Arch". But there's even more fun in that flick: Nazi monks on 60 year old steroids, which make them invulnerable to bullets... Gimme a break! I wonder if Besson will ever learn that world war 2 is over (remember those evil German villains in "Taxi"?). Part 1 was far better, the story, and especially the appearance of Vincent Cassel. I really wonder how Besson/Reno can make masterpieces like "Leon" on the one hand, and junk like that movie on the other hand.


Olivier Dahan tries to build on the success of the first 'Rivieres pourpres' and brings back Jean Reno in a second series which has little in common with the first film, unfortunately.

The story is one of a series of murders on persons that emulate the disciples of Christ. What could have been the promising premises of a religious mystery story is combined with a quick pace filming and fights inspired from the Far East Ninja movies. All these are mixed with a post World War II story, and the result looks like a strange pot with differently colored and flavored potions that do not really mix or combine well together.

Jean Reno is a wonderful actor, but he cannot save the film alone. It's a quite a weak film by all scales, like the director did not decide what genre it would belong and took a little but of everything. Disappointeing.


The movie starts in an interesting way and builds up some excitement with the strange murders and reasonably good action sequences. It is poor in offering explanations for why there were people in the modern world that looked so much like Jesus and his disciples and why they believed in the apocalypse.

Towards the end, you find that the overall story was after all quite weak. Specially, the ending is really sub-par. In fact, if Jean Reno and his team hadn't done anything, the bad guys would have killed themselves anyway in the end. I wish the movie ending had been such that Jean Reno and his team somehow helped kill the bad guys or prevent the doom from happening, but unfortunately it was not so.


The original movie was not the best movie ever but it was a solid blockbuster ... but the sequel is a so disappointing : - the script is weak, too much incoherence, so many goofs... - a lot of cliché, another film where the bad guys are german and Nazi from the WWII, too easy - Reno's character has lost all is charisma, he seems not to be the same "Niemans" - only Magimel does a good job

No, sorry a bad movie maybe written by a 7 years old kid ?


Pretty dreadful franchisy sequel. Apart from Dahan's (French) meditative camera-work inbetween stock action filming there's absolutely nothing original about this film at all. To name all the contrivances and their lineage would be as boring as the film itself: suffice to say that if you've seen Bond, Indiana Jones and The.., Seven and even The Matrix you've probably covered most of this.

Of the cast, Magimel has the 'cute' of Cassel (from the first) but not his charisma. Reno is the one holding it together, although his ennui is rather more phoned-in for this one. And simply putting Christopher Lee in a film - doing his sect-leader yet again - does not rubber-stamp it with integrity (he's left out to dry almost as much as the redundant chick-interest, Natta).

I did, however, enjoy an unwittingly (?) postmodern thrill-sequence set in the supermarket. If only there were more of this invention 3/10


This movie is a shame. How can Besson dare propose such a silly scenario? Besson concatenates clichés of fantastic-techno thriller (religious themes focused on spectacular parts of the Bible, classic former nazi who wants to conquer the world, new-age evangelists, so-called dark-ages secret history,...). The global story is full of incoherences, scenes are illogical between each others, a lot of scenaristic "effects" are ridiculous (the chase with the monk in the hospital, the ambush against Reno with an old german machine-gun turret...). The end of the movie is totally stupid. It is a very bad cameo of Indiana Jones. The dialogues are bad, always cliché. The shooting style is very "clipesque", camera is always moving, lights are totally artificial, very nervous, but it doesn't succeed in hiding the drawbacks of the scenario.


The movie starts on good basis, but when it reaches the last third, it seems that Luc Besson had no inspiration for the end. It's falling from the sky and don't expect much from it. Except this poor ending, direction is quite good, with good lighting and good camera movement.


After watching the 1954 version numerous times and having read the novel several times, I was very disappointed with this version. The class, the atmosphere and acting were no where to be found. These days they'll do anything to make a fast buck! Stick to the 54' version, it may be campy but by a longer "league" than this version will ever hope to be.


Looked at now, this seems a very dated "buddy/caper" movie from the early 70's. Neither as suspenseful as "Topkapi" or as humorous as "The Pink Panther", it hopes to get by mainly on its star appeal, as personified by Robert Redford and hot-at-the-time George Segal. However there's not much acting to be had; with a script bereft of substantial dialogue and a fair smattering of time-consuming stunts, our two heroes mainly just get to bark at each other and mug at the lens, all the more surprising when you appreciate the screenplay is by William Goldman, late scriptor of "Butch Cassidy", the epitome of "buddy" movies and its little brother, the soon-come "The Sting". Segal is no Newman however and it's obvious that Redford is very much the main man here, but other than giving us his preferred profile, he's rarely exercised in a film that looks as if it was more fun to be in than to watch. The attempts at humour are forced, painfully at times, the supporting cast also exaggerate their playing, none more so than the choice hunk of ham that is Zero Mostel as the movie moves episodically and elephantinely to its even more improbable ending (a safe-deposit bank employee gets hypnotised by the floor-selection buttons in a lift...!). Quincy Jones' cod-jazz soundtrack, peopled as it is by heavyweight musicians like Gerry Mulligan and Clark Terry, doesn't help either. I could go on about the unfunny set-pieces of the botched robbery at the museum, attempts to fly a helicopter and the saw-it-coming-around-the-corner bluff which wrings the required confession out of Mostel's "Dishonest Abe" character but other than a passing hindsight discomfort at seeing a low-flying aircraft circling the under-construction World Trade Centre buildings, there's really very little to say one way or another. In fact the biggest laugh for me was unintentional - the gang's agreeing to pull off the heist for a measly $25000 each, the effect akin to Dr Evil's latter-day demand for $1,000,000 to stop him destroying the world in "Austin Powers". The 70's threw up some fine contemporary movies (many of which starred and were enhanced by Redford - "Three Days Of The Condor", "The Candidate" and "All The President's Men" to name but three). Here however he's coasting in a flaccid movie that does little for the reputations of cast and crew.


At first this seemed like an enjoyable film with a good premise but it quickly becomes clear that the storyline is being manufactured in a wholly predictable, and more than a little, unbelievable way.

The underhand and drawn out way Dr Lipman goes about ingratiating himself into his new family in order to obtain a donor match for his leukaemia is way too ridiculous - he's obviously severely ill yet he wastes precious days beating around the bush and tricking his brother into a blood test instead of coming clean immediately ... with obvious results.

It's got some nice acting to begin with but unless you're a little slow you'll see what's coming after 10 minutes and after that it kinda feels like an insult to the viewer's intelligence.


This show sucks.

The writing is so terrible I wonder sometimes if maybe it is actually non-existent and maybe George Stromboflofoapoplfous (I won't even waste one second of my life trying to figure out how to spell that name!) just makes stuff up as he goes and he just gets away with it because, well, I don't know why.

The jokes are unfunny and terrible and predictable and always fall flat.

The only good part of this show is some of the interviews are interesting depending on who the guest is and as bad as the material and writing are (I hate how every story is covered in like three seconds and we learn nothing beyond the day's basic headlines) George is a decent host and seems like a decent guy.

I hate his show though, it sucks sucks sucks.


One of the most boring shows on CBC. I don't know why CBC has to try to ape the American talk shows ( which they are far better at). George ST....( He should abbreviate his name) has zero charisma with no sense of humour and dresses in the same black is supposedly trendy clothes. He rarely asks insightful questions. Talk shows actually do better on radio where you don't have to see the host or the focus is on the guest rather than the interviewer. The Hour is too egocentric and what bothers me is that the CBC wastes valuable money and time on a show that at best belongs after midnight with all the late night time filler shows. I don't know what the ratings are like but the only thing worst than this show are probably the commercials. I actually watched 3 different shows of the Hour to try to give it a chance; if anything it just made me sicker of George WhatsHisName. He doesn't wear well on you.


Very good actors, but one of the worst productions of Agatha Christie's works I've seen. The soundtrack tried to add to the feel of the period but only helped to make the film seem "dated". I've only recently re-discovered Agatha Christie as I had read only a couple of her books as a child in the 50's, and I've now been devouring all the works NetFlix has to offer. I've especially enjoyed Joan Hickson as Miss Marple and was looking forward to seeing one of Agatha Christie's later works having been released in 1961.

I was so very disappointed in this "made for TV" movie as it was full of cliché's, miserably wrong music, incredibly bad direction and was one of those movies where I want to yell at the characters on the screen, "How can you be that stupid." I've not read the book but it appears that this could have easily have been an exceptional movie, but instead I felt that my intelligence was being assaulted more and more by the minute. The ending was a huge let-down. What a waste.


This would have been better without some completely pointless changes brought in to the plot. At the start there is a completely implausible attempt to suggest that Mark is suspected of being the killer. Nothing in the show suggests the police would suspect him in this way and the plot line dies quietly, having wasted a fair amount of time. Most of the performances are adequate at worst but the dialogue is often poor. One of the things which made the book successful was the way it at least played with the idea of the supernatural. No one could be fooled by the witches here. Agatha Christie was usually luckier than this in her adaptors for the screen.


MIGHT CONTAIN A SPOILER: I like haunted house movies, but once and awhile one comes along that actually has something new. This is not one of them. The script has the same worn-out themes of hidden rooms, mysterious deaths, kooky neighbors, weird histories and the disbelieving husband who discovers the truth in the end. A mysterious woman and a wierd dog are tagged on to the script without much of an explanation as Ally Sheedy (looking eerily like a young Kate Jackson) and her husband, William R. Moses, dump their life savings into a house that predictably burns down in the end. There is some spooky ghost behavior as a radio comes on by itself, but there is nothing scary about this movie except for some convincingly fake spirit photography.


The Haunting of Seacliff Inn is set on the picturesque Californian coast & starts with Susan (Ally Sheedy) & Mark Enright (William R. Moses) looking to buy some property with the idea of converting it into a seaside inn when Susan spots a beautiful old house sitting on a cliff overlooking a beach. The house is owned by Lorraine Adler (Maxine Stuart) who says that she doesn't want to sell but Susan has set her heart on it & decides to go back the following day to try & change her mind. Susan discovers Lorraines body & according to Sheriff Tomizack (Shannon Cochran) she accidentally slipped & hit her head resulting in her death. Susan & Mark buy the house of Lorraines daughter Caroline (Jay W. MacIntosh) & begin the building work required to turn the house into an inn ready for paying customers. However strange things start to happen like an electrical incident in which a workman is injured, a menacing dog keeps turning up, the gas & water are mysteriously left on & that old haunted house standby doors opening on they're own, spooky stuff eh? Susan senses something is happening, as she begins to research the house's history she finds it has a somewhat dark past that needs to be laid to rest once & for all...

Co-written & directed by Walter Klenhard I thought The Haunting of Seacliff Inn was a reasonable ghost story but was just a bit too dull for my tastes. The script by Klenhard & Tom Walla is far too pedestrian for my liking, nothing significant happens for long stretches, in fact when I think about it nothing particularly significant happens during the films entire 90 plus minute duration. It's all rather predictable, plodding & uninspiring stuff throughout. There's no real threat to anyone, nothing that dangerous or sinister happens, no-one is killed apart from Lorraine & as a whole it's more of a family ghost film. The character's are serviceable but not that likable, the break down of Mark & Susan's marriage is both predictable & awkwardly handled. The character of Sara (Lucinda Weist) the ghost is almost surplus to requirements & does nothing terribly important. The house's dark past is far from exciting & the film ends rather limply. On a positive note it tells a reasonable story competently enough if you like slow burning films such as this.

Director Klenhard films the nice Californian coast line with aplomb & the house itself makes for a nice location but otherwise the film is bland, flat & utterly forgettable so it comes as no surprise that The Haunting of Seacliff Inn was made-for-TV. Forget about any scary ghosts, any violence or anything you might be looking for in a horror film because this is one extremely tame film.

Technically the film is fine but wholly unadventurous, there's nothing particularly wrong with it but nothing particularly good about it either. Average stuff from start to finish. The acting was OK but no-ones going to win any awards for it.

The Haunting of Seacliff Inn isn't the type of film that really appeals to me as I found it far too slow & contained far too much melodramatics & not enough horror or scares. I'm sure there are people out there who may get something out of this film but it's not for me I'm afraid so as a consequence I can't in good heart recommend it.


This movie was supposed to be the first of a series of movies with JOAN BLONDELL and MELVYN DOUGLAS playing the same man and wife parts, but BLONDELL opted out and another actress took her place. It isn't any mystery to me why she opted out. I found the husband part played by DOUGLAS to be rude, I could actually say in parts he behaved like a pig. I don't know. Perhaps men treated their wives in a different manner way back then that was condoned by the general public, but I was shocked. I mean, I know they probably wanted a different tack then the Nick & Nora approach (William Powell & Myrna Loy), but this just didn't work for me. I've always really, really enjoyed all of the roles Melvyn Douglas played. He's always seemed to play a "frisky" sort of fellow, but always a gentleman. In Mr. Blanding Dream House you actually wished he was your friend, too. But I had a different feeling towards him after watching this movie. It's any wonder BLONDELL didn't want to resurrect the role again.


I have to say I hated this movie. I don't like to say that because Gerard Butler is in it. About a half an hour of boring conversation, sorry to all who actually care about the plot, I started fast-forwarding to Gerry's scenes. I really don't know the ending, I was that bored with it. If Gerry wasn't in it, I probably either done one of two things: fell asleep or turned it off, but Gerry is the bright light of this movie, as he is with most of his earlier movies. If you're a fan of Gerry's don't worry, he's as adorable and precious as he always is, but if you actually want to watch the movie for the plot, good luck because you'll need it, either that or lots of coffee or soda to keep you awake!

4/10...and that's just because the casting director had the sense to put Gerry in this movie, even though they had no idea of how to spell his name!


Cloying whimsy with Sandy Dennis as Sarah an incurably ill woman who runs some unspecified "legitimate repair service" that apparently includes the men she takes in to her life and bed each month;she's lover, muse and mother. Sarah makes odd sounds when she sleeps, takes lots of medication, feels tired and cold on occasion, but spends most of her considerable energy, and apparently limited lifetime, prattling. That the men in the film or anyone would tolerate her or find her appealing is beyond me. 2 minutes with Sarah and you'll want to bolt. The script resembles a sitcom without laughs, and the NYC background locations are the only interesting thing in the film. If you are a fan of painful 60's comedy with New York backgrounds like A Thousand Clowns, A Fine Madness, Luv, Any Wednesday, Promise Her Anything...you might want to feast on this turkey. Sweet November is a dud, the title song is awful and the remake is a terrible reworking of a bad idea. Dennis played an even drearier kook in Robert Altman's That Cold Day in the Park(69)in which she holds a young man against his will. Sweet November opened at Radio City Music Hall and pretty much disappeared. Watch it and you'll know why.


Does the world really need all these 'Women in Prison' flicks? The legendary director Jess Franco apparently seemed to think so, because almost half of the titles that fall under this category are his. There's also a lot of variation in this questionable sub genre of cult-cinema - largely determined by how old they are - as most of them are really nasty and exploitative whereas some (the pioneers mainly) are more sensual and emphasizing on the drama-elements. "99 Women", at least the original non-hardcore version, got released during the earliest stage of "W.I.P" madness and thus Franco was still clearly 'exploring' how far he could go with inserting lesbian sleaze and brutal whippings. The later ones are a non-stop series of tasteless sex and raw violence, but this film actually has a remotely decent script and an above-average amount of stylish elements. A small island in the Pacific Ocean serves as a gigantic prison, with a fort for women in one corner and one for men in the other. Female prisoners n° 97, 98 and 99 arrive one morning by boat and they immediately meet the sadistic head warden Thelma and the sleazy Governor Santos. The girls are punished and put in isolation cells for no reason and lethal 'accidents' appear to be a regular routine. Just because so many prisoners die, the government sends a new female principal to the island. She makes efforts to befriend the prisoners, particularly the beautiful & innocent Marie, but the wicked old headmistress constantly boycotts her. "99 Women" isn't the most exciting movie ever, as many sequences are dreadfully slow and pointless, and there's a serious lack of continuity. The locations are very nice looking and the photography is occasionally even elegant, but sadly it's all just an empty package. If you don't purchase the X-rated version, you won't have much sleazy goodness to admire. "99 Women" is incredibly tame, with only a couple of scarcely dressed women cat-fighting and some lesbian experimenting. The cast is really good, though, with the ravishing regular Franco-nymphs Maria Rohm ("The Bloody Judge", "Eugenie") and Rosalba Neri ("Amuck!", "Lady Frankenstein") playing likable characters. Herbet Lom is awesome as the fiendish, nudity-obsessed (can you blame him?) governor. Mainly just recommended to Francophiles.


If I were ever allowed to ask Jesus Franco one question it would be, how did you manage to convince well-known actors like Helbert Lom ("The Pink Panther"), Mercedes McCambridge ("Johnny Guitar"), Luciana Paluzzi ("Thunderball") and Maria Schell ("The Hanging Tree") to participate in this movie? The film looks like it cost two cents to make, so I'm sure they did not get a lot of money for their work here. This very low-budget production is simply awful. Not that I expected a quality production from someone like Franco but I did think this was going to be one of those films that is 'so bad it's good.' No such luck! This is plain bad and very dull. The cast goes through numerous boring scenes with little enthusiasm. No sparks whatsoever. It is a pity because I think these actors were capable of turning polyester into silk. If you really want to see how this thing is done the right way watch "Caged Heat" or "The Big Bird Cage" instead. Avoid.


On the American market, two basic trends can be observed nowadays: First the sustained lack of availability of monumental German as well as general European films, second the flooding with cheap editions of even cheaper film elaborates for which even the plastic of the DVD is wasted.

"Jess" Francos work belongs to the second category. After World World II, the film industry lay down in Germany. The good directors were either dead or in the US, successors were not in sight. The people was lacking even its basics. However: Panem Et Circenses! Bread and Plays! Simultaneously with the Adenauer era which supplied the starving people with bread and sausage, the German film industry set wholly on entertainment. The 4 main branches, that had been cultivated, were: 1. The "Heimatfilm" (maudlin Melo-Dramas). 2. The "Schlagerfilm" (Schlager musicals), 3. The "Lederhosenfilm" (rustic, blunt and outspoken sex(-Ploitation) movies in the era of German Pre-liberalization (vide: "Schulmädchenreport" and the like), and 4. "Krimi" (thrillers compared to which Grimm's fairy tales are startling).

When the liberalization of sexuality came, towards the end of the 60ies, there was a sensible shortcut in "apt" directors who could handle these smeary, sleazy and grimy concoctions. Ulli Lommel belonged to those who tried, but the Spaniard Jesus Franco filled in the blank. In a sheer endless series he produced crap over crap, manure over manure, feces over feces (for which, in 2009, he awarded the Goya-Price by the Spanish King). Well understood: Germany in the film landscape of the 60ies - that was sex and crime, Heimat and Wirtschaftswunder, crap and dilettantism. At exactly the same time, e.g., in France, directors like Godard, Rohmer, Truffaut, Eustache, Chabrol, Rivette, Melville a.o. worked with actors like Belmondo, Brialy, Anna Karina, Lafont, Leaud, Jeanne Moreau, Piccoli, Jean Seberg. Not to speak about the US, where despite the Big War there always has been continuous high-level film work.

Would there not have come the Big Release from all that manure - and it came in the person of Rainer Werner Fassbinder, who mucked out the German Augias Stall beginning at approximately 1966 - one could hardly imagine what would have happened. But such movies like "Der Heisse Tod"/"99 Women" (1969) still stand here in the now historic landscape like monuments of an epoch when the level of the German film sank below zero. This does, however, not legitimate anybody to put such dung onto DVD. Can one really hold anything against that once famous film critique who said that the new German film did not only start with Fassbinder, but also ended with him?


I've seen a lot of these women in prison films, but I don't know why I keep watching them because I've hated every one that I've seen. Jess Franco seemed to enjoy making them, however, as this trash makes up a large proportion of his filmography; and women in prison flicks are probably one of the main reasons why a lot of people's overall impression of the prolific director is not good. 99 Women came fairly early on for this genre, being released in 1969, and as such the film is not as racy as some of the other genre entries. This is not really a benefit or a hindrance, however, as 99 Women is just as boring as most of these films anyway. The plot is just your usual women in prison theme - bunch of girls in jail trying to escape from the awful prison guards etc. It's a shame that this is just another entry in an overpopulated genre too, as the film features a good cult cast - Rosalba Neri is one of my very favourite actresses, and the film also features the likes of Maria Schell and Maria Rohm, as well as the great Herbert Lom; but the cast considered, this is still a rubbish film and I wont be recommending it!


I'm not familiar with Mr. Franco's work and I'm sure he has more interesting films than this one. Luciana Paluzzi is barely in it. Rosalba Neri is sensuous as always. Elisa Montes, a real beauty, gives the best performance. Maria Rohm resembles Chery Ladd (TV's Charlie's Angels). Mercedes McCambridges is a tough commandant. Maria Schell is compassionate and kind as her replacement with Herbert Lom playing the sleazy lecher Governor.

Rating: 4/10. The ending was very ambiguous with a terrible song that also opens the film. Some interesting jungle shots and the babe factor pushes this one along with little result, but I'm glad I saw it.


Maria has been sent to a prison on an remote island where the warden is giving kickbacks to the warden of the mens' prison on the other side of the island via his choice of girl inmates. Naturally he has his eye on fresh meat Maria. The government gets a whiff of the corruption and sends a plant in to investigate the abuses. For a WIP flick I was surprised how tame it was, for a Franco flick i was very surprised how tame it was. The only thing that keeps one falling asleep is the horribly inserted porn inserts that don't fit well into the film in the least. What's laughable is that Franco fans (yea hard to believe they're people out there who are) actually got angry that Franco's name is even on this version. Yea, we can't have his sterling image as an ingenious competent visionary be sullied *snicker*

My Grade: D

X-rated version DVD Extras: Nothing at all


"99 Women" starring Oscar-winner Mercedes McCambridge as a sadistic prison warden and Maria Schell as a super-intendant with lesbionic tendencies towards one of the female inmates, who'd have thought that you could have gone wrong with this one? Apparently not me as I was quite excited about my purchase of this movie. It was pretty horrible as expected, but not in a good way. I was hoping this was going to be one of those hilarious women-in-prison exploitation flicks that were high in camp value. Hell, Mercedes McCambridge is in it! First off, the movie started off positively. We have three broads arriving on a boat, still in the clothes they were apparently arrested in, tried in Court, and then literally, sent up the river in! We are introduced to the blonde starlet, Marie, the black-haired stripper, Helga, and some other brunette who dies from some sort of "accident" that required medical surgery.

The camp factor needle hits "HIGH" as soon as we are introduced to Mercedes McCambridge appearing in a warden's uniform, barking orders in a faux-German accent (even though her name is Thelma Diaz) and giving Marie a backhand across the face for using her name instead of her number, "99".

However it only gets worse from here. While there are certainly some entertaining cat-fight scenes (ie hair-pulling, clothes being ripped off, face slapping, etc), the rest of the film is incredibly boring. There is a sadistic male warden (Herbert Lom) who coerces one of the female prisoners into seducing Marie for his pleasure, and there is one un-named prison guard who has the most hilarious facial expressions when introducing guests to McCambridge, but the rest of the film falls flat.

Maria Schell is not in the film nearly enough, and when she is, it's hard to determine what her true agenda is. It seems like she has a thing for Marie, but they never explore it.

When the girls finally break out and trek through a "jungle", there are a few more camp moments, such as the scene with the harmless snake where upon spotting it and instead of running around it, the girls proceed to scream, grab it and cut it with a knife (LOL). The other semi-amusing moment was watching Marie and Helga make a dash for the fishing boats, hand-in-hand and wearing nothing short of see-through panties and torn jumpsuits.

Mercedes McCambridge was the movie's only saving grace. Her accent border-lined German and Spanish, and she had some pretty hilarious one-liners such as, "She was put in the punishment cell... for repeated insolences!" At various moments, her voice deepened into that same voice she used as Pazuzu in "The Exorcist", I thought maybe she was going to morph into Satan at any moment.

The most interesting thing that I heard about this movie was that there is an X-rated version out there. I watched the un-rated version which had no explicit sex scenes, only some gratuitous breast shots and a glimpse of bush. I shudder at the thought that Mercedes McCambridge might have filmed a scene not knowing that at some later point her body double would be enjoying an explicit lesbian sex scene with one of the female prisoners.

I would not recommend this movie to any women-in-prison enthusiasts out there. In fact, I would only recommend this movie to Mercedes McCambridge fans as she is the sole reason I gave this movie "one star". Don't waste your time with this one folks.


Surprisingly tame (at least in the version I saw, titled "Island of Despair"), boring schlock from Jess Franco, whose direction is, once again, pretty terrible (example: we get a flashback regarding the events that led a VERY MINOR supporting character to prison - and Franco inexplicably keeps it going for about 20 minutes!). Luciana Paluzzi's role is little more than a cameo. (*)


I won't go into the problems that I had with this movie. Most of them have been touched on, from sexuality, to mild swearing, to stereotypes. I had a hard time staying interested after the first 30-45 minutes. I was bored and looking at my watch a lot, especially after they found the city. The animation was nice but the story was not.


Following the musical triumph of "The Lion King," and the sheer magnificance of "The Prince of Egypt," there should have been a lot of enthusiasm about their creative meld - "The Road to El Dorado."

	But the genius of Elton John, Tim Rice and Hans Zimmer (all who won Oscars for original music in "The Lion King"); and Dreamworks' animation division (who received critical acclaim for "The Prince of Egypt") don't bring enough to "The Road to El Dorado" to make it a movie worth watching.

	"The Road to El Dorado" follows the story of two Spanish con artists who hitch a ride across the Atlantic and stumble upon a native civilization that mistakes them for gods.

	It's tough to handle that everyone in this movie speaks English, although for practical purposes it's probably more handy than having small children try to read subtitles. But the movie still takes Euro-centricism to a disturbing level. For heaven's sake, the tribe actually calls its city "El Dorado."

	That's not the half of it, though. The two Spanish protagonists are white enough to be from Norway (although the other, evil Spaniards are dark-skinned). They are voiced by Kevin Kline (who's from Missouri) and Kenneth Branagh (who's from Northern Ireland). Members of the tribe - the movie never says exactly who they are or where they're from - are generally slow-witted, with the exception of a manipulative thief (voiced by Rosie Perez) and an evil priest (voiced by NArmand Assante).

	That's not to say the movie is racist; in fact the movie is for the most part kind-hearted. But the movie is highly insensitive about race, and promotes an awful lot of stereotypes to children at an impressionable age.

	However, there are plenty of other reasons young children should be discouraged from seeing this movie. There are disturbingly explicit sexual scenes, and a lot of adult humor, such as Kline's character yelling "holy ship" during the voyage across the ocean.

	Children's movies seems to often struggle with this point - a movie aimed at children still needs to appeal to the adults who are taking those children to see it. Advertisers are quick to point out whenever a critic says "fun for all ages" about any film.

	"The Road to El Dorado" seems to overdo its attempt to involve adults in the movie by sacrificing its innocence. It's not simply a matter of grown-up themes like "The Lion King" tackled with a character's death. On the contrary, "The Road to El Dorado" only uses adult themes of the most immature nature.

	Add to all of these problems a weak soundtrack - weak as far as animated musicals go. John's songs are actually OK, although the movie probably would have benefited had he not provided nearly all of the song's vocals in the movie itself.

	At every level of execution, something went wrong with this movie. Instead of being a promising children's movie, it turned out to be a highly flawed movie inappropriate for younger viewers.


The Road to El Dorado, hmmm, SUCKS!! This animated toilet water of a film made no sense at all. First of all, "The Road," What road? They were on ship from spain, and why the heck did the indians at El Dorado smoke cigars and speak English, kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? It was a cartoon meant for children (originally) yet all they talked about was sex, and used provocative language, obviously not for children. It was too rediculious for adults, therefore, not for adults. Who was it for? I may be wrong or right, but just keep in mind that this is only an opinion of mine.

ARAF/Crimson Guard


I was greatly disappointed with this cartoon. To begin with, it WAS supposed to be for children, wasn't it? Because there is a whole lot in here which i was definitely shocked to see in a cartoon. The female character wears a very revealing outfit and there are a number of times where the characters are involved in 'adult situations.' The story had potential- there were a number of funny parts, especially at the beginning. But the rest of it dragged. The music, which i always consider very important, was not the least bit entertaining but such a bore that it was only the amusing visuals that kept me from fast-forwarding. But what really put me off,as mentioned before, was the adult content. it just doesn't seem right to have it in a children's cartoon. There wasn't any sweet romance in it but rather something else . . . which keeps me from recommending it as something for kids to watch.


Other then the fantastic villain of Armand Assante and the very brief reference to Aztec culture this film went where it shouldn't have. For me, taking the kids to see a film specifically made for children is the only safe haven I have from vulgarity and lude acts that seem to filter through on the television. This film had me second guessing the FCC and the sanity of the people at Dreamworks, who as of the last few years have really allowed a lot of innuendo's and straight forward adult oriented remarks into their kids films.In this film towards the end the sexuality of the film takes one gigantic leap where two title characters roll around on the ground in a make out session. The language was a bit heavy as well. Since then I have yet to take my kids to a Dreamworks film (especially after seeing Shrek). What could have been a great vehicle for exploring the ancient Aztec civilization turned into a sad excuse for a film that was an attempt to push the envelope and lost. Parents beware.