*Please note the above score, as this movie is slightly below the middle of the road.*

Zoltan(named, I assume, after a Hungarian ruler in the 10th Century) isn't so much Dracula's hound as he is the hound of one of Dracula's servants, Veidt Schmidt. When the Russian army(I think their Russian, based on their uniforms, but no one has any kind of accent) unearths Dracula's tomb, they decide to burn all of the corpses, but not before some foolish soldier decides to pull the stake out of Zoltan's body, allowing him to regenerate and drain the blood of said soldier. He then helps his master, who decides to track down the last surviving heir of Dracula. At least, they call him the last heir in the movie, but he has two children, so wouldn't THEY be the last surviving heirs? There's a bit of a mythological problem here, as well. Veidt Schmidt is the vampire's servant, and not a full vampire. Yet he has immortality and can regenerate after death, all while walking in daylight and not needing blood. I don't know what Renfield's problem was, sitting in that asylum and eating flies.

At the beginning of the film Dracula is seen(in Zoltan's flashback!) is about to feast on a lovely young women in the 1800s. Zoltan interrupts his feeding, so Dracula transforms into a bat and instead feeds on Zoltan(why don't vampires do this more often, instead of courting danger by feeding on young, socially popular women?), who skips the whole 'dying' part of the process and goes straight to vampire dog. On their way out they drain and turn Veidt Schmidt(played by Reggie Nalder, whose wrinkles are more frightening than anything in this movie), who also skips the 'dying' part. I mention this because it's odd for them to have done that, as it's clearly established later that the victims DIE after being drained of blood.

The film quickly moves to southern California, where Michael Drake(the aforementioned Last Dracula) is taking his family on a two week camping trip in their RV. For plot motivation they also bring along their two dogs and a litter of puppies. Almost immediately weird things happen; Puppies disappear and the dogs are always howling at night. Of course, neither of those is odd, really, it seems to me a logical occurrence when you leave newborn puppies out in the wilderness all night, and howling is just something dogs do. But this bothers the family, who are worried and confused. Luckily for them, a Van Helsing-type character shows up in the form of Jose Ferrer to tell Michael all about his vampiric family tree and help him defeat the undead canines.

Really, the film isn't anything spectacularly atrocious, which is it's downfall. It's just middle of the road, never taking itself seriously enough to be campy, but also not self-aware enough to be tongue in cheek. There's no suspense to the film, since aside from the Russian soldier in the beginning there are NO human deaths, just a lot of animal cruelty. It's competently directed(by Albert Band, who would pass on the legacy of mediocre, competently bad horror movies to his son, Charles Band), with a clean print for the DVD. The dialog is notable for this type of film, due to it's believability. The characters may be boring and idiotic, but they speak in a natural manner(Michael's first thought after learning he's a Dracula is that he's going to get rich on royalties for all those movies). There is, however, a growing army of vampire doggies, and the oh-so-cute and cuddly widdle undead puppies.

Had it been a bit more over-the-top, just a little bit more awful, the movie would have been classic. As it was, I had fun and a few laughs, but just enough to feel justified in having seen it. I should note that it really takes a lot for me to hate bad horror movies. Even if the movie is awful and irredeemable, I usually feel the better for having seen it. I'll moderately recommend this, for people who REALLY love bad movies, but don't expect an MST3K level of fun.


I'd always been interested in checking out this title  even if it always promised to be a goofy and highly improbable variation on the Dracula legend. The opening crypt sequence features any number of hilariously named members of the infamous vampire familyand, then, Zoltan itself (oversized fangs and all) emerges from inside a coffin!

The plot is quite simple-minded: Dracula's dog (actually, this film's original title) revives sinister-looking but mute vampire acolyte Reggie Nalder so that they can go to America in search of their new master  but the latter is actually determined to (pardon the pun) bury his past and, wisely, has changed his surname to Drake! An Inspector from the old country, Jose' Ferrer, follows in pursuit  but even he has a tough time persuading current vampire descendant Michael Pataki (his statement that he ought to sue the makers of previous Dracula movies is amusing, but would have undoubtedly worked better had this particular entry been somewhat better!) of the danger to his life and soul. That said, a lot of weird crap has been happening during the Drake family's would-be relaxing camping trip  mostly revolving around the two Alsation dogs they brought along and their cute puppies!

It's rather amusing to see a plethora of canines getting vampirized as opposed to people  so much so that, at times, it feels like one's watching an antropomorphic rendition of the Bram Stoker chestnut! Adding to the inescapable feeling of absurdity here is a cheesy score; the twist ending, then, is entirely predictable but also incredibly daft. Besides, the numerous close-ups on Nalder's scarred features for ostensibly eerie effect seem merely pointlessly morbid to me! Ultimately, the film is redeemed somewhat by a couple of intense attacks by the pack of vampire hounds towards the end  one with Pataki and Ferrer inside a cabin and the other on the former's car (in which he's sheltered)  as, otherwise, I'd have rated this even lower!


A group of Russian soldiers discover the tomb of the Dracula family, and one of them foolishly removes the stake from the body of Dracula's dog Zoltan, and in which the dog raises Dracula's servant/original owner too. Needing to find the last of their master's bloodline, they end up travelling to California to discover their descendant Michael Drake and his family are going on holidays in the woods. Wanting to convert him they follow the family there, and transform dogs in the area into vampires to get the task done, but Inspector Branco has arrived to inform Michael about his problems.

How about that! Fun assured? Well not of the intentional kind or even camp, but this trashy and completely static b-flick makes for a lightweight and brainless distraction. You got a meaningful flashback from Zoltan, Dracula's dog, so we could see what a lovely dog he was before being bitten by Dracula. Yeah that's a sight to see. Actually there's quite a bit of Zoltan biting dogs and the unexpected traveller, so don't be looking for the any bathing beauties to be bitten on the neck. When we cop a grin from the dogs there are nice dental work on show, oh and the glowing eyes of pure evil was a super touch. Terrifying! I'm sure you'll think this sounds whacked! But no there's far more to share. You like puppies? Cute puppies? How about Dracula puppies? Yeah dog lovers beware. The dog's master (amusedly played by Reggie Nalder) looks likes a stunned mullet as he communicates telepathically with his mean looking mutt Zoltan, and this is quite rib tickling. This is just the cream of the crop too. A junky, and quite limited production (which is directed by Full Moon founder Albert Brand) comes across being rather grizzled and glum. The inventive concept, which is dreamt up by Frank Ray Perilli, is quite an unusual one, but it can't seem to sustain the idea and it soon becomes terribly old. There isn't enough to hang a story off it and too many holes open up. The stiff script and stuffy performances ( Michael Pataki really does grate away) added to unwanted crinkles too. Jose Ferrer doesn't seem to be putting a whole lot into his haggard performance, however he still comes off reasonably well. The dogs are the ones who out-perform their fellow co-stars. Brand might seem like his on cruise control, but he does construct some atmospheric moments within the brooding woodlands, and there are one or two intense build-ups. However most of it is downright silly to be effective, like the dog attacks involving obvious puppet work. The make-up effects are minimal and basic, and Stan Winston was part of the FX team. The photography is colourless and the hovering score hits all the generic notes with a blunt sounding synthesizer.

Watchable, but a long way from good.


fantastic film, the best ,not!! But it has its moments,my favorite is when zoltan hound of Dracula hopes out of his own dog sized coffin!!!i found this film on videocassette from local goodwill.hard shell case release from EMI .SWeet,the dog seems scary when they shine lights into its eyes,thats about the only special effect I saw hahaa,a cult classic in the making,lets see it has to be ten lines, well this was a turd of a film but gave me hope that I could create an Indy film better than this and release it.Wow, how did they ever get the green light on this turd.though the dog is a nice looking dog.I jsust cant picture a studio exec saying wow this is a truly gripping film.Was it put out asa joke?


This movie features two of my favorite actors in Kilmer and Downey. It also boasts the always enjoyable Larry Miller in a too-small part. Despite this I found it to be nearly unwatchable. Michelle Monaghan may be pretty but she is nearly charisma free and the reasons for Downey's character's obsession with her character is not at all understandable in terms of the information the film presents or the way it's portrayed. The ending seems pretentious and though the intention seems to be that the audience should join in the nod and wink the film, having failed to bring us in on the side of its protagonists leaves us unwilling or unable to do so.

Fans of the film say that those who disagree simply "don't get it". I don't think this is so. The plot was not complicated or beyond understanding. It was simply uninvolving and clumsily and obviously manufactured. I "got it". I just didn't like it. Paddy Breathnach's "I Went Down" and Guy Ritchie's "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" are much better realized examples of the kind of film-making that director Shane Black fails to achieve.

I share a birthday with Shane Black but a look at his credits (mostly as a screenwriter)makes me want to dissociate myself from any other connection.


Well, at least it's nicely filmed with some good shots of Scotland. I say, "at least" because this Lassie film was a huge disappointment. I grew up watching the fine television series and thought the movie - especially with the human cast featuring Edmund Gwenn, Donald Crisp and Janet Leigh - would be even better.

Wrong. In fact, the first 30-40 minutes were so bad, I never finished the film. It was boring and annoying. Lassie is afraid of water so the dog's owner, Gwenn, constantly is angry with the dog. Lassie, meanwhile, whimpers and cries the whole time. The whole thing gets irritating, fast!

To be fair, I should have stuck with it. You just know that Lassie will overcome his fear and things will turn out well, as always, I'm sure it got better than the first half that I watched. Nonetheless, filmmaker should learn what sports teams realize the hard way - you have to play hard and well the whole game - not just one half and this film's first half stunk enough so that at least one reviewer went home at halftime.


In the beautiful hills of Scotland, Lassie is a good-for-nothing collie. Afraid of water, the dog lets sheep drown. So, owner Rhys Williams (as Milton) trades her in, to lovable old doctor Edmund Gwenn (as William MacLure). Mr. Williams' son Tom Drake (as Tammas Milton) is studying doctoring with Mr. Gwenn, but his father wants him to be a farmer. Mr. Drake is courting pretty young Janet Leigh (as Margit Mitchell).

A colorful MGM gloss makes "Hills of Home" pleasant viewing, at times. The movie winds up far less carefully made than the initial scenic images suggest, however. It's nice to see Donald Crisp return to Lassie's supporting cast; his scenes with Gwenn provide some Scottish accented fun. Lassie veteran Tom Drake and starlet Janet Leigh are nice, but the lack of a child co-star hurts the story. Lassie's crossing of a river's broken bridge, to save her master, it a film highlight; though, it's difficult to accept Lassie was ever afraid of water.


In an idyllic Scottish village, poor collie dog Lassie fails at sheepherding because she's afraid of crossing through water; a crusty old doc inherits Lassie, but he doesn't much want her either, even after she warns him of a collapsed bridge down the road. Despite a handsome MGM production, this non-adventure is unrelievedly depressing and infuriating (if the simple-minded plot doesn't gnaw at you, the ridiculous Scottish accents and muttonchops on the men certainly will). The collie dog used for the film is a beautiful animal but, let's face it, not particularly gifted for the camera (most of the time, she hovers about on the edge of the frame, constantly looking to one side for directions). Lassie takes a real beating in this one (including harsh owners, icy, raging rivers and bad weather of all sorts), yet, oddly, much of the focus is on doctor Edmund Gwenn and the wet-eyed, hand-wringing families of his patients. This downer is truly one of the dreariest family films of all time, not helped by a colorless supporting cast which includes a wooden Janet Leigh in an early role. *1/2 from ****


'Hills of Home' is one of the older Lassie films. This film is about Lassie and her owner, an elderly doctor in a small, rural village. I have the video of this film, and I watched it when I was younger, but out of all the Lassie films, this is my least favourite and a film that I could not get into. (Maybe this film is made for adults, and maybe that is why I could not appreciate it; I'm sure it was probably a good book and had some good ideas.) I felt the film was slow-moving, and I found it difficult to understand or really get engaged in the plot. The film only became interesting when the doctor had to go out in rough weather on a house call, and he is knocked off his horse. Lassie has to brave the weather to get help.

I would not recommend this film to children as I think it is slow moving and I don't think it can fully be appreciated. Maybe I will watch it again sometime to see if I enjoy it better through the eyes of an adult.


Movies by Eric Rohmer are not to everybody's liking. For me, personally, they are a hit-and-miss affair. His films are always slow and full of dialogue, and there is very little story taking place outside the dialogue. It can be very appropriate, believable and effective, but it can also go badly wrong. Here it has gone badly wrong. The film is too talkative; I felt continuously alienated from the film's characters who somehow managed to live in a world of their own. "Get a life!" I wanted to shout at them initially, or "You like feeling miserable?", but ultimately I would not care enough about them.


Unless you like dreamy softcore erotica and get a kick out of watching naked guys ride bareback on horses, THE COMING OF SIN has very little to recommend it to fans of Euro Horror like myself. I sought this out based on director Jose Ramon Larraz' reputation from other films of his like DEVIATION, THE HOUSE THAT VANISHED, VAMPYRES and the wildly over-rated BLACK CANDLES. I'll even admit to guiltily enjoying some of his later shockers like BITS & PIECES and the teen oriented SAVAGE LUST. While they are an inconsistent lot, the films do have two elements in common, specifically an air of artful creativity and some sort of a payoff.

THE COMING OF SIN is by contrast a long trip for an extremely short day at the beach. A fetching young gypsy girl with a penchant for sleeping in the nude comes to live with a ravishing aristocratic blond painter who very quickly helps her dark guest come to grips with her bisexuality, which is par for the course for these sort of things. Tension is added in the form of Chico, a Duran Duran lookalike who spends the majority of the film riding around completely naked on a horse. Like the girl he is also a gypsy and lives in a hut he made down by the river where he spends his time lying around waiting for women to wander by. Seems like kind of boring living to me but whatever, that's Spain for you.

Chico eventually joins the ladies at the house after some nonsense involving trampled flowers, lost necklaces, breech loading shotguns, 19th century figure painting, and the film's iconic dream image of the gypsy girl crouching inside a life-sized horse model. You sort of have to see it to understand what I mean but the running theme in the film is that none of the sumptuous imagery and erotic tension ever really pays off aside for some softcore fumblings. The movie's alternate English title VIOLATION OF THE BITCH has to do with the scene where Chico proves his love to the lady of the house by apparently buggering her while the family is over for a dinner party. Gee whiz!

All of it leads up to a climax of violence that happens for no particular reason at all, other than perhaps Larraz' wish to try and pull the rug out from underneath the trenchcoaters who would be flocking to the grindhouse to see the movie. The problem is that the movie -- while as sleazy as they come -- isn't really sick or demented enough to warrant some of it's reputation, and reading over some of the other comments here I wonder if perhaps the version I saw on a PAL format DVD may have been missing some scenes.

If anything this is sort of a Euro Sleaze couples movie, chock full of both female and male nudity, all of it very tastefully and artfully photographed. And hence the problem with it on a thematic level for those used to Larraz' more well-known work: It's a bit too tasteful and aside from the bizarre dream sequence involving the horse never really grabs the imagination. Which may have been the point -- to make a watchable little softcore that doesn't really push the envelope too much. The film was made at the end of the Franco era in Spain when overt sexuality was a no-no on the generalissimo's cinema screen and might have simply been an attempt to make a cheap little sex thriller with a cast of about eight people, and on that level it isn't bad.

The bottom line is that if you want to watch Euro Trash softcore without much in the way of plot you should give this one a try, as the film is endowed with the steamy soft focus look of a Penthouse spread. But if you are drawn to Larraz' horror work you'll be scratching your head and watching the runtime clock tick off waiting for something to happen. Unfortunately, not much does.

4/10


Not much to really rave about in VIOLATION OF THE BITCH. What could have been a relatively interesting storyline about a strange love-triangle, instead turns into an unintelligibly average sexploit film whose only real highlights are a few weak hardcore scenes.

A gypsy girl who has recurring rape-nightmares of some nekkid guy on horse, comes to live and work for a rich, secluded, and sex-starved female artist after her previous female employer banishes her under mysterious circumstances. The Nekkid Horse Rider ends up being a real person who has followed Gypsy Girl to Horny Artist's house, and begins a sexual-relationship with both women that will end in tragedy for at least one of the parties involved...

VIOLATION OF THE BITCH started off strongly enough, with a bit of a "mystery" element to it, but quickly degenerated into a weak sexploit film. Now, I'm all for sexploit films, and usually plot doesn't necessarily need to be a key-point - but for the kicker to this one is that it introduced several interesting plot-points, and then never followed through with them. Who is Nekkid Horse Rider? What is his history with Gypsy Girl? Why does she call him "Manuel" while he calls himself "Chico"? What really happened between Gypsy Girl and her former employer? I guess I'll have to wait for the 30 year over-due sequel or the Hollywood remake to get these questions answered. Not a horrible film, but the few un-erotic hardcore scenes only help this film so much...4/10


This review is based on the 73-minute version of this film sold through Luminous Film and Video Wurks. It's a minimalist tale of three people--a gypsy girl, a rich woman, and a mysterious man who likes to be in the buff whilst riding his horse--engaged in a three way relationship. The sex scenes are blunt, perfunctory, and frankly quite dull, the characters are one-dimensional and lacking in motivation, and the film's conclusion is almost as ridiculous as its contrived opening sequence. I'm not sure what the other reviewers liked about La Visita del Vicio (titled Sodomia on the Luminous tape), as it bored me to tears. Perhaps not quite as bad as the worst Jesus Franco film, but close.


Contrary to popular belief, the world of 70's exploitation and trash cinema can be quite the mysterious and contradictory place. Take this rarely seen and obscure piece of Spanish awkwardness, for example! This movie is weird and confusing even BEFORE you decide to watch it. If you look it up on this marvelous website, you stumble upon the page of a seemingly stylish, artistic and somewhat psychedelic film entitled "The Coming of Sin", which showcases a cover image with a golden and transparent horse standing in a meadow. In case you know yet nothing about the film, you're tempted to think this will be an artsy and tasteful exploitation feature. However, the VHS exemplar that ended up in my dirty little hands is proudly entitled "Violation of the Bitch" with the provocative tagline "She Asked for it " written in equally giant letters and showing the drawing of a busty woman kneeling down in front of a pair of female legs and begging for her life. Now, what type of film do you expect to see in this case? That's right, pure rancid sleaze and gratuitous violence!

The actual finished product is somewhat of a mixture between wannabe artistic and wannabe shocking. "Violation of the Bitch/The Coming of Sin" is plentiful of nudity (both male and female) but severely lacking a decent storyline and action sequences. A wealthy but lonely and sexually frustrated female takes a shy but voluptuous gypsy girl into her mansion for some company and random lesbian entertainment. The girl suffers from a recurring nightmare about a naked man on a horse stalking her. The dream actually becomes reality when one morning there's a naked horseman at their door. The gypsy girl naturally reacts reluctant, but the insatiable artist is fascinated by the appearance and a bizarrely uncomfortable triangular relationship develops itself. In spite of the reasonably short running time (little under 80 minutes), "Violation of the Bitch" is a tedious film with an unpleasantly large amount of padding footage. All the potentially intriguing plot elements (the gypsy girl's history, the horseman's background) are ignored in favor of long and meaningless sequences containing two female lead characters staring at each other naked or posing for nude portraits. The climax is totally implausible since it contradicts with everything the script attempted to make us believe earlier on, but hey, at least the VHS cover art wasn't a lie. José Ramón Larraz has always been one of my favorite Euro-exploitation directors (the man was single-handedly responsible for "Vampyres", "Black Candles" and "Symptoms") but this is unquestionably one of his lesser efforts. Unless you're a tolerant and extremely open-minded fan of odd exploitation sleaze, avoid!


"The Violation of the Bitch", is a very interesting title and one that made me confident that I was about to see something at least passable...but unfortunately, the film doesn't live up to it's title and unfortunately it's more of a missed opportunity than a great exploitation flick. The plot makes it sound like the film is going to be interesting too, and we focus on a young girl who has a recurring nightmare of a man on horseback raping her. She goes to live with a sex starved female and they soon kick up a relationship; but then the nightmare rapist manifests himself and a strange love triangle develops. I have to admit that the version I saw was only seventy three minutes long and may well have been a cut version; but unless they cut out all the interesting bits, this is still a bad film. The characters should really be important in a film like this; but instead they are non-existent and that ensures the plot is not very interesting either. As the title would suggest, there's a handful of hardcore sex scenes thrown in; but they're not very well filmed either, which really makes this a rather torrid seventy three minutes of film viewing. Not surprisingly, this is a rare film and it's one that is not worth tracking down.


The Tattooist starts in Singapore where American tattooist Jake Sawyer (Jason Behr) is attending a tattoo festival, while there he sees an attractive woman named Sina (Mia Blake) & he follows to a traditional Samaon tattooing session. Jake is intrigued & steals a Samoan tattooing tool on which he cuts his hand later that night, Jake decides to fly to Aukland in New Zealand to find Sina & return the tool he stole but starts to experience strange dreams & visions. One of Jake's old friends gives him a job as a tattooist in his place, Jake manages to find Sina & they start having a relationship together. However the dreams & visions won't go away & Jake discovers that those he has tattooed are dying is mysteriously circumstances & strangely their tattoos have grown, Jake finally comes to the conclusion that an evil Samoan spirit is using him to kill those Jake has tattooed & since Jake tattooed the love of his life Sina she will be next unless the evil spirit can be stopped...

This New Zealand Singapore co-production was directed by Peter Burger & I thought The Tattooist was a terrible attempt at a supernatural horror thriller, I thought The Tattooist was just plain bad from start to finish on so many levels. For a start it's very slow going, almost half the film has gone before anything even remotely horror orientated happens & the story just doesn't work for me at all. There's a Asian ghost story kind of feel about it as some vengeful ghost kills a few people & wants the world to know about the wrongs done to them while they were alive & the whole tattooing angle is just awful. The scenes between that fat Samoan tattoo master & Jake the cocky American are just embarrassing as it comes across as two duelling tattooist's trying to out-stare each other, it seems some like this film but I just found the seriousness of it all had the opposite effect on me & I thought it was quite funny at times. Then there's that little fat kid who can contact ghost's while driving along listening to a bad rap song, there are some bad moments here. There's also the moments when Jake tattoos people, they just sit down in his chair & the goes to work, they never say what they want or where they want it & then these people just get up & walk out without paying, I'm not being funny but if I was having a tattoo (which would be for life) then I'd at least want to pick the design & where it was going. Also during the opening sequence Jake's father cuts a tattoo from his arm, at that point surely Jake wasn't eighteen & he wouldn't have been legally allowed to get a tattoo so how did he have one? The romance between Jake & Sina feels as phony as a three pound note, the whole Samoan tradition's & belief's angle is dull & the twist ending is pretty bad as a collection of coincidences come together to solve a murder mystery of the lamest order.

Now what I am about to write is only a personal opinion but I find excessive tattoos on a body absolutely repulsive, I don't care who i offend saying that but I do & I cannot understand why anyone would want horrible ugly pictures or patterns permanently etched onto their skin. I have nothing against anyone with lots of tattoos but I just think it looks repulsive & the way The Tattooist tries to place tattoos as a sexual thing (Jake tattoos Sina just before they have sex) & tries to sexualise them is something I could not relate to at all in any way. There's no real blood or gore here, a strip of flesh is cut from someones arm & there's a bit of blood splatter but nothing else. The Tattooist doesn't feel like a horror film either, the lighting is bright & there's no mood or atmosphere to any of this as it plods along.

The IMDb says The Tattooist had a budget of about $3,000,000 which I find hard to believe as next to nothing happens, where did all that money go? What was it spent on? Mostly filmed in Auckland in New Zealand. The acting is average at best & no-one stands out as being particularly good.

The Tattooist is a terrible horror thriller with a hint of Asian ghost story thrown in that revolves around the world of tattooing, it's a bad combination all round really as this is just terrible apart from a few unintentional laughs.


OK so, the idea is good but the movie overall feels soooo shallow. Yes there is gore....lots and lots of gore, but does that really save the movie from being so bland and uninteresting??? No!

The main character 'Jake Sawyer' is so bland that all he seems to do in this movie is tattooing people and then following them to a club/party whatever to meet asshole after asshole after asshole, seriously nearly every person he meets is an asshole.

The plot is confusing and mind-numbing, Jake unknowingly plays a role in releasing a deadly spirit as he attempts to learn tatau, the Samoan tradition of tattooing and at the same time trying to hook up with an asshole father's daughter who has also an asshole of a brother, the 3 are as bland as Jake himself (with possible exception of the asshole father). So from the moment Jake unleashes the 'deadly' spirit(which by cutting himself at the end of an samoan tattoo stick he ROBBED!!!),This 'deadly' spirit has the job of killing people with his techniques of samoan tattooing, oh yeah and can only be seen in a mirror...why??? I don't know, but he can only kill people if Jake has tattooed the people AFTER he cut himself.....if you're getting confused by this so-called mindless plot, you're not the only one.

So i'm gonna wrap up and put down 5 things i didn't like about this film:

1. Why in the holy mother of f**k did we have to see Jake's ass in front of the camera...WHY?!?!?(eye-candy for women)

2. Bland characters including the main characters

3. poor plot

4. uninteresting killer

5. overall boring This film is...is...pointless, mind-numbing and bland. I really do not like this film, in fact all that there was in this film were the tattoo's.

2/10 = BULLS**T!!

Youtube Channel: MrRandomReviewer

XBL gamertag: RatedRIcHIe 316


A boring tattooist with the personality of a dead animal becomes cursed by an evil spirit for misusing his tattooing career. At least, that's what we're lead to believe, but then the story sort of shifts away from that and becomes a cliché ghost story.

There are a few decent ideas wrapped up in here. There's some slick set design, decent camera work, and an interesting visual or two. That's where my compliments end.

You can probably assume most of my reasons for hating this film based on my plot description. The character is boring as hell. There's absolutely nothing interesting about him. The actor portrays fear well enough, and might have been capable of expressing an interesting character, but the script didn't provide one. A love story gets wedged in there too. I NEVER complain about chemistry between lovers in movies but in this case, I will make a girly exception and say that these two people didn't have any reason to give a crap about each other, aside from a compatible set of reproductive organs. Two boring people have boring interactions and suddenly screw each other. It seemed forced, sudden, and unnecessary. Perhaps they should have spent more time developing the characters, rather than having every single person prattle off historical facts about tattoos. Seriously, we don't care.

The trailers and plot synopsis suckered me in with some seemingly original and cool concepts, but as written above, this simply ended up being another cliché whodunit ghost story. Screw that. That's not at all what I bought this movie for.

The score is terrible. Some of the best moments in the film are completely ruined by a crappy, cheap-sounding soundtrack. The rap music didn't sit well with me either. It was annoying and it just didn't fit.

The only reason I would ever recommend this film is so you can laugh at the hilariously out-of-place scene involving the fat ethnic kid who can communicate with the dead when he rides in a fast car and blasts rap music loud enough. You think I'm kidding but that seriously happens.

Someone got a decent idea to start with, but then they were lazy about every other aspect of the production after that point. The writing is lazy, the characters are lame as hell, the score sucks, and there are some ridiculous moments that just don't fit. The overall presentation is as about as compelling as the hair on my scrotum.


nothing much to say about this movie really.. was really an OK movie..everything was expected ...i thought the acting was kinda bad,or let me say kinda dull..Jason Behr looked to me like he was reading off paper or something..there was no element of excitement or suspense or anything..it was just one of these ordinary movies that u would only watch if you have nothing els to watch . i personally wanted to watch it because i like tattoos and im into horror movies and supposedly The Tattooist was classified as horror movies,so 2 things i like grabbed my attention about this movie so i was certain its going to be very good BUT the only thing was good about this movie is to learn never have high hopes about any movie by just reading the title :)


This is probably the worst Tori Amos performance I have ever seen. I have seen her live 3 times, and most of her televised performances including her appearances on MTV Unplugged, Hard Rock Live, and PBS. Most of the originals have improvised sections. As a Zeppelin fan I am all for improvisation as long as it adds to, while improving the song. However, her improvisations here do neither. She sings off key on occasion, and the performance seems a little forced. If you want good live Tori get a copy of her performance on Hard Rock Live. Rating: 4/10.


This is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. Shoddy production values could be forgiven, even poor editing and lousy pacing could be excused by the occasional good scene or a belly laugh, but these are nowhere to be found. The lone standout scene is the musical number, which manages to be vaguely acceptable, and the most amusing thing in the entire duration of the movie is a constantly stoned hippie character.

Let me repeat that.

The funniest thing in the film is a stoned hippie character who ends every line with "dude" or "man". He doesn't do or say anything particularly funny, either, but just by being a stoned hippie and saying "dude" and "man" he still manages to be funnier than everything else.

I'd try to summarize briefly just how dire this failed horror spoof is, but words fail me. You'll just have to see it yourself - it's prime material for a Mystery Science Theater-style evening at home with friends and a drink or seven, and not just because you need alcohol to dull the pain of witnessing the black hole where comedy dies in terrible pain.


Music mogul, Bernie Stein, joins his nephew Freakie and a hippie roadie, Iggy in an effort to make a superstar out of dead body parts. The hands of Jimmy Hendrix, Sid Vicious's ass, Elvis's head, and the penis of Jim Morrison. Well it would have been Morrison if Iggy didn't screw up and bring back Liberace's love sausage. uh-oh, I smell a wall of gay jokes cumin along. Sure enough King, the monster, gets confused by his fudge packing pecker whom actually talks to him. And, oh who am I kidding, as a red blooded heterosexual make this film is just way too gay for me. (not that there's anything wrong with that)

Eye Candy: Kate Fallon & Joan Gerardi get topless; plus more nudity in the extra features

DVD Extras: Commentary Director and crew; 22 minute Behind the scenes featurette; music video; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for 28 other Seduction Cinema titles

My Grade: F


This turned out to be more of a women's romance-soap-suspense film than what I hoped it was....simply a tense thriller. Yes, the final 20 minutes were suspenseful but much of the previous 75 bordered on being just plain tedious.

Ruter Hauer was a little too subdued, not playing his normal intense character. Natasha Richardson sports somewhat of a dumb look most of the time and her character was very unappealing.

The story is so-so. It's not as bad as I'm making out, but it sure isn't anything I'd watch again, and the back of the VHS describing this movie was misleading.


I read the book "The Sum of All Fears" with fascination--Palestenians discover an Isreali nuclear device lost when the aircraft is shot down in the six day war, sell it to Al Queda, and the arab terrorists proceed to blow up Denver with said nuke.

I was very much looking forward to this movie, only to find that for fear of offending Al Queda, the director and screenwriters had substituted some ridiculous plot about German Nazi's and turned the whole thing into a melodramatic hash.

This could have been a GREAT, prophetic, movie. instead it became a silly waste of money and talent. I know Tom Clancy hated the movie, so did I.


OK, I enjoyed the movie. But I also have read the book several times, and the comparisons are inevitable, as several other people have done.

I just don't see the point of the most obvious changes from the novel : why using a Neo Nazi fanatic instead of Middle East terrorists? why a very young and single Jack Ryan instead of a married and older character? (Harrison Ford would have been terrific again) Of course a scene aboard Air Force One is more eye candy that a President trapped on Camp David because of a storm and a damaged helicopter. And : where is Ding Chavez??? A character from "Clear and Present Danger", is almost adopted by John Clark after being rescued, and they work as partners.

Some gaps on the story are too difficult to accept : you mean that the ONLY person able to communicate that the bomb was not Russian, is a obscure junior CIA adviser? what about all the agencies and personnel deployed on the explosion site? are they all mute? (On the book, Ryan passes the information but he is not believed by a hostile President and his Nac.Sec. Adviser, *and* a possible power struggle on the Russian government is completely left out).And how come that you can link without any problem from a Palm in the middle of a burned city?


Final Score: 4.0 (out of 10)

The movie adaptation of Tom Clancy's "The Sum of All Fears" might be a starkly frightening movie, could be a cautionary tale of homeland terrorism and nuclear war - that is, if it wasn't caught in the confounding cinematic time-warp it finds itself in. It is primarily set after the fall of the Berlin wall and the end of the nuclear arms race with the Russians, however it's also a prequel with a younger, cocky Jack Ryan (plug-in flavor of the month Ben Affleck) and with the principle villains being Nazis. This movie will probably be remembered more for it's unfortunate post-9/11 release date (which gave it a sense of importance) then the silly story and content. It's not even so much that the Nazis-as-bad-guys thing is an overused, now out of date cliche as much as the idea that they were Middle Eastern terrorists in Clancy's book and the writers and director Phil Robinson changed them smacks of pure political correctness. Nobody wants to offend the terrorists. As a result the movie feels phony. And that's a big problem because we feel detached from it and, thus, don't feel it is as sharp, timely and intense as Clancy meant it to be. The reason that movies like "Fail Safe" and "Dr. Strangelove" were so brilliant is because they were gutsy enough to take on the public's fears directly. This movie isn't, in fact, it goes out of it's way to hide in it's phony world from doing anything gutsy. All movie villains have to be white Anglo Saxon Europeans most likely with `sinister' Russian or German accents. This type of stuff might frighten liberal Hollywood types who think the president might drop nukes at any moment, but it's not going to resonate with most people.

It also doesn't help that we can't connect with the characters. Affleck does a fine job or running around yelling, but there isn't a lot of development in the young Ryan or in any character we meet. Robinson's direction is purely rudimentary. The whole thing has the feel of a clumsy TV movie. It's race-against-the-clock gives us no real payoff. There is exactly one really good scene here involving Morgan Freeman, a cell phone and a stadium full of people. It also has one interesting little monologue about how the internet and technology has connected terrorism globally like never before. But without any characters, eye-candy action or resonating story we're left pondering why we wasted our time on this thing.

Alternate viewing recommendation: "24 - Season 2". Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer runs circles around Ryan in generally the same plot only more intense, frighteningly timely and on a more epic scale.


This film was a far cry from the book by Tom Clancy, who wrote about Al Queda terrorists reading a set off a nuclear bomb in America. The latter must have been sick watching this movie and typically-Left Wing Hollywood changed the script to being one with Nazis as the villains instead.

Are you kidding me? How ridiculously politically correct is that? If I had known this beforehand, I would have boycotted this insulting movie, instead of wasting money on it.

Also, at least to me, Harrison Ford will always be "Jack Ryan," not some second-rate pretty- boy actor like Ben Affleck.

The only redeeming qualities to this film were the nice cinematography and the awesome sound when the big bomb went off. If you have a surround sound, that scene will rock your room. Too bad, they didn't blow up this film before it was released.


Let me preface my comments by saying that I loved Clancy's book when I first read it ten years ago. It was a gripping page-turner, and a marvelously intricate work, building suspense in layers. I've since re-read it several times.

I realistically expected that elements of the massive tome would have to be changed or condensed for the screen version. But so much is changed, and so many critical elements removed, that it hardly resembles its novel origins. As a result I find it difficult to believe that Tom Clancy had much creative control over this effort, though he's credited as "Executive Producer".

First, for some inexplicable reason, this movie jumps away from previous Clancy continuity by completely revamping the character of Jack Ryan. Rather than a middle aged CIA administrator, Ryan is now a young handsome PhD with little Washington experience. Apparently this is to boost the "chick-flick" quotient of this outing, as it adds nothing tangible to the film, and only detracts from the continuity that had been built to this point. There's even a scene where Kathy is asked how "cute" Ryan is on a 1-10 scale, and she says a "12". Ugh! They had time to include this garbage, yet skip vital character development later in the film?

Yet, even worse, this Ryan is the Uber-Ryan. Yes, the man is everywhere, and involved in virtually every action sequence in the film. He finds the bomb lab in Russia (and saves Clark, CLARK, for crying out loud, shouldn't it be the OTHER way around???), races to Baltimore in a helicopter to warn President Fowler(who in yet another huge change is caught in the blast himself) he gets caught in the nuclear blast(and hardly gets his hair mussed, how cliche!), he personally sifts through the rubble of Baltimore for evidence (another inexplicable change, as Denver was the city nuked in the book, then goes on for a cliched confrontation with the terrorists (who are VERY poorly developed character-wise, totally unlike the book) mano y mano in a darkened Baltimore warehouse. Oh, and I almost forgot, there was the obligatory (and oh so overused) Hollywood "death" scene where Ryan (again, Ryan personally) kneels at the bed of Morgan Freeman as he expires in a "tearful" sequence. Yes, it was painful but not in the way intended.

I thought Clancy's books sometimes stretched the believablity of Ryan's capabilities to the breaking point, yet this goes way beyond anything Clancy has previously done. It's Super-Ryan to the rescue, more 007 than distinguished, cerebral CIA analyst, even though he supposedly had little if any experience in espionage, forensics, or any of that. It is very cliched, and very tiresome to watch, at least for anyone that's actually read the books.

One of the best parts of the novel was the realism. Reading it, you really believed that the plot Clancy put in motion could occur. Not this movie. Believable Islamic terrorists were replaced with cartoonish middle-aged white european neo-Nazis who make stock Hitler-loving speeches that any avid movie-goer has heard a million times before. Dr. Evil would love these guys. They even got to kill one of their own rank, ala Dr. Evil, after he experienced the convenient cinematic "crisis of concience". You could see it coming a mile away! I guess that's so we can understand these men are serious and mean "business"

Oh and on the subject of business, since the typical european Neo-Nazi is young, skinheaded, devoted, but not terribly affluent these Nazis were conveniently well-to-do businessmen with the financial assets and experience to put their scheme in motion. Is this Tom Clancy or James Bond? I guess its not "politically correct" to feature the actual type of real world Middle Eastern "gentlemen", with the aid of foreign government sponsorship who even now are striving, again in reality, to make weapons of mass destruction to use against us? I guess its always "safe" to once again bash caucasian conservative-appearing men in business suits. Whatever the reason, its another major plot element from the book down the tubes.

On the subject of the bomb; there was a great deal of detail in the book about the bomb that was completely overlooked in the movie. For example, in the book, the bomb was originally intended to be a multi-stage, ie, HYDROGEN bomb. It fizzled. The original yield was overestimated by twenty fold by military analysts because of reflection of the snow, and other factors. The President's advisors didn't think terrorists could build a multi-stage weapon, thus the suspicion was immediately upon the Russians. It was only after frantic detective work that the true yield of the bomb was discovered, and it put Ryan on the proper track AND gave him leverage to help defuse the situation(no pun intended). It's a common worry that terrorist groups might get ahold of a low yield fission "suitcase" bombs, yet right from the start in the movie no one, including the President, suspects terrorists!

Another fond memory I have of the book is that Clancy took us to the very brink of Armageddon where the US and Russia were nearly in a shooting war because of the misinterpreted size of the bomb, and the tank battle that the German terrorists cause to happen in Berlin. Yet here, the Russians attack and virtually destroy a US nuclear carrier, we bomb a Russian airbase, and we're still standing at that brink. Somehow, I think if events got that far, there'd be no turning back. Clancy seemed to know that when he wrote the book; he seems to have forgotten it here though.

These are just a few of the major problems with this film. The pacing is bad; one minute the bomb is still being constructed, and a few minutes later its already placed in Baltimore and about to explode, with the cliche of Ryan hot on the trail, trying to warn the President. In the book, the bomb catches everyone completely off-guard, but not here, ANOTHER irritating change. There is also very little character development, the President's motivations are poorly understood, the paranoia of Fowler over the new Russian President's motives was poorly developed, etc etc.

Avoid it if you can. I turned the last 5 minutes off, it was so bad.


While the movie would have been entertaining if I were to check my brain at the door, given the hype I found the movie disappointing in the extreme.

I found at least six major holes in the plot large enough to drive a space shuttle through. Now, don't misunderstand. I'm perfectly happy to suspend my disbelief at the movie theatre door in the case of obvious fantasies like Harry Potter or Shrek. I'm even willing to accept the notion that James Bond films are essentially cartoons no more related to reality than an episode of the old Batman TV show. However, when a movie purports to have some connection to the reality of current affairs, and it turns out to be no more realistic than the Itchy and Scratchy Show I get annoyed.

Let's list the plot holes: 1. The Israeli plane gets shot down and the bomb doesn't explode on impact. That's just nuts. Between the impact and the heat generated by the explosions of the engines, the bomb must detonate. If you deny that, you are denying simple engineering. I'll accept that in an episode of Lost in Space but not in a mega-budget film written by the great guru of espionage flicks.

2. The authors think the Israelis won't wonder what happened to their atomic missile? That's just nuts. An Israeli plane crashes into the Golan and the Israelis let the missile hang around for 30 years. Sorry. The Israelis know where their missiles are and they know that their neighbors would be happy to use even a grain of plutonium to harm them. This just defies reality.

3. An atomic missile is smuggled out of Haifa Harbor by neo-Nazis? That's just loony. Now, the Mossad isn't as good as its press releases and is certainly riddled with KGB double-agents but it is absolutely inconceivable for any Israeli to be involved with Nazis no matter what the financial reward. There was this event in the 40s called the Holocaust. Perhaps, Mr. Clancy has heard of it. Especially after 9/11, the Israelis are extremely careful about what goes on in their state. Give them credit for being at least a little smarter than a doorknob.

4. Ben Affleck gets into the Pentagon with Morgan Freeman's ID? The City of Baltimore has just been destroyed by a nuclear weapon and the Pentagon is easier to get into than the Z Smith Reynolds Airport in Winston-Salem, North Carolina? In the immortal words of Homey the Clown, 'No, I don't think so!'

5. A nuclear weapon gets smuggled into the US. That can certainly happen but you really need some sort of serious cover. As Abe Rosenthal, the former editor of the New York Times, has said,'If you want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US, put it in a bale of marajuana.' The notion that there is anybody in the Customs Service in a position of authority who would allow a nuclear weapon into the States without a lot of money changing hands and without leaving himself the opportunity to get far out of harm's way is farcical at best.

6. Ben Affleck goes into the middle of a radiation zone without any protection and suffers no ill effects, not even the loss of one strand of hair. 'Nuff said.

7. This last criticism is a general criticism of Tom Clancy stories. No rational person who has lived through the last decade or so in the US can possibly believe that the CIA is even minimally competent much less the repository of virtually all wisdom as depicted here or in any other Tom Clancy novel. CIA stands for 'Clueless in America.' Since 1990, we have seen the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the bombing of the World Trade Center, attacks on two embassies in Africa, the emergence of terrorist training bases in Afghanistan, Sudan, the Phillipines and G-d only knows where else, the Oklahoma City bombing, the Aldrich Ames case, the Robert Hansson case, BCCI, the bombing of our troops in the Khobar Towers, the USS Cole attack, and the suicide bombings of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Maxwell Smart and Larabee on a three week bender could do a better job.

One can only hope that Morgan Freeman and James Cromwell were well paid for having this cinematic disaster on their resumes.


The only thing you have to know about this film is that it has the Super Bowl taking place in Baltimore. That's right. Super Bowl. Baltimore. That tells you how much thought was put into this giant piece of crap.

The plot involves neo-Nazi's who obtain an Israeli nuclear bomb (from an Israeli plane that was shot down in the 1973 Yom Kippur war) and use Russian nuclear scientists to refurbish it, and then ship it to Baltimore (just in time for the Super Bowl) to try to blow up the President of the US.

The Nazi's goal is to trick the US into thinking the Russians carried out the attack, hopefully starting a nuclear war which then allows the neo-Nazi's to do what exactly? Take over the smoldering remains of the earth? The movie never adequately explains the rationale behind their actions, since their actions are completely self-defeating. A nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would destroy most of the Western World, leaving precious little left for the Nazi's to rule over. In the novel, Islamic terrorists were the bad guys, which makes sense since they don't care if they live or die and because the Middle East would be relatively unaffected by a nuclear war between Russia and the US. Changing the villains to Nazi's sends this movie into fantasy-land.

Ben Affleck is wrong as Jack Ryan -- he's just too much of a sarcastic punk. You can't buy him as the CIA analyst turned action hero. The rest of the cast is good, but most of the characters are complete idiots. Its hard to believe that the President of the US and the Premier of Russia wouldn't talk to each other over the telephone during an international crisis, but in this movie they e-mail each other over AOL like a couple of adulterers.

According to the trivia, Harrison Ford and Wolfgang Peterson (Director of Air Force One) turned down the opportunity to participate in this fiasco. They were smart to do so since there was nothing to gain but scorn for having any part in this horrible, horrible movie.


Wow I usually love your stuff, director Phil, but this was... painful to watch. You made a terrible film choice; does your long hiatus from directing have something to do with this turkey? Are you punishing yourself?

The only reason I kept watching was to see the nuclear explosion. That too was a disappointment. Affleck, Freeman and Cromwell really all suck here too. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this one in the theater.

So get back to directing something that has a decent screenplay. Keep away from CIA writers and CIA approved plot lines and the whole terrorism thing. It's getting really old and the propaganda isn't working anymore.

You have enough chutzpah, Phil. Direct something that explains how terrorism is really just the new boogeyman, to replace the cold war boogeyman. Something that explains where AlQueda really came from, or how Presidents can do business with a boogeyman's family with terrorist ties, but no one says anything.


Affleck's portrayal of Jack Ryan can only be described as one of the biggest casting mistakes in all of Hollywood history. Does he really think he can fill in for Harrison Ford or even Alec Baldwin? YIKES. As long as the American public will shell out their hard-earned dollars to see Affleck, Hollywood will continue to produce this kind of tripe. Don't people know good acting from really bad? I guess it is just as well that Affleck is associated with this clunker; better actors probably knew to turn the role down.

After Hunt for Red October and Patriot Games, this was a miserable followup to what I understand is a great Tom Clancy novel. It was tedious, boring and, amazingly, full of bad language, unlike its predecessor movies. In short, it stank. The script was terrible and the plot so unbelievably stupid that it was painful to watch. The special effects were laughable CGIs. I have not read the novel, but I doubt very seriously it was as asinine as this screenplay was. Skip this one!


So young master Jack Ryan's mommy must say every time she packs him out the front door to go to school,little knowing her cute poppet is in fact leading a double life as a CIA Analyst as well as learning the names of the capital cities of Europe.Doubtless worried he might develop a crush on his teacher,she would be horrified to learn he is dating a doctor nearly twice his age. Never mind,Mrs R.,he's bound to get straight "A"s in saving the planet from a nuclear holocaust.And here's how it all started.Are you sitting comfortably?....Then I'll begin. Once upon a time,back during the second Middle East conflict,the Israelis had a plane in the air 24/7 carrying a nuclear bomb.If they looked like losing(how's that for bad sportsmanship)they would bomb the crap out of Egypt.Sort of like picking up their toys and stomping off home.This plane - or one of a number of planes so equipped - I'm a bit confused on this point - is shot down and lies hidden in the desert for 29 years until it is discovered by Arabs,and a South African(taken over from the Brits in the International Villain stakes) buys it for $400 dollars,selling it on to a unregenerate nazi for $50 million.Said unregenerate nazi (Mr Alan Bates - a chain smoker just to add to his general bastardness) uses it to blow up a football stadium in Baltimore thus plunging the world into the nuclear abyss.Go figure. Luckily young master Ryan is able to get a few days off school to persuade the Russian Premier and the President of the United States that he knows better than either of them and after some jolly tense moments the President grits "Stand down to Defcon 3",thus earning young Jack a Gold Star. I have never read the book on which this daft movie was based.I can only imagine that it has been dumbed down and made more child - friendly. Perhaps young Jack can read it for himself when he gets a bit older. Until then he should content himself with learning that Paris is the capital of France,Vienna is the capital of Austria.....are you paying attention?I'll be asking questions later.....


I liked the premise, but felt the film could have started about half way through and concentrated on this second half. As it was, the second half just lost me as it groped around aimlessly in some sort of forced ra-ra mode. There was little time reference, continuity, and certainly no character development. I see what Tom Clancy is trying to say, but as usual he does it with all the subtlety of a brick over the head and it doesn't help that in trying to compress all he has to say, into a less than two hour movie, it all just becomes confused. Frederick Forsyth has the same problem when transferred onto the big screen - although at least Freddy is plausible and has some real experience with what he writes about. The CIA is just a little too slick here - love how those cell phones just keep on working... anywhere! Affleck is no Harrison Ford, no, no, no, or even a Baldwin for that matter. God help us all if we're relying on him (or his acting) to save the world. He's about a three on the cute scale for me - how anyone could give him a twelve is beyond me. Freeman is wonderful as usual. The tension is well portrayed in the situation rooms, but I can't help but think even a George Bush has more backbone than the President in this film. This is a really bad film, which is a pity because they could have done so much better - even with Affleck.


This movie offers nothing new. Technically, it is well made, but the plot seems contrived and the tension wears out as you see the two sides continuously escalating for no real reason - predictably, the protagonist discovers the simple truth and is repeatedly frustrated in his attempts to communicate it. This blocking is obviously just a plot device to heighten tension and anxiety in the audience. But it just becomes tedious.

If you'd like to watch a movie with the underlying threat of a nuclear Armageddon, perhaps you should try "The Hunt for Red October".

Rating 3/10 (Just for the effects and the attempts at acting)


This film was one of the worst of the year. I don't even know why I bothered going to see it now, but I suppose that the good reviews in UK film magazines won over my doubts. This film took itself far too seriously. It made me laugh to see all these second rate actors who never play anything else but generals and presidential advisors shout out stupid words that no one would ever say in such a ridiculous situation, until I realized that this would go on for two more hours. Then it made me sad to see actors like Philip Baker Hall, James Cromwell, Alan Bates and Morgan Freeman, who have all done far better films (Magnolia, L.A. Confidential, Gosford Park, Seven), submerging themselves in this crud. The plot was more stupid than Clear And Present Danger. What do these people have to gain from trying to start a war, as it isn't a religious belief? The film never explains any character's motivations, except that everyone either wants to save their country and their president, even on their death bed, or they want to blow up america. It was also flatly directed, attempting some form of style (no wonder it's Phil Alden Robinson's first film in ten years), which only managed to irritate, and STILL that American anti-smoking message gets through, because, as this film wants you to believe, only neo-fascists who kill innocent people smoke. So to all you smokers out there, quit before you turn into one! Or alternatively do whatever you like but please avoid this painful excuse for a film.


Oh dear, what a let-down. This movie left me with the feeling that two hours of my life had been stolen. OK, so this is Jack Ryan before Patriot Games (given that he's unmarried ... the movie is unclear on the time when it's set), so he has to be young, but Harrison Ford managed to portray Ryan as a nice guy, insecure but fundamentally smart, and Affleck just can't do it. He tries hard, but is handicapped [ironically] by his good looks and boyish smile.

What is even worse is that the script does Affleck no favours. [SPOILER ALERT]. He makes a crucial phone call to someone who doesn't trust him and fails to put the key information in the first sentence? That's fundamentally stupid. He dashes around the world like a demented chicken rather than staying cool and making a few phone calls? And then there's the plot holes: John Clark can't or won't speak Russian? He doesn't seem to know that most Ukrainians understand Russian? Cathy gets knocked over - inside a hospital - by a nuclear blast, stays there for hours afterwards, and doesn't suffer any radiation after-effects in later books? Come on, this is well beyond belief. [END SPOILER ALERT].

Clancy writes well, and deserves credit for coming closer than anyone else [SPOILER ALERT FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE MOVIE] to predicting September 11 in "Debt of Honor", which I read on a plane coming back from Japan :-( [END SPOILER ALERT], but watching this made me lose belief in Jack Ryan and therefore to lose interest in Clancy's books. I really am tempted to sell or donate all my Clancy novels and just keep "Every Man a Tiger" and "Into the Storm", where his ability to write military tactics combines with fact.

Perhaps, though, "Sum of all Fears" is just a blip in Clancy's writing career. The following conversation took place in the men's restroom after the movie:

Me: "That was bad". Him: "Yeah, and the air-conditioning was freezing". Me: "Wasn't there some woman character in the book who made things really difficult for Ryan? She was totally missing from the movie" Him: "Oh, you've read the book?" Me: "Well, I started it" Him: "Was it boring too?"

QED.


This has to be THE most ridiculous movie I have ever seen. From the creators' point of view, if you portray this movie as a potentially realistic thriller, then at least give the audience some credit... Opposing presidents use the CIA-version of IRC-chat to talk to each other in the midst of a mini-nuclear war, helicopters and cars survive a nuclear blast at point blank range, characters travel around the globe at light speed, Israeli's lose a nuke and don't even bother searching for it, and everybody in this movie just seems to be brainless (apart from Mr. Freeman's character, which is probably why he has to die in the first place...)...

I thought the other Jack Ryan movies were a joy to watch, and at least you didn't have to worry about incredible plot holes or disbelief over some of the patriotism, stupidity and truths in the movie, but THE SUM OF ALL FEARS really rocks off the scale. I figured having Mr. Clancy as executive producer on this movie should have helped, but he presumably kept in touch through his AOL Instant Messenger.

My advice: go see this one (but only if you have some money to spare), but use an open mind, and try to think you're smarter than them...

By the way, my rating: 3/10 (I must be in a good mood...)


I would say the end of the movie was not believable.

I was a bit afraid to have Ben Affleck as Ryan. I 've seen the the other two movie with Harrison Ford. I would say he was credible as a young Ryan.

The part showing the work at the CIA and Ryan trying tho show its views was good. The Russians were schematically played by the actor. It looks like they just went out of their caverns. Still the cold war vision.

The end starting from the explosion was non believable. Having the president of the United States starting a nuclear war with just the opinion of four persons in a plane look unbelievable to me. I press or I press not the button? Bah ok I press it. And zou no more earth.

Vincent (Belgium)


Good build up but this thriller is not always thrilling. There is one good sequence that is tense, but it is hard to care about the characters. The relationship with the girlfriend was lame. Overall pretty average.


why are all "black" films exactly alike? it's like they all use the same black dictionary to write scripts. does anyone know why everything is so foggy in the beginning. i don't think i've ever been in a hospital with a foggy hallway. anyway, this film is very self righteous. "i was here with your father doing god's work"? what does that even mean? how can you say what god's work is? is god your homeboy? also, you can basically tell how the movie ends about ten minutes in to it and no one in the movie can act very well.

however, i don't think this movie deserves to be on the 100 worst list. it's boring and predictable, but not that bad. Plan 9 isn't even on the list, that deserves to be on there way more than this film.

p.s. to the people that posted before. the reason this movie got bad reviews on here is because it's a cookie cutter film, not because we dislike christians. honestly, i couldn't care less about Christianity and this film solidifies the fact that i won't be walking in to a church anytime soon.


This was a pretty generic movie. If you like Gospel music this will set the mark. But do not look for anything but a text book prodigal son returns story to go along with the music. I probably could of wrote this review without seeing the movie because of the formula for this sort of the movie is the same the players just change.

1) Two boyhood friends

2) Something catastrophic happens to make one of them go astray

3) One stays home and basically becomes the either a Priest, A social Worker, a teacher or a policeman or some other pillar of the community.

4) The other one either became a harden criminal, or rich and famous who has lost his way and has rejected his previous life

5) Something catastrophic brings him home again, Either they are running from the cops. There's a death in the family or a little brother is out of control and is one step away from being on the Top of the FBI's Most Wanted List

6) Man returns only to find his best friend is either bitter or or to good to be true. Then neighborhood is in shambles and the Prostitute or the dope fiend at the corner is his ex girlfriend who left when he ran out of town. Oh and a family member is sicker then expected. And a beloved local landmark, be it a church, a park, a movie theater or high school hangout is being threaten with closure or is in shambles

7) the ending either consist of the person being captured by police in the case of the criminal, after saintly best friend turns him in. Or he decides to stay and use some of the millions he had made to thwart the beloved place from closing down. And if they do not get their ex girlfriend from turning tricks and taking dope they will fall in love with a new girl. Bitter buddy and him have mended fences. And they all live happily ever after. The End.

This movie has a little bit of each of the steps I mentioned with a few variations to the template. I believe the supporting cast was very good and the music was. But the following is a Bad Actor Alert from the Emergency Broadcast System. I loved him on Soul food but Boris Kedjoe was about as convincing as the Singing Nun playing a Usher type R&B star and was equally not convincing as a Gospel singer. That scene at his mothers grave toward the end of movie rivals the bad acting of Vin Diesel. This is a actor who IMO was good and good looking in Soul Food. But something was lacking here. He even looked strangely odd to me. His Co-star Idris Elba from The Wire on the other hand was very good. I think I could watch him in about anything.

I would recommend this move for people who love Gospel music. But for me because of the laziness of the script and the absolutely appalling acting from the lead the movie was barely watchable.

I wanted to comment on the comments about why people dislike this movie. I liked the Ten Commandments, The Fighting Temptations, Kingdom Come etc. My dislike for this movie had nothing to do with some anti religious sentiment. My dislike with the movie is because it was just a big music video with a generic script wrapped around it. Sort of like those bad Elvis Presley movies like Girls! Girls! Girls! when in the script was just added to the his singing. Being there are so little types of these movies being made I believe a lot of people crave them and are more then willing to over look the ineptness of this movie. We should expect more and demand it.


"Honor Thy Father" is a very slow, unexciting TV made movie about an inner city Mafia family. A good source for school projects but thats about it. Otherwise, don't watch it for entertainment or you will be bored to death. I just have to say it's a good thing I got this film for free.


Anita Ekberg's the highlight here in a comedy that needed a real villain for Hope and French clown Fernandel to play off. Instead we get a bunch of black-suited Keystone cops types who chase Hope around for the last half-hour of the picture. Lots of weak slapstick stuff in zis veddy zilly French movie.


Oh well... I've seen a lot worse than this. It's brainless, its only selling point are the three gorgeous women and the script is stuck halfway between nonexistence and Never-never-land. Not completely awful, but still I have a hard time finding the point. But I'm guessing it's got something to do with money.


Simple fun.

Often movies with a simple and low brow approach fall on their face but this one pokes fun at itself for it so it's not necessarily a requirement.

Drew Barrymore was the only mis-cast person I can recall. I appreciate her as an actress but she hardly seems fit enough for the physicality of the part.

Largely eye candy, it's worth a watch.


With a screenplay rewritten close to thirty times, three actresses whose only duty in the film was to whip their hair and seduce their enemies, and finally a music video director credited as McG, what could we expect. The only thing we could have hoped to save this movie were the Matrix-type shooting of fight scenes and the consistently funny performance of Bill Murray, who the director left out of much of the film.

Many people have at least recognize that the film, as far as writing and acting, was not to be taken seriously and the only thing you were supposed to be paying attention to were the beautiful women and the fast paced action scenes. But I can not begin to understand how anyone could give this film any credit at all.

First of all, Drew Barrymore gives a horrible performance as Dylan. Cameron Dias, whose work I have enjoyed in many other films, gives as equally an annoying performance as Drew Barrymore. And Lucy Liu is no better than the rest. The only thing I can say is, the cast relied too much on their director. In fact, the only person I could stand in the film was Bill Murray.

Even with the action scenes, the movie is terrible and the action does not help at all. All in all, this movie is terrible, don't rent, don't even consider renting it, take your time to get a good movie.


What you'll find in Charlie's Angels: - Simpering - Hair-flicking - Giggling - Matrix-style kung fu - MTV directing (no shot lasts for more than three seconds)

What you won't find in Charlie's Angels: - Characterisation - A storyline - Depth - Anything to think about - Acting

Even as popcorn entertainment, it's shameful that such a film could be produced. It's a 2-hour mix of things that are popular, not a film in it's own right. It's disgraceful and quite saddening to see the movie industry reduced to this sort of thing.


The real plot summary of this movie is: THREE CUTE CHICKS SAYING AND DOING THE STUPIDEST THINGS BUT LOOKING GREAT WHILE DOING IT! Like Alex (Lucy Liu) that climbed a mountain and then to a helicopter wearing high heels!

Action movies always abund in wisecracks at the most inadequate times but this one really beats them all. One of the bad guys runs from the "angels" and Alex (Lucy Liu) goes: "Why do they always have to run?" A dialog can´t get any worse than that, I thought! But then Vivian (Kelly Lynch) goes: "Never send a man to do a woman´s job." Oh, please!!! Or in the middle of a cat fight, Natalie (Cameron Diaz) telling Vivian: "Do you know how hard it is to find a quality man in Los Angeles?" Who cares?! She´s already made her point by staying on the phone with the guy while both her life and Bosley´s as well as the whole mission were at stake. To see more things that ruined this great idea read the "goofs" section and also the "memorable quotes".

It just seems hard to believe that the creators of the tv-series would write the script for this... mock of the series!

Then the cast! Lucy Liu as a fragile little woman baking muffins?! I don´t think so! Or Drew Barrymore saying "And that´sss kicking your assss!" And I´m sure the guys loved the shaking butt of Cameron Diaz but it didn´t do anything for me. As for the bad guys... only Vivian (Kelly Lynch) was convincing. Tom Green was the only good choice as Chad and the only fun in the movie as far as I´m concerned. As for Matt LeBlanc, I´m looking forward to seeing him in a role other than that of a "bad actor-good lover".

The only good thing about this movie - besides "the Chad" - was the surprising soundtrack! I would´ve never imagined I could hear Sir Mix-A-Lot or Prodigy in a big Hollywood production!


Bedazzled is a maddeningly flat attempt to remake a classic. It isn't horrid, but I suppose people as talented as Harold Ramis and Brendon Fraser would really have to try to produce a really bad film. The problem seems to be pacing--this version seems content to hit a so-so joke every couple of minutes, while the original was much more consistently funny. This version is hardly trying--in the original, the magic words were "Julie Andrews!", here they're "I wish". Does "I wish" seem funny to you?

 The big difference is of course casting Elizabeth Hurley as the Devil. As an actress, Ms. Hurley has very nice breasts. That's probably unfair, she's not bad and does bring a sense of panache to the role, but she raises a problem--why would the main character still be interested in his co-worker after getting a gander at Ms. Hurley's cleavage?

 Fraser is sensational, and probably deserves an Oscar nod if people in comedies ever got Oscar nominations. Fraser is just about the only actor who can go from drama (With Honors) to action (The Mummy) to comedy (George of the Jungle) and be credible in each. He handles his various roles impeccably. But the screenplay is flat and listless, and seemingly goes from set-up to set-up with no motivation. The ending is straight out of the blue, although it does make a certain amount of sense. Still, Bedazzled is a far cry from the original.


Elizabeth Hurley is hopelessly lost in her role, trying to spice the devilish flavour with ridiculously idiotic walk - I had no idea that Dark One hopped around like (not even a Playboy) bunny. Brendan Fraser, although somewhat intense with early geekish Elliot Richards, enjoys being there more as the film grows. Watchable from a rather aesthetic point of view - dramatic changes of scenery make it fast and sometimes even fun.


Brendan Fraser is an above average actor who is made to look like a star by the wooden "acting" of Elizabeth Hurley. Whoever told her she could act wants locking in a padded cell. Each time Fraser moves into a different character you hope that the film will fulfill it's potential and then just as you are getting into it we go back to Hurley which not only brings the film back to Earth but on it's way to Hell. The original with Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore was a much better film. I realy think that films with Liz Hurley in should have a big warning on them so I don't watch them by accident. I would have given this film a 7 but Hurley has brought it down to a 4.


One of the most childish films i've seen recently. From the beginning you get to see how full of cliches and stupidity this movie really is. And i'm not necessarily talking about the story, which could've lead to some interesting plot, but about the way the movie goes on and the clear intentions of the director. This is the classic tale for a kid, when you try to teach him the importance of being yourself, not what you wish to be, and the "meaningless" of trying to change. And the ending is absolutely awfull and stupid. Still some good gags now and then. Vote: 4 out of 10.


I am a huge horror buff and found myself looking around my local Blockbuster the other night. After a short while I stumbled on to the DVD entitled "Freak Show". Immediately I was drawn to it because the cover art states "Banned in 43 Countries"! Also, the back cover art reads "one of the most horrific movies of the last few years" or something of that sort. Well let me be the first to tell you --- This is a complete SHAM.

The movie starts off very slow and bored me to sleep in the first 30 minutes. Because I am a huge fan of B-rate horror movies, I managed to down (3) of my favorite energy drinks in hopes of pulling through to the end. I will not ruin this awful movie for you, but I will let you know that I will NOT rent or buy anymore Asylum movies after this rip-off. How can this movie be banned in 43 countries, yet have ZERO amount of gore until the last 10 minutes? Not only was there no gore, the movie lacks anything that resembles something suspenseful or scary! The last 10 minutes of this film is the high point, and that falls very short of the films potential.

If your interested in seeing a low budget version of HBO's series Carnivale, then this is the one. If your a horror fan and want to be completely ripped off by false advertising then go ahead and rent this one. You too will be as irritated as I am. The production value of this film was excellent, but the plot was very boring and there is absolutely nothing scary about this one. This was a complete waste of time. It amazes me how they can write that this film was the most "horrific and disturbing film in years" and "banned in 43 countries" yet give no sources or credits. Total BS!

You won't be getting my money anymore if you continue to mislead the public. Even the low budget horror fans can say enough is enough and shop elsewhere. There are too many other fine films to see, than to be ripped off by flashy cover art and totally false and misleading claims. TWO THUMBS DOWN!


I was dumb enough to rent this movie just because it said that on the cover and I wish I had paid more attention and realized they didn't say where this quote came from. They obviously just put it on there and its completely false. There was nothing shocking, nothing exciting, and nothing entertaining in this movie. It was one of the absolute worst movies I have ever seen as there was no character development, bad acting, bad dialogue, and it moved very slowly. Do not support this movie. You will be very disappointed. For the record, I enjoy B-horror movies. This wasn't even good in that B movie, funny kind of way. Awful all around.


I can't believe this is compared to Todd Brownings Freaks! Sure the storyline holds some similarities but thats it. A terrible long drawn out movie, with a feeble attempt at a plot. Bad acting, bad special effects, just a all around bad movie. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll up the screen. If "C" movies exist then this would make the "D" category. The acting is so bad in this movie, that it makes you work double time on trying to follow the really horrible plot. The ending is the worst I have ever had to be put through in one sitting, when the girl has to be remade to fit into the "Family" for betraying them. The longest "meat fest" in film history,People we get the picture, you don't have to show the family hacking away at this girl for 10 minutes for us to understand what is going on. Please lock this movie away in a lead sealed vault, weld the hinges and bury it 300 feet deep within the bowels of the Earths surface, and please,please,please....Never direct another film as long as you live.


This movie is a really poor retelling of Todd Browning's 1932 classic Freaks.

It is essentially the same story of circus folks (offend one, offend all, etc) but instead of genuine freaks you get heavily tattooed people into body modification as the main freaks. Guys with stretched-out earlobes and excessive tats do not a freak make.

The only redeeming feature I can recall is the "cannibal girl" who is notable for her beauty and is not a freak in any way other than being freakishly hot. She is the only reason I did not bestow a rating of 1 on this movie.

The original Freaks movie was great because it had all those genuine circus freaks in it and was very controversial at the time of conservative film making.

This flick borrows, nay, steals heavily from the 1932 Freaks and even steals it's "banned in X countries" logo from the original. The only reason this modern Freakshow movie might be banned from anywhere would be for plagiarism.


Freakshow is set in a circus where Lon (Christopher Adamson) runs a freak show, scheming blonde tart Lucy (Rebekah Kochan) & her slimy boyfriend Lee (Mark Preston Miller) decide to rip him off. They devise a plan where Lucy seduces Lan, gets him to propose to her & then kill him off leaving her to inherit all of his money so she & Lee can live happily ever after, simple eh? What could go wrong? Well, Lucy gets cold feet & her murderous plan is discovered & the freaks want revenge...

Directed by Drew Bell & although uncredited & unacknowledged Freakshow is a remake of Tod Browning's controversial classic black and white horror flick Freaks (1932), not wishing to put to fine a point on it Freakshow is frankly crap. The script by Keith Leopard is pretty faithful to Browning's original but with several changes, the basic story of a 'normal' person trying to exploit the freaks by marrying into their number is still present & correct but it's the character's which are the main difference. In the original the Lan character was a midget called Hans & he is presented as a naive lovestruck child, someone to sympathise with & feel sorry for, here in Freakshow Lan is depicted as nothing more than a dirty old man who wants a nice young blonde girl to give him a blow job when he wants, motivation which just doesn't entice the same sort of feelings towards him. In the original the Lucy character was named Cleopatra & again in a way you could see that she was evil but wanted a good life of her own with her boyfriend, here Lucy is just a slut who is used by both Lan to get a blow job & by her boyfriend to help him steal Lan's money & she falls for it. In the original the freaks themselves were proper character's, here they are just a collection of amputees missing various limbs, dwarfs, retards, a strongman & a half-man half-woman thing who barely feature. The dialogue is poor, the character's turn the original story from a sometimes moving piece involving real people into a standard low budget horror where you don't care about anyone & to top it all off it's seriously slow & boring with virtually no exploitation or gore at all. There's one bit in this I don't get, Lucy refuses to drink out of a bowl that the freaks had just drank out of fearing drinking their spit, however it is also shown that Lucy has no problem having sex or giving a blow job to a man old enough to be her dad & literally covered in warts & boils!

Director Bell does nothing to make this watchable, the entire circus consists of three tents, one carousel & a ferris wheel which no-one ever visits! This film has the most number of slow, boring & utterly pointless fades to black at the end of a scene I've ever seen in a single film, it also has some utterly awful gramophone style 20's & 30's music constantly playing on the soundtrack to maybe try & evoke an atmosphere like the original 1932 version? The film is also shot in a sepia tone (again maybe to try & mimic the original black and white original) which gives everything a candle lit orange type hue, like yeah that's original isn't it? There's very, very little gore here, the filmmakers hired some of those masochist type guy's who hang themselves on hooks which piece their skin & can be found just about everywhere to do several hooks piecing the skin on their backs type scenes, there's a bit when someone cuts a girls scalp off, someone head is bashed in (off screen), someone is hit with a wrench (off screen), someone is stabbed with a knife, someone has part of their throat bitten out & the end sequence which doesn't last that long & is again full of annoying slow fade to black shots when Lucy has her lips sewn shut, the skin on her body sliced off as well as the skin on her face in a scene which is much less effective than a similar one in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986).

With a supposed budget of $1,000,000 one has to say Freakshow felt like it had a lower budget than that & I wouldn't be surprised if it was. It looks grubby & cheap with horrible music, annoying editing, poor special effects & a circus which consists of about three tents in a field. The acting sucks as well.

Freakshow is a terrible film to be sure, it's one of those films which promises much but delivers nothing. There's no gore for 80 minutes, the character's are awful & if you don't think that matters watch the original again & see the difference. It's throughly boring to sit through as well, one to avoid.


This is simply not a movie I am extremely broad minded when it comes to films and I adore low budget movies because it enhances the meaning of art behind the process of film making. This movie is perverse, it provokes a feeling of sick to your stomach and not in a good way- I'm not even conservative when it comes to these things. It also has no plot except to make you want to vomit. It is one long cheap gag and not worth even putting on for five minutes. If you like movies with substance or at least some kind of plot or real scare do not watch this if you are however, looking for something to scream at this is perfect for you.


I bought this movie without any high standards set for it. I originally bought it to see the ending that had so much hype surrounding it. To briefly put it, I got what I expected.

The story was... well.. nonexistent. The story was, I believe, about an outsider who worked for the circus as the ticket sales-lady. The owner had fallen in love with her, and she wished to marry him. Assumably, she only agreed to marry him for his wealth, which is what caused the rest of the movie to fall into the pieces it did.

After a good, hour, hour and 10 minutes, of absolutely nothing happening besides low- grade sex scenes, and persistent cussing, the "banned in 43 countries" violence began, which I can honestly say didn't satisfy my blood lust, but it did leave me saying "Eh, good way to end it."

The sex scenes were very frequent, but they were very boring and plain. Honestly, the R. Kelly video where he pees on the young girl, is a lot more interesting than the sex scenes in this film. I could have made better sex scenes with just myself.

The violence began decently cartoonish, and evolved into an Eli Roth styled partition.

As for film qualities, the acting was fair. Wasn't too impressive, but I have definitely seen worse (*cough* Trolls 2 *cough*). The film production was honestly, very well done. The filming styles and camera angles were nothing new or too fancy, but they definitely set the mood of the film. The soundtrack was very suitable, kind of an old-school styled sound which fit the film grain and the feel of the film.

Honestly, I would only recommend this film to 12-year-old boys who are desperate for nude scenes. If you are a fan of horror, or B-Horror, or Independent films, please, stay away. It will not please any of your senses, because anything "positive" from this film has already been done.

I gave it a 2/10, and that's me being generous, and for the ending.


Well, this is far from horror. For about an hour it is nothing more than a drama... and even as this not really a good one. This was one of the weakest pieces of crap i have ever watched. It was lame, boring and the acting was just awful. It takes about 55 minutes of slow paced intrigue (and made me yawn a couple of times) until that so-called horror starts. A little girl is killed by one of the villains and her blood spattered body is found on the big wheel of the circus the next morning... huh! A few minutes later one of the villains is killed with a big hammer and another one gets stabbed with a knife... that's all. And did i mention the really annoying music? This was horrible and really got on my nerves. Brave as i am i sat through and don't know why by now. This was one pretty bad experience. Definitely NOT RECOMMENDED for anyone! Banned in 42 countries? Haha... what a joke... they must be kidding!!! You can only be disappointed with this one and waste time of your life you'll never get back. Done.


I just don't know what to say about this film, it was so bad on so many levels that at the end of the 90 minutes I feel a mixed emotion of disappointment at time wasted and a curious wonderment as to if I've actually seen what I think I've just seen.

Now, I don't know the movie Freaks however I wasn't expecting the story line to be particularly original but it was worse than that. A clichéd storyline only marginally bolstered by an unusual setting. It may have been carried by some reasonable acting, but if the word had been defined by the standard in this movie then I think actors would still be waiting tables as it bought in a higher salary.

The production values were awful as well, with an dire soundtrack and even more abysmal editing. I assume the sound and costume were supposed to give us a feel for the era of the film as in itself it did little to set the audience expectation. But the soundtrack did little more for me than want to smash the damn gramaphone to splinters (you'll see/hear what I mean).

So what then made this a horror? Well it was those last few minutes. Although the concept, the hook if you will, was quite gruesome and to some extent deserves a little merit. Now the imagination can create a disturbing empathy given the right nudges and it made me feel uncomfortable so job done! Right? But still, even though the idea was great in the end it was the ham fisted execution of the concept that will probably make any self respecting movie go-er recoil in horror the most.


On the DVD's cover of this straight-to-video mess is the hype, "In the Tradition of Tod Browning's FREAKS." As bad as Browning's opus was, it was a masterpiece compared to this 2007 version. Oh, sure, there are similarities between the two freak flicks. Both Browning's and Bell's exploitation expos are badly acted, technically inept, and appear to have been edited with hedge shears (some of the scene shifts in "Freakshow" are so badly constructed, the viewer has no idea what happened).

Anyway, "Freakshow" does follow (read: "steal") the plot of "Freaks" (a white trash non-freak chick attempts to marry a circus freak to get at his money). In the original, the horny mark was a midget, but in this movie, the "victim husband" is a guy with bad teeth and covered with boils. The viewer gets to meet a large variety of physically and mentally deformed characters (none of whom could act) in the original. In this remake, there's a bunch of freaks, too; one armless dude, one legless guy, a handful of dwarfs and a bunch of extras in bad make-up and cheap masks (none of these people can act, either).

"Freakshow" meanders on really not reminding the viewer of Browning's flick until the pre-wedding party scene where the freaks induct the bride-to-be into their world. If you remember that wonderful scene from the original flick ("One of us! One of us!") you're going to hate the way it was re-imagined for this movie. And then there's the ending.

Tod Browning's final scene revealed that enigmatic and jaw-dropping "duck-girl." The viewer had no idea how she got that way, but they knew that the freaks had turned the unfaithful woman into the greatest freak of all. It seems that Keith Leopard, "Freakshow" scribe, decided that anyone who plunked down four bucks to rent this turkey deserves to see how... perhaps, I've said enough. Suffice it to say that the reason the film had no production values to speak of was because they had spent all of their money on the special effects for the last 10 gut-wrenching minutes. A lot of times, an "unrated" tag on a film is nothing more than a marketing tool. Those last 10 minutes take "Freakshow" way out of "R" land.

Tod Browning's "Freaks" really was nothing more than cinematic filler leading up to the final, quick glance of duck-girl. "Freakshow" also wants the viewer to be amazed at the final denouement.

But, you are going to be soooooo disappointed.


Well once again a DVD box at the rental store drew me into a wasted night.Who could resist a movie that claims to have been banned in 37 countries?So ,even though by now I should know better,I rent this thing and take it home.

So we have a traveling circus and one of the attractions is the freaks or strange people as I think the sign on the tent said.Also traveling with the circus is the support group of guards and mechanics etc.Anyway a few of these support guys and a girl decide to rob the circus during it's travels.The group decides that the girl should cozy up to the owner and trick him into marrying her where the group of plotters will have access to his fortune.Apparently the owner of this fleabag circus has big money somewhere although looking at him you'd never figure. The owner is a repulsive mess,bad teeth,greasy hair and big yellow boils all over his body.

The boil covered owner of the circus feels more at home with the freaks of the show than he does with normal people.He considers them his family.His family protects him as one of their own when they feel he is in trouble.Therein lies the main plot I guess you'd say.

This movie really sucked bad.It was just too much for me to believe that the beautiful young women would have sex with the oozing nasty owner for all the money in the world.She was so hot she could have found a much cleaner and less repulsive sugar daddy.The sets were lousy shots of tents and the Ferris wheel was shown over and over.There never seemed to be any people at the circus and all the workers just sat around slurping beer from bottles that somehow came with no labels on them.And the sound track was the most irritating soundtrack of any movie I've ever seen....one after another of bad fakey attempts to recreate old scratchy songs like they sounded on records made in the 20's and 30's.On and on these miserable songs went until I was nearly mad.

And the acting was bad.Terribly bad.And I'm not even sure this movie had a script as many of the actors seemed to fumble for their words.Or maybe the budget was so tight that re shots weren't allowed?The freaks themselves weren't really all that freaky except for the one that looked like a miniature version of the Toxic Avenger.Special effects were minimal,little bit of gore near the end but for the most part this movie was just people doing mostly talking.A couple of women showed their breasts but they were small and uninspiring.I think I gave it a 3 mostly because of the breasts because really this movie was probably a 1 or 2 at best.

It's very apparent that this movie was nothing more than a sad weak blatant rip-off of Tod Browning's "Freaks".This mess is totally forgettable and I probably wouldn't have even finished watching it had it not been a cold rainy day with nothing else going on for me to do.

The only way this crapola was banned in 37 countries was for being so bad.Skip this crud fest and watch Browning's original.