I love watching bad movies and laughing thru them. i couldn't laugh at this. its just horrific. the jokes are painful, almost all of them involve farting which usually stops being funny after 6 years old. random nudity was the best bit, the worst was the spoofing of other films, the gay guys horrible acting, the bad sound, fuzzy picture, rat-ass acting, insanley cringeable sound effects, rubbish visual effects and shaz-house-rat plot. worst film I've ever seen, a title previousley held by the invisible maniac. its total crap. avoid. it took two hours of my life. i want them back.

Sometimes i wish IMDb would let us give zero stars.


I've seen hundreds of poor films. My friends and I often watch films in a "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" setting: watching the worst movies we can find and make fun of them for the purpose of entertainment. That being said, it is safe to assume that I have seen terrible films such as "Shrunken Heads", "Doctor Gore", "Night of the Scarecrow", and "Miner's Massacre".

This "film", however, is absolutely terrible from start to finish. I was somewhat put at ease at the beginning of the film when it became obvious that this film did not take itself seriously (which CANNOT be said for most bad movies). However, this film instead tries to be a spoof (of many things) and fails at every single attempt. As a film, a 5 year old could create a movie with better technical value. The sound, film quality, acting, and dialogue are bottom-of-the-barrel bad. I did not rent this movie thinking that it would be "Citizen Kane", but the problems with this film go FAR beyond the lack of ANY technique. This film tries to make several types of jokes (situation jokes, juvenile jokes, etc), and fails every single time. I cannot imagine anyone in the universe laughing at ANYTHING in this movie.

Basically, if you rent this, I hope God has mercy on your soul. Odds are you will not survive "Cheerleader Ninjas", which could very well be the worst film ever created.


Raunchy low budget spoof of 80's sex comedies covers an universe of tired gags and jokes. The Happy Valley Cheerleaders must contend with the disgruntled group of Blessed Virgin Reform School girls recruited by their scorned homosexual teacher(..he wanted to be a cheerleader and was denied). He has formed an unholy union with a Catholic religious nut who operates the reform school..she believes the Internet is harmful to society and wishes to destroy it forever, while also desiring to quell the sinful image of scantily clad cheerleaders in the process. Meanwhile, the cheerleaders join forces, reluctantly, with a group of geeks, obsessed with Star Wars and Star Trek(..dressed in masks and uniforms)who must stop a zombie internet computer virus arranged by the homosexual teacher thanks in part to his partnership with a mysterious mastermind, Mr. X who wishes to take over the world.

Looking like it was made for little or nothing, Cheerleader Ninjas drags the well for water that has been vapor for quite a long period of time. The zingers and sight gags on display are cringe-inducing instead of funny-bone tickling. Don't let the nifty cover fool you, the scrumptious Kira Reed isn't a ninja(..the whole reason I rented this to begin with)and the fight sequences are phenomenally lame. I imagine those who rent this will walk away as incredibly bored and disgusted as I was, expecting far more than we were rewarded. Sure, Kira Reed gets naked for us, but I can rent some of her soft-core erotica for that pleasure.

The cast tries with all their might to make worn out material work. I can see how the filmmakers wanted to create a lovingly goofy ode to those teen sex comedies we all know and love, but it has all been tread ad nausea. A parade of stereotypes are on display..the cheerleaders, Star Trek geeks, Catholic school girl sluts, flamboyantly gay teacher aching with rejection, and uptight fanatical religious nut all share screen time and remain in costume. It has, surprising enough, gained a cult following. Should remain a Bottom 100 IMDb mainstay for years to come.


On an impulse, my roommate and I rented this from the local Hollywood video. We thought it might be funny or at least somewhat enjoyable to watch ninja cheerleaders chop off some people's heads or something. But no. No. This was not enjoyable. It was, I must say, the WORST Piece of trash I have ever seen. I sat through Gigli; I suffered through Cutthroat Island; I even made it all the way to the end of All the Pretty Horses. But none of those mockeries of film come close to the disaster that is Cheerleader Ninjas. I can't even put into words how disgusted I am that it will show up on my rental record that I saw this vile piece of human excrement. WHAT WERE WE THINKING? Save yourself. Do not, under any circumstances, rent, buy, or watch this...this...thing masquerading as a movie. Even the nudity is so horribly done that it is painful to watch. I hate this movie, so very very much, and wish I could burn every copy in existence. No wonder the terrorists hate us so much. They see movies like this and think, "These people must all die!" And in the context of this movie, I am forced to agree with them. Ugh.


...damn.

This "film" looks like it was done by a high school journalism class. It seems to never know if it wants to go porno or comedy. There really is nothing to save this film. The story is something about computers and cheerleaders. I think the cheerleaders are whores and that ticks off moms or something. So they send other bigger whores to beat the hell out of the cheerleader whores. And I think there's a bomb defused at the end. Plus it has gay guys. It's movies like this that make me sad that someone financed it.

The only reason it gets one above the lowest is because it made me chuckle once. And if you ever ask me in public if that happened, I swear to God I'll deny it up and down.


There is not one redeeming quality about this thing that tries to pass itself off as a movie. For starters, it is one of those "self-aware" films that uses cutesy humor to show the viewer how clever it thinks it is. It also manages to be offensive to women, homosexuals, teenagers, African-Americans, the Catholic Church, and many others. On a technical level, it is totally inept. It seems the filmmakers never got over rejection in high school and decided to strike back at their imagined tormentors. Get over it, guys. The bottom line? If you can stomach over 90 minutes of fart jokes and moronic sound effects, then by all means throw your money away on this cinematic abomination.


This movie was made for me. Cheerleaders + Ninjas = AWESOME!

This is a totally low budget film. It makes Crawlers seem like Titanic. I'm sure I could have backed it. This movie is so low budget the only way you can get it right now is to order a copy from the director. This is exactly what I did after hearing it featured Cheerleader Ninjas vs. Catholic School Girl Bullies. Sweet!

In the movie The Catholic School P.T.A. decides that the influence of Internet erotica is too much for their little town. After some surfing they decide cheerleaders are behind most of this stuff - after all they are on a lot of the sites out there. Their attack is twofold. Its like something Napoleon would come up with. They get the bully girls in the Catholic School to harass the cheerleaders and hire an Internet guru to blackout all those 'bad girl' Internet sites.

After being pushed around by the bad Catholic School girls the Cheerleaders fight back. They go to a ninja master and learn the art like good grasshoppers. Soon afterwards, they are joined by a band of Computer Geeks fighting to protect the only access to hot women the have: the net. This all leads up to a big show down.

Overall this movie is o.k. I mean the premise is cool. But it is not what I expected. I was thinking it might be like The Cheerleaders, or Amazons, or Christine's Addiction, or Buda. But no. The only busty scene is played for comedy. I'd say there are too many fart jokes too. Considering the fact that this is kinda a big home movie more then a movie, Skeeter will give this one a 4 for 10. Everett Hartsoe puts out similar but better stuff with a similar budget.


This is some of the worst crap I have ever layed my eyes on... I think that a 5 year old in kindergarden could write a better script, and that using only charcole and paint.

It's movies (or is it even a movie?) like this who makes people download movies from the net. Had I bought the movie, I would have been sad for the rest of my life (Yes, It's THAT bad.....)

But if i should come up with something thats "good" about this movie, it must be the reference to Star Trek and the shirts the "Geeks" are wearing.

Now I'm off watching Zombies 94 or Jesus Christ Vampire Slayer (Hey at least it's got a point ;-)


I just want to know how this movie happened. I didn't see any references to Troma in the credits.

I had previously considered Astrozombies the worst movie I had ever seen, but it was bad-funny. Lots of long boring scenes that dragged on for no apparent reason. Cheerleader Ninjas looked promising mostly because of the title and there was not a girl in her underwear on the box. I thought maybe they would go for more of a ninja-type thing. I was very wrong.

I was honestly shocked at how bad the acting was - I've seen community theater that was exceptional compared to this. I did find the use of a body double for the main character somewhat funny because I can't imagine how the stand-in could have been a worse actress. (I kind of feel bad criticizing others so harshly, but it was like they weren't even trying.)

Actually, I don't want to reflect too much on how bad the movie was, just try to warn others so that they might not suffer the same fate as me.

On second thought, it might be worth watching for young teenage boys who can't afford to rent porn and really feel the need to see naked women - no, I think they would even be disappointed.


If you find some things to be so stupid that they're hilarious, then this movie is for you. That is the point of this movie. However, if you rented/bought this movie expecting it to be a conventional comedy, then I recommend that you never rent/buy a comedy that has Ninja or Cheerleader in the title, let alone some combination of the two. I gave the movie a 2 because awful implies that it should never be watched under any circumstance. Cheerleader Ninjas is a solid choice if you're in Blockbuster and want to find the cheesiest movie they have. Going on a rant about how bad this movie was is a waste of breath. Also, if you could not tell by the title, the humor is very immature which can be a plus or a minus depending on your taste.


I know there are a lot of people out there looking for terrible movies to watch, because they have great comedic value...this is not one of them. This goes way beyond awful into the realm of what the hell is going on; I considered vomiting. There is a limit to the amount of masturbation jokes that a person can stand. Making fun of trekkies is fine by me, but it wasn't even funny in this movie...and the girls are truly hideous, the acting is terrible, the plot is...nonexistent. Plus it's pretty much porn (but poorer quality), which is certainly not obvious from the movie case. I love bad movies, I really do, but don't watch this with the expectation that "it's so bad it'll be good." Because it isn't. End of story. I'd rather sit through 'Gigli' 100 times.


Imagine back to when you were 11 years old. Now imagine if you were given a $200 camcorder, permission to film in your parent's garage and on their front lawn, the incredible special effects of a kaleidoscope, and a few 'actresses' taken straight off the 'Girls Gone Wild: Too Ugly to Air' video. It's feasible that the end result could be better than this horrible waste of VHS tapes and DVD discs.

Let me precede this by stating that I usually enjoy bad movies. Low budget, horribly written films often entertain me albeit if only by unintentional comedic value. That said, Cheerleader Ninjas is a movie that's not only terrible, it's also not the least bit entertaining or humorous. Not only did I not laugh once, but a good portion of the film was spent of me asking, 'What the hell is going on?' To say there were plot holes would be inferring that there was a plot, and it's obvious there isn't one.

I acknowledge that the movie wasn't meant to be taken serious, but it couldn't even pull that off right. Not one second of this 96 minute torture device was funny, and the 'writers' seemed to know it (you have to use the term 'writer' loosely here, for it insinuates that the movie was written before filmed). To get a minimal amount of the audience to sit through it, they wrote in pointless fantasy scenes in which a random girl takes her top off for whatever reason. Not to mention Kangaroo Jack has been beaten for the number of fart jokes within a movie, for Cheerleader Ninjas has one in *EVERY SINGLE SCENE*.

In conclusion, do not see this movie. Yes it's a bad movie, yes it's a horrific atrocity of a movie, but not the good way. Most bad movies are so bad they in fact become entertaining, but this one failed even in that way. Instead it relies on fart jokes, boobs, and an inane storyline about the internet or something. The hour and a half spent watching Cheerleader Ninjas could better be spent in a number of more enjoyable ways: sleeping, staring into the sun, playing Russian roulette, etc Do. Not. See. This. Movie.


Super gay Stephen joins forces with catholic schoolgirl ninjas to fight dumb as rock cheerleaders because they didn't let him be a cheerleader in this beyond retarded little waste of celluloid. The word subtle is seemingly not in the vocabulary of writer/ director Kevin Capbell as the humor is deathly obvious and painfully unfunny. At 96 minutes long, the only few people that will be able to sit through this steaming pile of excrement are avowed masochists. Awful with a capital A, if anyone actually derives any entertainment in the least from this (and I'm very hesitant to use this next word) film, I'd NEVER want to meet them during my travels, if only for the reason that they'd in all likelihood end up drooling all over my shoes.

My Grade: F-

Eye Candy: Kira Reed, Angela Brubaker, and Alissa Shanley get topless


I have seen a lot of movies and this is by FAR the worst I ever seen. My wife and I couldn't stop watching it out of disbelief. I must admit we laughed a lot because it was so bad. If your looking for nudity, there is plenty but I've seen a lot better. The computer geeks are portrayed by having guys wear Star Trek uniforms. As far as I could tell, the "star" Kira Reed doesn't even play a character, just a body double in a fantasy scene.

Once in a while I like to look for the worst looking title I can find because bad movies make you appreciate everything else in life more. If you ever feel like watching a grade C movie, this is a must see. Also try and find "Hillbillies In A Haunted House".


How could anyone like this movie? I avoided this movie because I thought it would be merely fluff, but a girlfriend brought it over for movie night, so I decided to give it a try. While I generally love Reese Witherspoon in many movies (Election and Freeway are awesome) neither she nor the other good actors could rescue the bad story, two-dimensional characters and poor writing in this trite movie. C'mon gals, do women really act like this? Would you treat good people who love you like that? No way. Why do male screenwriters decide to portray us like this anyway? At the end of the movie I said out loud, "This must have been written by a man". Sure enough: (Story By, Screenplay By, Directed By) all men.

**SPOILER** Additionally, I am getting sick and tired of the leave-them-at-the-alter-but-we-can-still-be-friends? overused storyline. Why is it considered romantic to treat another good person who loves you in such a cruel manner? It seems that disregard for kindness, decency and public humiliation is the best romantic story in today's vapid Hollywood boardrooms. This woman is rude and cruel to good people. She says and treats people horribly and we are supposed to believe that if she says "I'm sorry y'all" or gets a little weepy that this is good enough for 100% redemption? As a viewer, this was a hard pill to swallow. She lies to the man she loves in both cases; runs away when times are tough ("for good times and bad, til death do us part" yeah right); publicly humiliates her friends (several times); betrays confidences that in the deep south could mean life or death--Give me a break! I believe that you should be able to empathize with the protagonist, but I found that I hated her and the story. Why do we choose to be spoon-fed this insipid crap? I think that as moviegoers paying good money that we need to be a little more critical when a bad story, bad dialog and unbelievable situations arise in movies.


This film had good intentions I guess, but it didn't really come off that way to me. This film is about a woman who is about to marry a nice guy politician from New York but has to go home and divorce her ex-husband who refuses to sign the papers. The films general message is that success and being rich in life aren't important, having babies, cooking, getting drunk and pottering about doing not much is what life's about. I'm not so arrogant as to say it's a wrong message, I am a lazy person, it agrees with me! But the problem starts with the fact you are supposed to love this up herself girl who comes back and insults her former friends and you just don't find that happening. This film tries to twist and surprise you which it doesn't do and you find her transition, jumpy and forced, instead of a steadily realisation she just seems to wake up or click instantly into this next stage of realisation (after punching a woman in the face.. hmmm.. our heroine suddenly develops a very strong south American accent and this quick transition comes across as purely ridiculous.

You find yourself majorly worried by the immoral (inevitable) walking out on a really nice guy at the altar, who is just supposed to accept that because of Witherspoon's nice smile (which he does "oh my heart's broken I think I am OK with you leaving bye"). Classic old school romantic comedies at least had the decency to make the other man a git, or at least plotting or not wanting to marry her themselves. I would comment on the blatant racist north America south America overtones but I don't really know enough about this to comment. Not bad acting performances from all the cast despite the script and plot.

Life is short but not so short you should avoid watching this film, after all it's a feel good film.


I couldn't believe I sat through the entire movie only to see her end up with her loser ex-husband. The ending was so unrealistic I feel I wasted two hours of my life watching that trash. I walked out after that, but I hear there were several more minutes of worthless filler afterwards.

7 years of trying to get a divorce, 8 months of being with "Prince Charming", and she gives it up after being in Hickville for a week?? Give me a break, not to mention giving up her New York lifestyle and future career.


Of course this was one these movies your girlfriend make you sit through, which, normally, is ok. Normally they aren't this flat and usually these films is more determined at which genre it's going for. This film starts of with the prospect of a Romantic drama, sprinkled with some comedy here and there, which would have been ok. The setup is of course obvious, but there might have been some interesting things to show had it been allowed to continue that course. To me it seems as if this film is being instructed by two VERY different directors, because the depiction of Alabama population in the last 2/3 of the movie reminds me most of all of cartoon characters rather then actual homo sapiens. This way to go would also have been fine if it had been taken all the way, in stead of betting on two horses like this. Had the movie gone for either the farce or the drama, I'd probably have given it a 5/10, but it didn't - it mixed up the two and got a cocktail of boring and flat out failure. 3/10


I could only rate this a 3/10 for Reese Witherspoon and Candace Bergen. The story of sweet home Alabama girl Reese and her desire to divorce her first husband in order to marry JFK, Jr. lookalike Patrick Dempsey is flawed from the first frame. However, Ms. Witherspoon is able to transcend the material and make the movie somewhat inviting. Candace Bergen as the Mayor of New York is totally unbelievable. Patrick Dempsey is given virtually nothing to do - and he has talent, but wasted in this picture. Josh Lucas - husband number one - lives in the requisite trailer and chugs beer at the local tavern. But, he is also a pilot and established wood designer. So, the premise that Reese is from the wicked south, uneducated and teen bride is baseless. The picture is totally predictable and a waste of time, except to watch Reese and Candace go at it during the wedding.


This movie is neither funny nor even remotely interesting. I can sum it up in one word, BORING. This type of movie has been so overdone and for this movie not to bring anything new to the table is inexplicable. The cast is barely adequate and this movie demonstrates just how over rated Witherspoon really is.


When you can't afford Matthew McC, hire Josh Lucas.

America's new sweetheart, Reese Witherspoon -- night now, Sandy B. -- does her best at holding this most formulaic so-called romance together.

Seriously, I'd type how I REALLY feel but I just realized that I'd be wasting more time than I did WATCHING this 122 minute fiasco.

If you don't see every single angle coming, then you might as well stop seeing films.

Utter trash.

And I'm not certain that a single stereotype goes unwrapped.

Reese, you're better than this.

But after "Legally Blonde" and this, you might have to re-prove yourself.

3/10


While many people in their film ratings consider "turkeys" like Dungeons & Dragons and Plan 9 the worst possible movies, I don't agree - these kind of movies are interesting in their horrible, absurd execution, acting and script.

In any case, "Sweet Home Alabama" is not spectacularly bad, but it's certainly blend and not original. I consider those kind of movies the absolute worst. As for the "comedy" part, forget it. There are no crazy jokes to light up this grey mass. The movie is based on a love affair. Even worse, it's based on two men in love with the same girl. (!!) I know many girls have excellent taste in movies, so don't take it the wrong way when I call this movie a chick-flick.

Reese Witherspoon plays an annoying character. She could probably play some good supporting roles, but as the main character she is just very "un-fascinating". A girl who drools over expensive rings - I can't really put into words how little attractive that is. The character is, in other words, not deserving of the attention of two men. Which again makes this movie even less interesting for men.

When you have "everyday" movies like this, ie. not in historical, sci-fi or other spectacular settings, and especially if it's a (*sigh*) LOVE STORY - you need really, really good actors, original characters, and several funky plot twists. None such here.

Again, this movie is the worst kind - cliche, plain and boring. Which is why I gave it a "5", even though it's one of the worst movie experiences I've had in years - to separate it from the more spectacularly junky experience of a "sub-3" movie.

I won't tell you how the movie ends, but to put it like this: I probably could tell you without signing the "SPOILER ALERT".

In any case: Avoid this junk.


I'm sorry, but I don't know what people saw in this movie? To sum it up: Reese's character was totally shallow. She's mean to her friends, family, fiance & husband but they love her anyway. The ending was totally predictable. The movie was a time waster for me.


This is the kind of movie Hollywood excels at and when they make a good one, it can be fabulous. I expected this movie to be a lot better. It was too cliched and the tender moments were just corny. The acting was fine, it was the directing and script that weren't just weren't good enough.


Another one of those movies where all of the humorous parts were in the trailer. Totally predictable and really not very funny. Sorry I bothered to rent it. I wasn't expecting a totally original story-line but I rarely even smiled during this movie. A romantic comedy should be funny.


After seeing only one episode of Lexx I'm convinced this is really not able to be in the shadow of the original and very witty Science Fiction series Red Dwarf. It amazes me how little is left of the original idea. The characters in Lexx are stale and shallow, the acting is not convincing and the jokes are not funny. I realize that this is a personal opinion, and perhaps a bit slanted because I am "European", and perhaps because I am such a big fan of Red Dwarf.

The disappointment already starts in the beginning with the (clumsy) titles, whereas Red Dwarfs immediately takes you by surprise every time with it's starting melody and the really big space ship, with some tiny tiny men painting the giant words Red Dwarf on the hull.

Holly, the board computer in Red Dwarf, is replaced by a non convincing robot head. Even when looked at as a series in it's own right, completely set apart from Red Dwarf, the series lacks both a good plot and convincing characters. Even the effects are cheap and not convincing.

The only thing I liked were the original decors in Lexx. Why not buy the original script of Red Dwarf, hire a bunch of good actors, and try to make a good American version of the story?


The worst sci-fi series I've seen, I cant think of anything I can compare it too that makes it look good. The pacing is terrible, nothing happens without 10 second close-up shots, 30 second establishment shots, ten different shots of the encased brains and every single one is stock footage. Maybe if they had cut each episode down to 30 minutes they would used less film or video and have some money to spend on actors or props or effects. Everything surreal or interesting is stolen (Warriors of plasma came up with the idea of a planet made of bio-organic material and the melting of people to feed it. Hitchhikers guide the idea of a small group of people stealing a giant ship from a universal government and goofing around with it) I couldn't find previous examples of every idea but none felt original. Everything else is stupid or boring.


For years I been hearing about how original and good is this show, but after watch the first 4 Tv movies I just a found just a few pieces of trash with nothing new except there is anything less science. As many other stories of science fiction this saga begins with one prophecy of one warrior who will kill the ultimate evil who destroys his world, then all the classic elements are changed just to put a bunch of laments characters commanding a big space ship of an ancient insect race who manifest in the end of the fourth movie with the form of a human(at least the face). The stories are in the middle of path to the horror and black comedy, showing all the things as it were of a real science fiction but without just a little piece of real science. The special effects are not bad but the acting and the characters are almost unbearable. I been watching reading science fiction for more than twenty years and after watch this I can only say this has nothing original


This movie is the cheesiest vanilla'est movie I have ever seen. And we're not talking about Kung Fu Hustle kinda cheesy where it's funny and silly. I'm talking about absolute cheesecake factory with extra mozzarella...

The story has more holes than a block of swiss cheese (pun intended).

Instead of listing all that is wrong with this masterpiece, I'll just sum it up and save you the pain.

This is the movie:

*spoilers*

Opening scene - Massachusetts's native Caucasian American male who loves KungFu movies has dreams about Chinese man-ape fighting on top of mountains. (Not loosing any time with the cheese here)

2 - Our hero then gets ganged by the local ruffians who decide to use him as a decoy for a robbery. They cleverly deduct that robbing a Chinese store owned by a 150 year old shopkeep would make for a big payday... (Beats robbing a bank if you ask me)

3 - Things don't go as planned with the robbery, old fart gets shot, hooligans freak out and our young Caucasian friend gets teleported to China a few thousand years in the past. (Nothing out of the ordinary so far...)

4 - A wandering alcoholic (and kungfu master) joins our hero and helps him defeats the local authorities who apparently spend their days killing civilians and harvesting virgins. (life must've been great bad in those times)

5 - Our friendly heroes (now 2) get in another stint with authorities when they try to pay for their beverages with US dollars. (Apparently in China, paying with dollars is a capital offense). For no particular reason, pretty face Guitar-Hero-wannabe girl helps (and joins) our gang by killing two bad guys. (No one seems to object her joining the group, guess they got tired of the sausage fest)

6 - The good guys (now 3) encounter a fourth acolyte (also a kungfu master) who's kinda mean to them at first, but now he's nice. He joins the group (no questions asked of course). The happy gang (now 4) is making astonishing progress!

7 - "You have no fighting skills! You can't beat the last boss!" our young fellow is told by his mates. No worries! That's nothing a two-day intensive training won't fix. *Rocky - Eye of the Tiger soundtrack*

8 - Our newly leveled up hero then storms the to the final castle. Strangely, he doesn't have to fight anyone but simply rides his horse past guards and meets with the big boss. (So much for that 2 day training you may think)

9 - The last fight scene is more or less a big mosh-pit of kung fu for 10 mins. Bad guys dies, no twist, everyone is kinda happy.

Final Scene - Our hero returns to the present and it turns out the old shopkeep isn't really dead. THE END.

Now I did leave out a couple of details but that is essentially the movie in a (big) nutshell. I'm giving it a 2 (and not 1) because it has given me such inspiration to write this review. Anyways, next time you're in Boston, please be careful in Chinatown, you might fall victim of spontaneous time traveling...


i saw A lot of kung fu movies, bad ones old ones new ones good ones parody ones ones with stars ones with unknown actors, try a name of a martial arts movie on me, i probably saw it.

but a movie that takes TWO great actors, TWO great fighters, and BLOWS so bad!, i have never seen such a disaster.

it's like an 80's movie! i mean this movie is like the neverending story 3! yes it sucks that bad, and it has the SAME story line!.

u wanna know the plot? here it goes:

"Bad 80's Movie!"

To all of you i have but one Warning : the next level is UWE BOLL!


WOAH what a stinker. It's embarrassing to see Jet Li and Jackie Chan in so many pandering scenes with a dumb worthless white kid in order to try and get suburban drones to watch their movie. This is really pathetic usage of the stupid kid as comic relief for a really lame story about returning a magical staff to save the world and all that good stuff.

There's the hot Asian girl that has absolutely no chemistry with our male lead- and his martial arts ability is a big fat zero and any fight scenes with him in it are just miserable to watch.

It would have been a good movie if they could have just edited out the stupid worthless white kid and made an interesting story instead of this trash. The kung fu is wire fu for the most part, with not a lot of realism, just a lot of crap. Jackie and Jet should be ashamed of themselves for starring in this disgusting dog. PLOT: 95 pound weakling gets a hold of a magic staff and needs to return it to it's rightful owner - a martial arts master, along the way he befriends people that magically speak English even though they are Chinese that have never seen a white guy.. and that's just one of a long list of groaners that will make you go.. please kill me I can't stand this anymore.

Better title- Crouching White Kid Hidden Pandering.

If you must watch this- just fast forward through any scene with the kid in it or risk throwing up- some of the fight scenes are OK, but there's so many more movies out there that are better- like Iron Monkey, the Fong Sai Yuk series, House of Flying Daggers, Prodgial Son, Kiss of The Dragon, Ong Bak, etc...


So I usually turn to IMDb before I go see a movie and IMDb usually is on point with its overall rating for a movie. However, when I took my girlfriend to see the Forbidden Kingdom it was painful to sit through the entire movie. I had only been let down once this horribly from the overall rating before on IMDb and that was with Across the Universe when it got a review of 4 out of 10, when I thought it was a work of art. The Forbidden Kingdom has a terrible story with awful dialogue. Poor visuals, "Keep an eye out for the background while they are sitting in the cave." Poor acting, horrible character development, lack luster computer graphics and etc. The main character only knows English, but ironically so does everyone he befriends in the Forbidden Kingdom... Those are just a few examples why I disliked this movie. On the bright side the kung fu was very well done and that is the strong point of the movie. I'm boggled at all the positive reviews and ratings this movie has received on IMDb. So the lesson learned is don't believe what you read on IMDb. So disregard this rant and go see it for yourself and be prepared to be disappointed.


There were, including myself, a total of 5 persons in the auditorium. One walked. I should have followed. Animated Coke ads were far more entertaining than this cliché-ridden garbage: armies of Munchkins borrowed from Wizard of Oz, ear-splitting insipid music stolen from Star Wars to induce an artificial sense of excitement, a forgettable tale of morals with no morals. I could quote the tiresome dialogue before the words had been uttered. Wearying ideas and effects stolen from Indiana Jones and Lord of The Chinese Ring of The Nibelungen made for an altogether dreadful yawn of a yarn whose characters I could not care a bean for, even if ALL of them had been peed on. I was acutely aware of the passing time. I fidgeted through it only because I was with someone. I was far too polite; just wanted to click my heels and go home. Look out for Forbidden City 2it may smack youright in the face.


Four sorority girls take a much-needed vacation from the pressures of school (after showering and changing clothes for about ten minutes, of course) and travel to a secluded cabin in the woods with their boyfriends. All is well until an archaeologist excavating a nearby cave awakens an entity that possesses him, turning him into a murderous creature. To relieve viewer boredom before the tame killing scenes occur, Debbie Dutch dances in a bra-less half-shirt and Dori Courtney messes around with her boyfriend in the hot tub and runs around in the woods topless.

This micro budgeted Super 8 production should have been funnier, the creature is barely seen and the face on the cave wall with glowing eyes and echo voice is awful. You'd be much better off watching SORORITY BABES IN THE SLIMEBALL BOWL-O-RAMA or SORORITY HOUSE MASSACRE 2 as far as sorority girl horror comedies go.


OMG this film was so awful that it was funny! The dialogue was the poorest I've ever seen! The acting was even worse! The director - where was he?

It's not surprising that the writer and director John McBrearty has only worked on this film, and no other! the guy hasn't a clue! nor has his wife who co wrote this piece of trash!

However if you want a pi$$ take out of a film, and have a few laughs along the way, then watch it purely for this purpose alone! I managed 30 minutes and that was just because I was in shock!


What the heck was this garbage? This was the worst stinking movie I have ever seen (Redneck Zombies a very close second). What kind of writer decides that an anthropologist, or whatever he was, is going to go into a cave, come across a paper mache mask glued to the wall of the cavern, and witness the "obvious" Christmas tree lights turn on behind the mask's eyes and hear the infamous words..."AAAahhhhh... you will serve me in blood!" and proceed to turn into the Creature from Hell. I rate this movie a negative 23 on a 0 to 10 scale. Don't waste your money folks... it's better to go out and buy a "tickle me Elmo" doll because, at least, you can punt this baby around your yard and feel good about it!


No, not just POSSIBLY one of the worst...it IS the worst film of all time. A real stinker. The director ought to be taken out and shot. If you ever get the urge to rent this piece of garbage--if you can even find it anywhere--do yourself a favor and rent something far more watchable, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space."


This was my first experience with one of those Japanese Godzilla movie, but I wasn't too exhilirated about it.

The monsters such as Godzilla escape from Monster Island because of an alien force trying to take over the world, and enslave the people. This results in an attack from the monsters on all major cities in the world... but Godzilla knows who his real friends are...

Silly story, silly effects and an ending which power rangers would be ashamed of... but then again, laughable at times (is that a good sign?).

4/10 for some moments of fun.


Seems the more monsters they feature in a Godzilla movie the less time the monsters are actually on screen. This one once again has aliens trying to take over earth with monsters...a whole lot of monsters. Some we have seen before (Godzilla being one of the main ones) and a few we haven't (some weird snake looking thing). All in all though this movie bogs down more than once as it seems it would rather focus on the people rather than the monsters. In one scene we are treated to these guys using some laser beam to cut something and the scene goes on and on. They show what the laser is cutting, they show the device, then they show the guy cutting and this goes on for a good bit. At the end though there is an all out monster attack as we regain control of the monsters, but it isn't much fun as it has poor King Gidorah squaring off against way to many monsters, they really should have given him an ally to help him...unfortunately, Gigan and MechaGodzilla had not come into being yet.


I saw this film for the first time at the tender age of four...and absolutely loved it. For years afterward I collected Godzilla films, and for me, Destroy All Monsters (or Kill all Monsters as I misremembered it) was my holy grail. Well, I finally got ahold of it (of course, by then it had been 14 years, and I was 18). I was *hugely* disappointed. There isn't anywhere near enough footage of the monsters, what footage there is often substandard or stock footage. The more obscure (read less popular) monsters have about 30 seconds of screen time, and lame retreads like the T-rex from King Kong Escapes get more screen time than Manda or Varan. Who gets all the screen time? A plucky band of humans in a rocketship. Very lame. The final "climatic" battle is just every monster Toho ever made vs. Ghidra...hmm...I wonder who'll win? Well since Rodan, Godzilla and Rodan did it by themselves in Ghidra's first appearance, what's the likelyhood that he can beat all of them? Its a very short sequence, and, somewhat predictably, all of the minor monsters don't even really participate. If you want to see good multiple monster Toho action, I recommend Ghidra, Monster Zero or perhaps Godzilla vs. Mechagodzilla or Terror of Mechagodzilla. Believe me, I'm a big G-fan, but this movie is one of the worst.


Even if Leonard Maltin rates this higher than KING KONG ESCAPES (1967)  giving it ** against the latter's BOMB  I seemed to enjoy that one more; mind you, both are essentially dreadfulbut, at least, the KONG film had a good deal of campiness going for it  whereas this is merely dull (in spite of megalomaniac aliens and a plethora of monsters)!

In a way, the film is a rehash of Honda's own MONSTER ZERO (1965), which I watched some time ago  where you also had an interplanetary attempt at world domination that saw the involvement of a clutch of Toho Studios monsters. Here, however, we get a greater variety of the latter: dinosaurs Anguirus, Baragon, Gorosaurus, Godzilla (along with its annoying baby offspring Minilla) and the flying Rodan, the spider Kumonga, the snake-like Manda and the worm Mothra. Though all these are eventually brainwashed by the aliens to do their evil bidding, destroying several of the world's leading cities in the process, the latter provide their own monster  King Ghidorah  for the grand finale (during which it takes on all comers but, obviously, emerges the loser). That said, only Godzilla Snr. and Rodan receive any decent exposure throughout the film!

While it is accompanied by a typically rousing score, the action often comes across as confusing rather than exciting (not to mention unintentionally hilarious during the climactic monster mash). As for the plot, it's all quite dreary  and lazy: all the Earth monsters have conveniently been assembled on an island to be studied (yeah, right  just try to get a blood sample from Godzilla, or Rodan, for that matter)...but, then, the aliens (naturally possessing superior intelligence and frightening assurance  they must have missed MONSTER ZERO, for they're deluded into thinking that the monster ensemble can't hold a candle to King Ghidorah!) manage to fit all of them with a conditioning device behind the ears!!

Finally perhaps its most amusing elements to me were the fact that the island personnel (channeling the monsters' individual movements on a monitor) are able to judiciously cross-cut, for suspense purposes, between attacker and prey (a moving train) during a demonstration; the film-makers could have fitted the aliens with make-up or, at least, a mask so as to hide their all-too-obvious Asian countenance (there's no suggestion in the script that that they may have adopted such a disguise in order to go undetected among the Earthlings); also, for a kiddie film, a lot of the human characters are heard cursing the aliens (sure, it's in Japanese, but the implication is unmistakable).


This movie is so incredibly bad, it stands out on its own, it can't be categorized even into the sub-zero "Z" grade of Japanese monster flicks. (Several of them were quite good, in fact). A buddy & I dabbled in film-making on our own in the 50s, and the stuff we shot was D.W. Griffith or C.B. DeMille compared to this one! The broken airplane hanging on a string, the Lionel train, the village with the name "Plasticville" on the side,the Bernz-O-Matic torch sticking out of Godzilla's mouth, all of these things and so many more make it an absolute agony to watch, in fact, that's what makes it so good: waiting for the next scene to see if it will possibly be any worse than the last one! Its most memorable piece is the emergency convening of the Japanese Joint Chiefs of Staff, as the monsters are wholesale destroying Tokyo, nuclear bombs can't stop them, the combined military might of of all the Allied forces just make them more angry. Calling the meeting to order, the chairman blurts the stupidest line in cinema history when he says "GENTLEMEN, THE SITUATION BEFORE US IS SO BAD, IT'S WORSE THAN IT'S EVER BEEN BEFORE!"

This one is so bad, it can't even be rated as "good" because of its badness, absolutely, positively, without par or equal, the worst film ever made (And trust me on this, I've spent 50+ years screening bad movies, and this one made me put down my beer, sit up straight in the chair, drop my jaw, and say to myself: "THIS PIECE OF S**T IS SO F(*&^%G BAD< I"VE GOT TO HAVE MY OWN COPY TODAY!!! I won't even give "benefit of doubt" to the possibly it may have been done this way on purpose!

Now, I generally rate the Jap monster flicks by how far off the lip movement is to the sound track, this one, who cares? This is one Bad, awful, movie. Check it out! IT SUCKS! AND REALLY BAD!!!

Oh, yeah, almost forgot: There's a cut scene that has nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the film, a group of veterinarians watching a film of someone slicing open a huge boil on the nose of an elephant, and gallons of pus and swarms of maggots pouring out! Why is it there? I don't know! Go figure! YUUCHH!


Seven years have passed since a sorority sister was killed as a result of a Russian-roulette-type initiation, which was ruled an accident. Then, five members get anonymous invitations to a reunion at a place to which the girls are taken from a central meeting spot by two guys. Although the duo has been paid only to transport the quintet, the pair is with the girls when the fence around the estate closes, locks and electrifies. They learn that their captor is the father of the initiation victim, and the remainder of the movie shows how most of them get knocked off - with a minimum of gore. Although much of the film (especially the first half) is slow-moving, I wasn't discontent at having spent the time to view it. In fact, I watched it a second time, thinking that maybe I missed something as far as the ending was concerned. Did somebody believe that THAT was gonna provide the most compact conclusion? I came away questioning it's logic.


After an extremely bizarro pretitle initiation scene where a sorority pledge is murdered, "Sisters of Death" becomes a rather dull affair. The film has the look and feel of a made-for-TV production--its titillation is a tease at best, and the violence is almost remarkably subdued. Seven years after the pledge's murder, the five remaining sisters are invited to a reunion at an isolated mansion, presided over by an unknown host; two male escorts hang around as the girls get picked off, one by one. While "Sisters" isn't necessarily boring, its restraint and overall lack of innovation doesn't make for exciting viewing. There is some character development, and the film comes to ludicrous, multiple-twist finale, but by then it's too late. Still, it merits a "2" based solely on the gorgeous female cast, all of whom look fine in bikinis and/or negligee.


When a movie opens with an execution style murder the last thing you might expect is that this is going to be a bloodless tease-fest. Sisters of Death is just that.

Contrary to some of the reviews here, Liz Clybourn is not killed from a Russian roulette initiation ceremony. That would involve a single bullet loaded into a single chamber of a revolver. Liz is shot when a live round is loaded into a single-shot derringer instead of, one assumes, a blank. The purpose of this ceremony remains a mystery but somehow the sisters are not charged with murder.

Fast forward seven years and the remaining five members, Judy, Sylvia, Diana, Francie, and Penny, are invited to a reunion by a mysterious individual somewhere in the southwest. The women meet and are escorted by two men, Paul and Joe, who are hired to transport the ladies to the mystery location. Once they arrive at a private estate the ladies begin to unwind a little and enjoy the pool complete with new bathing suits for each of them. Paul and Joe sneak back into the estate because, well, they're men and that's exactly what I'd do, and soon the seven of them party into the next day.

Not is all as it seems as the mystery guest abruptly introduces himself amongst most assuredly many hangovers as Liz's father, Edmond Clybourn. Suffice to say he has not gotten over his daughter's murder and intends to expose her death as not a mistake but rather the evil machinations of one of the sisters. They become trapped inside the estate as it is surround by an activated electric fence. Panic ensues and intelligence drops as the guests are knocked off one by one.

How do you cast a playboy playmate, the beautiful Claudia Jennings, and not show off some skin? All of the women are attractive and are constantly clad in either a bikini or negligee. I have to admit that nudity would really have helped me enjoy this movie more since the first forty minutes is boring as hell. Once the women realize that they are each being hunted down by a crazed father bent on revenge they immediately lose any and all common sense like sleeping in separate rooms. Stupid! The deaths are as bland as you would expect of a PG rating. I do give credit to the ending. I liked it and it made perfect sense to me. Too mild for me. I wouldn't be surprised if they showed this on the Disney channel.


I can't say much more than other reviewers. A group of particularly dumb people hook up at rich man's house, and do dumb things and get themselves killed. The fact of the matter is, they had all the tools at their command to disable that electric fence (or short circuit it). The bad guy hangs out in his room and leaves them alone most of the time. They can come and go, plot, talk, do whatever, but no one comes up with a decent idea to get them out. Then there are a series of ridiculous plot twists that leave us guessing (guessing why we ever watched this in the first place). The girls are all attractive and run around in swim suits, but that is really damning with faint praise. Why is it when people start getting killed, the characters do things like take showers, away from the rest of the group. Or go nosing around "by themselves." There is truly strength in numbers. These people never figured that out.


- During an initiation ceremony, a girl is accidentally shot to death. At least it appeared to be an accident. Her father doesn't think so. Seven years later, he sends anonymous invitations to the other girls to gather for a reunion. His plan is to find the girl responsible for his daughters murder and kill her. If some of the other girls die along the way, it's of no concern to him.

- Sisters of Death is a typical low-budget horror film from the 70s. I've read that it was actually made in 1972(?), but not released until 1978. I don't know why, just thought it was an interesting fact. Bad acting and a ridiculous plot are the "highlights".

- There are several examples I could mention as problems within this movie. But, I'll just note two small scenes that left me scratching my head. 1. The girls know that there is a madman loose in the house. They've even met him. Yet, when it comes time to get some sleep, they all go to their separate bedrooms. If you knew someone in the house wanted to kill you, wouldn't you want to remain as a group? 2. Toward the end of the movie, a dog suddenly comes bolting out of the house and attacks one of the guys in the group. Where did this dog come from? Did he suddenly materialize out of thin air? And, after he pushes the guy into the electric fence, where does the dog go and why doesn't he attack anyone else? These are just two of the mysteries of life.

- Sisters of Death features Joe E. Tata who, I understand, appeared on Beverly Hills 90210.


Starts off with a college initiation ceremony in a group called "The Sisters" where a girl is accidentally killed. Then the film cuts to seven years later where the remaining five sisters are called to a reunion in a house in the middle of the desert. They find out too late that the house has the dead girls father (Arthur Franz) and he is determined to punish them for his daughters death.

Only made to cash in on Claudia Jennings inexplicable popularity in the 1970s. She was a very beautiful woman but no actress. The plot is by the numbers and is boring, stupid, full of gaps in logic and seriously silly dialogue. If you're watching this for nudity or gore--forget it. The film is rated PG--there's no nudity (although they come close once) and there's no gore. The killings are a little bloody but that's about it. This is also one of those movies where the characters act like a bunch of idiots--they know they're trapped in a house with a maniac yet the split up in separate rooms and one decides to take a shower! This was held back from release for seven years--it's easy to see why. Dull, dreary and stupid. Avoid.


"During a sorority initiation ceremony, something horrible goes wrong and one of the new members is accidentally killed. Seven years later, the remaining sorority sisters receive invitations to attend a reunion at an isolated mountain estate. Unbeknownst to any of the women, the resort is owned by the father of the deceased sorority member, and he is looking for revenge," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. Very poor, but not a complete waste. There are a couple of cute scenes, early in the picture. The women, including 1970 Playboy "Playmate of the Year" Claudia Jennings (as Judy), are pointedly beautiful. Ms. Jennings was much more entertaining in "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase" (1976). This horror film is not frightening, and you won't see much more, or sexier, than you would in a TV episode of "Charlie's Angels".

** Sisters of Death (8/77) Joseph Mazzuca ~ Claudia Jennings, Paul Carr, Arthur Franz


Seven years after a pledge is tragically killed in a sorority initiation rite, five of the other sisters are invited to a remote mansion (modern style, not Gothic) where they face a fight for their lives, "aided" by two horny young men who are trapped with them. Why are they being killed and who is (are) the killer(s)? Such is the premise of this fairly entertaining "B" horror/mystery movie.

The acting is about par for this kind of movie and though it is clearly a product of the seventies, it doesn't seem too dated. The story is a fairly straightforward and predictable one up until a very strange ending that just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. However, there are some creative set ups to kills, and the film works fairly well even without gore or nudity, and little suspense. I think this is partly because the pacing is good and doesn't allow it to get too boring.

Not the greatest movie, but if you like "B" movies, then this one is surprisingly entertaining.


OK, I 'll admit it: I was fooled by the salacious DVD cover for Sisters of Death, which claimed that the film contained 'images of a graphic nature which may cause offence' and featured two images of hot, scantily-clad women (who aren't even in the film). The reality is that this cheap slice of 70s drive-in fodder is extremely tame stuff, featuring very little violence, no sex, and almost no nudity (although it does admittedly feature several hot, scantily-clad women that aren't shown on the cover, including Playboy Playmate Claudia Jennings).

The story revolves around a group of young women who are invited to a reunion party seven years after a bizarre initiation ceremony at their sorority claimed the life of one of their 'sisters'. After arriving at their remote destination, a house surrounded by an electric fence (NOT a castle, as stated on the DVD cover), the girls become trapped and begin to die one by one...

Poorly acted, and with shoddy production values (the film has a tacky made-for-TV vibe), Sisters of Death is rarely scary, never shocking and, as a result, very disappointing. If 'This is the version they didn't want you to see!!!' (as the cover also warns), I hate to imagine how lousy the version they did want us to see is.


A handful of years before "Halloween", "Friday the 13th" and other movies that claim to have started the slasher-genre, there was "Sister of Death" More than a decade before sorority-themed slashers like "House on Sorority Row" etc, there was "Sisters of Death"! This movie was even shot (not released, though) before "Black Christmas", and that classic horror film is more or less regarded to as the granddaddy of ALL crazy murderers on the loose flicks! Then why doesn't this movie enjoy the status of a genre milestone? Well, quite simply because it's crappy! Immensely entertainingbut nevertheless crappy! Seven years after that dreadful, life-ruining evening where a group of sorority babes accidentally killed their newest member (guns aren't toys, ladies!), the five remaining members all receive invitations to a reunion. They all go, even though it's unclear who invited them, and end up in an isolated mansion in the middle of nowhere. It doesn't take long before they meet their killer, who turns out to be the revengeful father of the murdered girl. Simple, straightforward plot and five incredibly sexy female leads! How on earth could this go wrong? Well, due to some really poor plotting, a total lack of continuity and weak directing, Joseph Mazzuca still somehow managed to mess it all up! This is the type of movie in which dumb characters do incredibly stupid things for absolutely no reason, so they pretty much all deserve to die. There are occasional flashes of sheer tension, but even more imbecility and lameness. And, like another reviewer already pointed out, there's should at least have been some nudity. What's the point of casting nothing but gorgeous sorority coeds if they're not taking their tops off? Stay clear, unless you're a fan of low-budget and forgotten 70's trash.


My mother bought this for Halloween at the Dollar Store for something fun to watch. Truly a bad movie. Watch for the microphone dropping into the frame from above near the pool. There is the typical nudity tease but there is none. In that respect it is safe for kids. (SPOILER ALERT) The death scenes are great fun though. Our favorites were the electrocution and the strangulation. The faces were so great we watched it over and over. Great for a laugh! Also, is that Starsky and Hutch? If you see it for a dollar and want some laughs, get it, otherwise pass.


This movie plays like a parody. The girls are brainless, and constantly make stupid choices (hmm? strange mansion? free bathing suits? let's go swimming!), and the ending, as other reviewers have mentioned, is baffling. The two thugs who corral the women here have mixed motives...are they thugs? good guys? perverts? The movie doesn't bother to tell us. In fact, it leaves out most of the things (e.g., character backgrounds and motivations...in fact just characterisation in general is lacking in this movie) that might make its story logical.

In short, this is the kind of movie that sits on your head and squeezes it while you yell, "why! why! why!" Only watch with friends and only if you intend to do a "Mystery Science..." type riffing session during it.


During a sorority initiation ceremony a girl is accidentally killed. Seven years later, the girls who took part in this event are individually invited to attend a gathering at a remote mansion. It subsequently transpires that they have been brought together by the father of the dead girl, who is seeking retribution. Then a series of murders begin to be carried out by an unknown assassin.

Sisters of Death is a pretty unsuccessful thriller. While the premise is reasonable enough, there simply is nowhere near enough effort put into generating suspense. All of the characters act in too much of an ambivalent way, they just don't seem to be concerned that a maniac is picking them off one by one; so it's hard for the audience to exactly care too much either. The movie could also have benefited from the injection of a little more grindhouse content to liven things up. Despite the presence of the five Sisters, there aren't any erotic moments. It's all strictly PG, sadly. This extends to any violent content. Until the final showdown, all of the murders are committed off-screen. Surely it's not too much to ask for a 70's film called Sisters of Death to have at least some salacious content?

The best thing about this was the ending. And I do not mean this as a cheap gag. No, the ending was at least a little bit surprising. Although if you think too much about it, I'm not sure if it really entirely makes sense judging by what's gone before. But I'll leave you to be the judge of that for yourself. But other than this, unfortunately, Sisters of Death proves to be a pretty boring movie.


Now i don't say this because of the possible getting shot in the head in an initiation to a sorority (yeah, i know. it's stupid) i say this because if you join this sorority, you may end up in the movie "Sisters of Death" and that my friend, is worse than a gun shot to the head.

Welcome to number 14 on our 50 movie list of "Chilling Classics" and well, you're in for another less than mediocre film. We begin with what looks like an initiation to like a satanic cult, but it's actually a sorority. (They only have 4 members?) and for some reason they show their courage by having a fake gun put against their head and the trigger pulled. but uh oh, in a really obvious twist the gun kills one of the girls! oh noez! oh no wait. that was totally expected...anyway, the movie then skips to 7 years later.

What happens then you may ask? why they each get a note saying to meet at this place! and they all think that they're from each other. when they get there they get taken by two random goofy guys to the house where they're supposed to meet. so they arrive and... almost immediately the father of the dead girl says that they're going to find out tomorrow who really killed his daughter. The girls get freaked out and try to leave but there's an electrical fence so pfff. that ideas gone. So anyway the girls begin getting picked off one by one and even one of the annoying guys! yay! until finally the killer gets owned by a random pistol shot which she couldn't have possibly hit him with and he dies. and as we think they're all safe, the girl shoots the other guy and freeze frame. So now we know she was really the killer. WHY she killed people we have absolutely no idea.

the main problems with this movie are as follows. 1. the ending was stupid. it didn't resolve ANYTHING and i wanted to see the chick die. and she didn't. 2. NONE of these characters were likable. every one was whiny, stupid, and insipid. you were rooting for the killer to kill ALL of them so we didn't have to live with their stupidity. cause then at least the movie would have been over quicker.

3. despite the fact that they know the guy on the grounds is trying to kill them, they do nothing to fight against him! they just slowly die. because they're retarded.

4. they KEEP SPLITTING UP! if one of your friends die every time you leave them alone....WHY WOULD YOU KEEP LEAVING THEM ALONE?! seriously. retards.

5. the two male characters didn't belong in this movie and made it goofy and stupid Whatever. this movie could have been good, but there were too many parts with nothing happening. it wasn't the worst thing i've ever seen, but that would be saying a lot if it was.

So in the end, "Sisters of Death" gets 3 dead sorority girls, out of 10.


Sisters of death is an awful movie. Save yourself some money and buy something different. I learned the hard way and bought it and it sucks. There's not one scary part in the whole film, and it drags on and on. Sisters of death is definitely one that will put you to sleep. Save yourself the trouble and forget about this movie. I read about the movie before I bought it and it sounded really good, I am a horror movie fan by far, but this movie is a bomb. Steer clear of this film. Bad, bad, bad, and more bad. This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. It should have been named Sisters of Talk , because thats all that happens.


This movie begins when a cult called "The Sisters" are going through an initiation in which a bullet is put in a gun and fired off to test the courage of the new members. If the bullet goes off, they loose. If it does not, then the new member is welcomed. In this case, the bullet goes off on one of the two newest members and the rest of the group looks on at her horrified. The story continues as seven years after the incident, each member of the group gets an invitation to a reunion along with a bunch of cash and is asked to meet at a hotel. After each member meets at their destination, two guys come up and escort them to their final meeting place wherever that is. The girls go along and the guys drive them to a resort and they are all welcomed to the place with a pool, parties and a welcoming sighn. As the girls have their fun, the two guys go back to join in the fun. But the owner of the resort has other plans up his sleeve as to what to do with the girls once they arrive and it was part of the plan for the guys to leave and never come back. In which a gate to the resort is closed and lined with electric barbbed wire. The man turns out to be the father of the slain girl killed seven years ago and it is his plan to kill each member one by one. The guys in this movie that weren't supposed to be part of this plot didn't fit in with the movie. they were a waste of time and should have left after they dropped them off because they were totally out of place. At the end of the movie, one of the girls is faced with the father and she tells him a tale of how his daughter planed on killing herself anyway and told the person that fired the gun to go ahead and kill her off anyway. This does not make any sense sense the shooter was supposed to be witness as to who rigged the fake bullet and place a real one in it's place. Then the very last part of the film in which the surviver of the cult pulls a gun to one of the guys and says she is the last one to leave and fires off the gun just left me dumbfounded. I don't understand this movie and it would have been better if it was explained in more detail and made more sense.


After reading all the comments praising this movie, I went on a quest to find a copy of it. What a major disappointment! I gave it a 3 instead of a 0 only because Virginia Madsen is beautiful to look at, albeit she is a whore in the movie. The film is pure trash. Baseball is secondary to drinking, swearing, having sex, cheating, and being plain obnoxious. Petersen, whom I like as an actor, is too cocky in this and has very low moral standards. The guy that plays Joe Louis Brown is almost as bad, but not quite. The baseball action isn't bad, but less time is spent on the playing field than in the barroom or bedroom. How can this be called a baseball movie? And you just know how it's going to end, it's so predictable. Two guys come into the game in the last inning and win it for them. The movie would have been better if they had lost the game. And the wedding at the end was anti-climatic. I give each couple six months to a year before they get divorced. This is certainly not a movie to sit down and watch with your family. If real ballplayers are like these guys, then there are no heroes in baseball. A real poor example of sportsmanship and clean-cut living. How did this movie get to TV unless it was really late at night? August 10,2008. So many people have disagreed with me on this movie, that I decided to watch it again. I did, and it still stinks! Now that is my opinion. You may love the movie and that's fine with me. We all have different tastes. You can at least agree with that, right? To each his own.


Wacky and undeniably funny, the Ernest movies are one of a kind. No other movie series can capture the same level of fun slapstick hijinks and goofiness of the Ernest series, not even the POLICE ACADEMY movies.

When I first saw this movie, I didn't think much of it. I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I didn't think that it was a good movie either. However, after seeing the movie a second time, I grew to appreciate the crazy antics of Ernest and he instantly became one of my favorite movie characters.

 It is in ERNEST GOES TO CAMP that Ernest is at his best. The movie contains some hilarious scenes between Ernest and the campers, which help make this one of the best summer camp movies ever. Jim Varney, possibly the most underrated actor of the 1990s, was able to create such a unique and interesting character with this movie that it is really hard to dislike Ernest. There is a little Ernest in us all. Rest in peace, Jim Varney. Your legacy lives on!


Other than this movie featuring Ernest from all those wacky commercials, this movie just plays out as your basic summer camp movie. Why is it so bad, because you have Ernest as the main character, plus very annoying children, and a silly subplot involving some company trying to take over the camp. I just do not think the Ernest character should be center stage for a movie. The short lived television show was the only thing this character needed as it featured other characters and such to draw some of the focus away from Ernest himself. Lets face it, the character got his start in commercials as a rather annoying individual and it was funny to see him torment Vern, but more funny to see Vern get back at Ernest for bothering him in the first place. The movie here would feature a couple of the characters from the television show as cooks and they provide some comedy and Ernest has his moments. However, most of the movie is rather groan inducing and to top it off it gets overly sentimental at times as well. I can not really recommend this movie unless perhaps you have seen his other movies and liked them. Granted if you have seen them I am sure you saw this his first movie.


I recently saw this movie on DVD at a friend's house, and surprising it wasn't as terrible as I expected. Alot of the reviews of this movie are either by diehard Ernest fans or people who are totally against his brand of humor. I consider myself somewhere inbetween, as this was one of my first Ernest films. Some of Ernest's antics are entertaining, in a goofy/innocent slapstick way. The general plot of Ernest trying to save a camp works well I suppose.

The only things that ruin the movie are the supposedly criminal kids and the ending. The juvy kids are actually 100 times more well behaved than the "normal," non-criminal children! I assume the juvy kids were put in the "institution" for a reason! I mean they could have at least made them badasses who reform, but instead the writers made them lovable from the start, which was pretty annoying.

The other glaring annoyance is the ending. At the end of the film Ernest and the kids attack a group of Krader Construction workers with firebombs and stuff and I'm pretty damn sure they were trying to kill these guys. At least in this part the Juvy kid's true nature is exposed. This scene is made even more over the top by the Krader boss with the hunting rifle who tries to kill Ernest but can't because of some Indian powers that protect him from bullets. It was poorly done and ruined what was otherwise a fun little movie.

Besides these painful flaws, Ernest Goes to Camp has some fun hijinks that children or viewers in the mood for something light might enjoy. I was surprised by a pretty clever reference Ernest makes about being in the Vietnam war at one point, too bad they didn't use more of such humor.


This is one of the worst of the "Ernest films," starring the likeble Jim Varney. Good 'ole "Ernest B. Worrell" might be a good guy - and Varney was a wonderful comedian almost all of us loved, even if just for his famous television commercials - but I didn't really care for this movie.

It was mostly the obnoxious kids in here that ruined things for me. They weren't in the "Midstate Boys Detention Camp" for no reason: they were nasty. Oh, all that is but one: the black kid, of course. The white kids are all bad. Can you say "political correctness?" Can you save "reverse racism?" Sorry to see that racial nonsense in an Ernest, but there's more Liberal baloney in here, too.

Football player (and no actor) Lyle Azado plays one of the bad guys. That also tells you something about the quality of this lamebrain effort.

"Ernest" has a mission in this movie: "Shaping and molding youthful minds into a focused world view." Yeah, right.

Still, I miss Jim Varney.


Reading all the comments about how funny and amazing and "true" this film is, I hope that the world has progressed a LOT since it was made or that the people who commented didn't actually see the vast majority of this film. When I first saw it as a child, I thought it was great too.

I recently had the chance to see it again, and I cannot believe how awful it actually is. This film is racist, sexist, classist and homophobic and not in a satirical way. It casually condones and glorifies rape (yes, having sex with someone who is too drunk to even know who you are is actually rape).

The only good thing about this film is the soundtrack.


Funny, I saw this as a young kid and the only thing that made an impression on me was the beginning when Molly Ringwald's parents forget her birthday, and the final scene where she gets her happy ending. I must've blocked out everything inbetween because I didn't understand it at that age... Watching "Sixteen Candles" again as an adult, I was stunned by how racist, sexist and crass most of the movie is. How can it be so revered, I wonder?

Crude sex-jokes, over-the-top humour, cringe-worthy Asian stereotypes... yikes. Most offensive is the scene where Molly's older-man crush hands his unconscious girlfriend over to The Geek and encourages him to have his way with her while she's passed out. What the hell? Is this movie actually condoning RAPE?! Unbelievable. And we're supposed to root for an innocent young girl to hook up with this creep?

I know many teen comedies from the early '80s still had that '70s sensibility, and nudity/vulgarity was common. But I just didn't expect Porky's-style hijinks from John Hughes movies, which are often acclaimed for their realistic portrayal of teen life. This particular film seems to get many positive reviews for being groundbreaking in it's realism. But this ain't *my* version of reality.

I dunno, maybe "Sixteen Candles" was, at the time, a step up from previous teen movies. Still, it's definitely my least favorite Hughes film, and I wouldn't recommend it to any impressionable youngsters out there who might pick up some very bad messages...if they have a better memory than I did.


There is rarely a film I ever give a bad review on, but in this case I'll make an exception. This film was truly horrendous. Maybe I approached it in the wrong angle, not at all used to the idealism of the 80's, but this movie represented all that was horribly cliché and unrealistic about high school and typical suburban life.

All the jokes were stereotypical, whether it was making fun of the freshman geek or the Chinese exchange student. The scenes that were supposed to be poignant and heart-felt were instead mawkish and completely fake. Who's to believe that a handsome high school senior, disillusioned by the party life, would ever take a second glance at a gawky sophomore? I couldn't even bring myself to feel sorry for the main character, whose constant 'woe is me' asides at the audience made me want to slap her and tell her to grow up.

In all, a lot of eyerolling went on. I only watched it for some hope that the film would redeem itself. It ended on the worst note possible.


I love the movies of the 80s... I really like a lot of brat pack flicks.... John Hughs' other film made around this time, Breakfast Club? It's great, Four Stars! But 16 candles is not very good. Initially, I liked the humor; it was more shocking and contemporary than I expected, with an ironic twist. But the film's premise degenerates quickly into a huge nonsensical mess... NOT good old 80's fun mess, but stupid, racist, sexist drivel. At times, the attempts at humor made my jaw drop, they were so inappropriate and extremely unfunny. Breakfast Club similarly toyed with audience expectations and broke rules concerning the handling of subject matters like sex, drugs and society in high-school; it ended up being a very honest, poignant film that made you laugh your ass off.... it's no Citizen Kane, but Breakfast Club = good flick. If you are in the mood for a night with the brat pack, my suggestion is to skip 16 Candles, a film I found offensive and devoid of anything entertaining, in favor of the far superior Breakfast Club. :)


Sixteen Candles is a watchable, paint-by-numbers teen romance. It's mostly interesting for early glimpses of actors who would go on to do later, better work (especially John and Joan Cusack). The story is too over-the-top to resonate on an emotional level, but it isn't clever enough to get more than the occasional chuckle. It doesn't even do a particularly good job of capturing the mood of the era, though it's inevitable, of course, that some of that comes through.

Ultimately this film can't hold a candle to director John Hughes' next project, The Breakfast Club, which does a considerably better job capturing the exploits of mid-80's high schoolers without all the two-dimensional, misanthropic portraits of the older generations cluttering up the movie as they do here.


Screen writer-director John Hughes has aimed his sights once again at the easily pleased young audiences, and it is surely the only target he is likely to strike with this rather misfired teen comedy.

Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall, two Hughes regulars, star in this Cinderella story about a sixteen year old birthday girl whose parents have forgotten her special day because of her older sister's imminent wedding, and whose dream man doesn't even know she exists. And to make matters worse, poor little Sam Baker (Ringwald) is being vigorously pursued by the king of the school geeks (Hall). Unlike the dramatically sound 1985 hit "The Breakfast Club", both Molly Ringwald and Anthony Michael Hall fail to entertain whilst Hughes' flat and predictable script struggles to make us laugh, as it mostly resorts to tasteless or weak sex jokes and cheap shots. The funniest scene in fact would have to be at the church near the end of the film when Sammy's rather heavily sedated sister attempts to walk down the aisle with daddy.

Otherwise "Sixteen Candles" is a disappointment from John Hughes and hardly a creditable teen flick.

Saturday, August 20, 1994 - T.V.


-of the Hughes Teen films, which I think is an important genre of films, especially from the 1980's. This one is basically joke/joke/joke/maudlin moment/joke/joke/joke. But it somehow works, largely on the strength of the cast. Molly Ringwald has never been better, and Anthony Michael Hall is superb. Their chemistry holds it together, as is the case in most of the Hughes films. But there is an undeniable glee and anarchy present that makes this worth watching, despite some crude film making and jokes that fall flat.


Tymez lives with his mother and hopes to perhaps become a rapper with his buddies. His mother wants him to get a job, but when he goes out he gets together with his friends and they spot a busty woman and flirt with her. They then try to find the club she works at, "Cryptz," by calling a spooky friend of theirs named Truck who they think know all about underground clubs and things like that. He's a meditating muscleman.

Truck warns them against trying to find the woman or the club, and when he learns Tymez was touched by her, he instructs them to duct tape him to his bed. Instead, they fall asleep in front of a TV, and Tymez wakes up with his face burning and he runs to the club with his friends in tow. At the club, they're pretty happy watching women dancing, but when the call Truck again they're warned again, and indeed most of the people at the club are vampires!

This was a fairly silly low-budget horror movie, so it's hard to be too harsh on it. However, some of the scenes really drag. The scene where the three guys are trying to decide how to find the woman goes on for a long time, for example, with little camera movement. I guess they felt obligated to shoot all the dialog that was scripted, and then were happy with it, but it could have been cut down.

The ending is fairly lame. The day ends, but there are some loose ends almost like a set-up for a sequel, and weirdest of all is something involving Tymez' tattoo.

Not recommended, but as I said, it's not terrible.


the only reason i watched this movie is because of the rate it was given. In the end this was a dumb movie, actors trying to be funny, a very poor plot etc.

after seeing The Forsaken, this is the worst vampire movie so far


A taut and topical political thriller that, unfortunately, goes off the rails.

In its defense, the basic premise is plausible, the writing is tense and dramatic, and the acting and direction are professional. Other posters have complained about implausibilities in the plot, and the wrong names used for things. A political thriller must have some unexpected twists or there would be no story, and we can assume that the "H2O" world has different names for things like the RCMP and War Measures Act.

The series, however, goes off the rails in the third hour. We can accept one or two extremely implausible events if the story requires it, but when near-impossible events happen again and again, with a new one each few minutes, credibility crumbles. Worse, earlier crises are left unresolved before the next one hits.

I'll give an example. An assassin is killing anyone, no matter how powerful or insignificant, who threatens the conspiracy. One of the major characters is a police detective who is about to unravel the plot. The assassin traps her, spills clues about the conspiracy, and then lets her go. This is an absurd Hollywoodism, like something from an old Flash Gordon serial. There are even bigger howlers in the series, and I know what happens later, but this is the one that made me want to throw something at the TV.

The series plays like it was written by a committee, and each member wanted to get their plot twist in whether it made sense or not. The ending is a disappointment too; there is yet another plot twist in the last few minutes and the story just stops. All the viewer is left with is a huge number of unresolved plot twists.


I don't know if this is a spoiler or not, but I have no doubt that if the extremely unlikely events depicted in this teleplay ever occurred, millions of us (literally) would be out in the streets, guns in hand (yes, we still have guns up here!).

H2O portrays Canadians as a bunch of supine, weak-willed, uncaring fools ruled by a secret clique manipulating a naive political class, but then again, lefties portray all nationalities that way.

You can tell some lefty wrote it to press all the lefty buttons: the Kennedy mythos, mass political apathy, water exports, American and corporate dominance, military skulduggery, etc. Way, way over the top. If they had dialled it down a kilotonne it could have been at least comparable to "A Very British Coup", which was also a lefty daydream but much more realistic.


After a few decent stabs at producing good Canadian movies, CBC has laboured mightily and brought forth a turkey this time. The scenario is absurd. The acting is overwrought. The production is pretentious. The facts are shaky. What is this "Canadian Federal Police?" Do they perhaps mean the RCMP? And what is this emergency power thing that this young whelp of a pm invokes. I thought it was called The War Measures Act. Nor does the office of "deputy prime minister" have any constitutional standing. He (or she) does not automatically take over as does the US vice president if the big guy dies in office. It would be a matter to be resolved by the Liberal party and/or the Governor-general. And a black US president??? Not in our lifetime! This is really a stupid movie that reflects our insecurity, our naivete and our incompetence at making movies. We're very good at snowmobiles. And beer. Not movies.


The bad: This movie was a lousy wreck, which better resembled a WB sitcom than something that should be on the big screen. 25 minutes into the movie I was still thinking, "who are these people??" - there seemed to be very little character setup or development. For the most part, the acting was poor -- again, it was more like watching "Dawson's Creek" than an actual movie. The story was extremely basic, which is fine except that the dialogue was poorly written as well. The subplot with the groom-to-be's father was not necessary and distracted from the good vibes to the movie -- it was hard to watch, but not in a "I'm moved" sort of way, but more in a "I want to barf" kind of way.

The good: The movie pretty very short, so however bad it is, at least it's over quickly. Which was good because otherwise I don't think I would have made it all the way through. Also, some of the women in the movie were pretty good to look at, which makes getting through the film a little easier.

Seriouly, I'm not a high-brow movie viewer...I like a fun, dumb movie every now and then. But this movie was a wreck in most every way possible. Watch it for a great lesson in poor character development, sappy dialogue, and character clichés (the movie star character who seems happy but is actually very sad...how original).


'Standing Still' begins so slowly it took us nearly half an hour to decide that the movie was possibly intended as a comedy rather than a very long cigarette ad. There are also a few chunks of angst thrown in, and one painfully melodramatic reminiscence scene which might have worked if we cared more about the characters. The music is too loud, and the 'twist' at the ending was obvious about five minutes in.

On the plus side, the women are easy on the eye, most of the performances are pretty good, and there are some genuinely funny moments in the last half of the film. It's not half bad... but it's not all the way up to half good, either.


Watching this film reminded me of what it was like to be sick on a Sunday and the only channel that works is Lifetime. The dialogue is lame and predictable. There is little or no authenticity to the characters emotional discoveries. Surprisingly, James VanderBeek brought a lot to his character's role but his screen time was comparable to Christopher Walken's in True Romance. It was like watching the Family Stone minus the funny improvisational parts and extending the bad Hollywood movie parts. The actors may be good on their own but the direction and writing are to blame here. They throw in a pathetic lesbian scene and other moments that wouldn't have happened if this were to take place in real life but the screen writing class told them it is what the viewers want to see. There is also little or no attempt to hide how low budget this film was made for.


"Stick Around" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later "Ollie" character's treatment of "Stanley". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.

However, in "Stick Around", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later "Ollie" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.

Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an "impossible" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.

The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.

"Stick Around" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.

SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10.


Realistically, it is not exactly uncommon for adults (especially males) to be physically attracted to someone who is young, even below the age of consent. Someone who has just come into full physical development, someone who is fresh, lean, and taut, can be pretty exciting eye candy for more people than government and cultural leaders would like to admit -- and it's also a far cry from pedophilia (key term being "full physical development"). But with this uncomfortable reality check should come another -- if you actually have a conversation with a 15-year-old for more than three minutes, you should realize why it's completely inappropriate to date one.

This film seems to be nothing more than a justification for such a relationship. And within this justification is one embarrassing scenario after another. The 29-year-old Eban character is completely infatuated with 15-year-old Charley, and Eban woos in a variety of ways that could only be construed as awkward and downright creepy (this is not helped by the amateur dialogue pauses and the poor acting performance of Brent Fellows). Even the writing and presentation of many of the scenes intended to move the film's audiences are incredibly juvenile, something an adolescent might take seriously beyond an idle daydream.

...which brings me to another point. The controversial message of the film has one especially glaring contradiction. If the film is trying to open the minds of its audiences, to break down the seemingly arbitrary barriers of age in the name of love, it actually ends up underscoring the inappropriateness of a relationship involving an adolescent and an adult. Maybe this was all intended by writer/director James Bolton, which would add an interesting dimension to the film, but judging by the places he takes us, I somehow doubt it. At one point in the film Eban declares, "I like younger people" -- it is made clear that his attractions are exclusive to adolescent males. If Eban discovers the spirit that love come before all else, in the face of all adversity, and that this is a good thing, one can't help but wonder what happens to the magical relationship when Charlie passes into adulthood. And this is how the futility and inappropriateness of the relationship is inadvertently revealed. Most importantly, one should remember, as physically developed as a 15-year-old may be (i.e. "grass on the field"), there is no 15-year-old, no matter how bright and on what level of natural genius, that has reached an acceptably sane degree of emotional development. But it is also clear that the population of adult men and women who do not see this in their pursuits of adolescents have severe emotional blocks of their own.

All that said, my one extra star is meant to applaud the acting performances of both Giovanni Andrade, playing Charlie (whose natural talent was miles ahead of Brent Fellows (Eban)), and Ron Upton, who despite a lack of appearances played Eban's father with an acting professionalism and skill not to be seen elsewhere in the film.


I must admit that I rented this movie on the premise that I thought it was an independent film. It may very well be independent, but it also is independent of talent in the writing, production value, and acting. I couldn't last more than probably 1/3 of the way through it before I shut it off and went on to my next DVD.

The subject matter was interesting, but, was lost on the production quality. Eban came across as creepy and a pedophile. He's a good moper--I'll give him that. Charley was devoid of emotion and basically played the "Lolita" character with all the aplomb of a third rate community theatre actor. The actors playing these roles were way out of their league.

*possible spoilers*

Some plot questions to ponder: Upon seeing Charley for the first time in the empty coffee shop, Eban goes over to Charley's table and asks if he can sit there. When Charley says it's OK, he sits, but, says nothing...not even and introduction. How realistic is that? Why would Charley have a guitar if he had no clue how to play it? If Charley's father is such a hard ass, how would he ever find the nerve to bring Eban into his bedroom? Having never been to Eban's home prior, when Charley is kicked out--albeit briefly--how did he know where to run? Better yet, which window to go to? And then, after they take a bike ride, go BACK to his house he had just been kicked out of, and return to the bedroom with Eban?

I'm sure there are other "plot holes" in this drivel, but, my sanity couldn't allow me to hang out to find them. To call this entire movie hack film making would be an insult to hack film makers everywhere. It was like bad porn with no porn. I happen to be gay, but, refuse to enjoy something simply because its subject matter contains characters that also happen to be gay. If you want to see a great movie you may not have heard of with gay subject matter, might I suggest "White Lilies."


I saw this movie at the 2000 Philadelphia International Gay & Lesbian Film Festival (PIGLFF). It was a great disappointment. The "film" is actually shot on tape. The quality of the cinematography and sound is very poor and amateurish. The writing and the pacing are poor. By mid-way through the piece at least one-third of the audience had walked out. I endured the whole thing to the end.

The film supposedly delves into the tricky area of older man-younger man relationships when, in fact, the younger man is in his mid-teens and the "older man" is in his early to mid-twenties. The older, main character in question is clearly not just attracted to one given young man but, apparently, exclusively to adolescents in general. (As backstory is revealed during the film we learn this has caused problems already.)

I'm open to seeing and learning from films that treat teenagers with respect and explore their interests and abilities to negotiate relationships with adults. A gay "Lolita" or "The Graduate" this is not.

I would not recommend you wasting your time or money on this. I'm sorry I did.


I gave this film a 2, only because there was an effort made to make a film and because it seems that the actor that played Eban, has some talent.

The film was terrible. The script seemed to be written by a teenager who was in love with a guy in his twenties. It was extremely predictable, slow, boring and unoriginal. It looked like a home movie shot on video with the neighbors as actors. It seems like the simplistic fantasies of a teenager filled with cliche.

There are many other films which deal with this subject matter and worlds apart in quality. Start with "For a lost soldier".

My apologies to the filmmaker(s) for such a harsh review. My advice if they are interested: get audience feedback once you've got a starting cut of a film, then go to work and make it better before you send it out for the world to condemn it.


This film takes the position that society has no legitimate interest in "interfering" in a romance between a fifteen- and a twenty-nine-year-old; I disagree, but more than that I was offended by the portrayal in the film of those who share my concern: bigots, drinkers, military disciplinarians. The film presents a repellent point of view: that those who advocate relationships with minors -- and the minors themselves -- are victims of society's intolerance; to make their point more profoundly, the filmmakers make their couple victims in many other ways: Charley's mother and best friend are deaf, his mother was killed by a drunk driver while he watched, his father is senselessly cruel, while Eban has been fired from his job (a boys' athletic coach) and is hounded by his ruthlessly "concerned" parents. At one point, a propos of nothing, Charley's friend Sunshine (whose parents kick her out of the house for dating a non-white) asks Charley if he's heard about a young man in Seattle who was beaten "just for being a gay kid." Where does the bravery in the face of injustice end? The film's composition and tone are spare; I was reminded of a Belle and Sebastian cd cover, and then lo and behold, the band was thanked in the end credits. For inspiration, I wonder? 1/10


"Jekyll and Hyde" claims to be a rock musical from the "Rocky Horror" school of low-budget cult musicals. Even fans of "Rocky Horror" and its cult-movie ilk ("Shock Treatment," "The Apple") will admit that these kinds of movies aren't "good," per se. The acting isn't the greatest, the film-making is a bit awkward... but still, they have something-- a fun, camp sensibility, an imaginative bizarreness, some catchy songs.

Unfortunately, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" isn't bad in a fun-campy-cult-movie kind of way. It's bad in the "we have absolutely no idea of how to make a movie" kind of way. It's like four buddies in a band--with absolutely no knowledge of or talent for scriptwriting or film-making--pooled together $1000 and roped in their friends to act in the movie version of their song cycle. The results are really only fit to be viewed by their family and friends. A total lack of narrative coherence, hilariously bad dialogue and acting, disposable characters with no motivation, excruciatingly awkward editing and really, really poor cinematography... this movie has almost nothing going for it. It seems almost mean to criticize the particulars, because this is obviously not a film that any professionals were involved with. Ideally, it would never have made it into the video stores in the first place.

I will say that the songs aren't bad. They're reasonably catchy, the musicians seem talented, and the lyrics are standard rock-musical fare. As a mostly-sung stage show (presumably set in 1885 Britain, rather than "present day Los Angeles," justifying songs like "London Fog" that are otherwise totally illogical), "Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" probably wouldn't be so bad. As a really, really ineptly made movie, though, it's godawful. Unless you personally know the filmmakers and are curious what they were up to that one summer, stay away. And if even you do know the filmmakers... you'll probably still be disappointed.