Set amidst the picturesque cityscape of Australia, 'Salaam Namaste' is the story of two displaced Indian young people (Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta) who meet and suddenly decide to live together. If that premise seems like I am leaving something out, rest assured that is not the case. In typical Bollywood fashion, the two leads detest each other initially only to end up together. But instead of having them do so at the end of the film, the writers chose to have them profess their love and live together after only a couple of days of having known one another. How could that possibly go wrong? This is part of the underlying problem with the film. In trying to avoid many of the conventional Bollywood clichés, the film-makers instead set up over the top situations for the leads that lack any logic or sense. 'Salaam Namaste' also seems to try too hard to have a little bit of everything. It is filled with slapstick comedy and romance that is quickly interrupted with deep rooted conversations about abortion and the definition of life when Preity turns up pregnant. As one can imagine, this feels very awkward and out of place considering everything that surrounds it. The movie only gets increasingly nonsensical as the story unfolds. Without giving too much away for those that want to waste time watching this, there are situations that develop that feel as though there were lifted right out of a Three's Company episode with Jack Tripper being put in compromising situations that are then misunderstood. The finale of the film features a birthing scene that looks as though it could have been a Three Stooges short as Abhishek Bachchan plays the clueless obstetrician who apparently gets anxiety attacks while doing his job!

This leads to the film's other flaw; there is an unusual number of comedic relief characters. Not withstanding the two-dimensional best friend characters, there are several other unfunny characters ranging from the Indian landlord who thinks he's Crocodile Dundee to the radio station manager who giggles hysterically every time he speaks. While a certain amount of levity is standard in even the most dramatic of Bollywood films, 'Salaam Namaste' simply goes overboard with supporting actors that overact every time they are on screen. In fact, this film is riddled with the most shallow and superficial characters of any film I have ever seen. Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta are also victims of the overacting bug. Despite the writers setting up long drawn out examples of how different their characters are (she's a studious college student/ radio host and he's a carefree chef), both leads approach their roles in the same manner. They are constantly yelling at each other while trying too hard to appear as though there is love between them. Movies like this work better when one lead plays the "straight character" that keeps the situations in the movie grounded in some semblance of reality. Not so here, as both leads ham it up as much as possible only to interject moments of awkward seriousness when scenes call for it.

Visually, 'Salaam Namaste' is a stunning gem. The montage sequences that set up the back-stories of each of the characters are actually funny and well constructed. The dance numbers are nothing exceptional but some are quite memorable aesthetically. Speaking of which, this film boasts quite possibly the most absurd musical sequence ever as an 8 month pregnant Preity is seen dancing and singing! It is one of the more ridiculous moments in a film that already feels forced and subsequently further kills any type of credibility that it sorely needs. It's clear from the outtakes during the closing credits that the cast and crew obviously had a lot of fun making this film but it never quite translates well on screen. In closing, this is a very poorly constructed film that probably generated audience interest primarily because of the controversial theme of the two leads living together and becoming pregnant before marriage. For much better examples of "boy meets girl" Bollywood films, I would recommend 'Hum Tum' and 'Jab We Met'.


Three songs in the movie, all very good. I'd recommend the soundtrack, even though I absolutely abhor the movie.

Hindi movies have a sort of surreal and supernatural feel, with events that would almost never occur in real life. However, this takes it to the extreme, such as when Ambar insults Nikhil day after day after day! It just makes no sense! Additionally, so many things are left unexplained. How did Ron get enough money for a new house? Why is there this conflict between Ambar and her parents? How come this isn't used or developed? The characters were bovine and completely unrealistic. Near the end of the movie, when Nikhil starts looking for Ambar, random people all over Melbourne just drop everything to look for a pregnant woman in a black/white dress.

The use of old jokes, such as the Indian masquerading as an Australian and his wife saying "sorry?" all the time was funny at first, but it became very old very quickly.

Finally, why was the movie drawn out with so much unneeded drama? Were the directors and producers trying to meet some length requirement? For example, what was the point of the white woman, Stella, near the end of the film? What about the blood-donation problem that lasted for at least fifteen minutes? Why was Ron even necessary as a character? Waste of time. If you rent it, skip to the songs.


The director is very young... and it shows. There is a lack of maturity in handling of emotions in the movie. The two leads are either smiling all the time to convey happiness or screaming to convey anger and frustration. Human emotions and reactions are much more complex, Sidharth Babu. Great technical values in the film, and both Saif and Preity look very fit. But that don't make a movie watchable. Preity's pregnancy dance, by the way, is the height of stupidity. She looks ready to deliver and is running around and jumping as if to try and induce labor. Sad to say that Javed Jaffri's mocking Crocodile Dundee rip-off is the most entertaining part of this movie, but acting kudos go to the Indian Aussie's dim-witted blonde wife. "Sorry?" Can anyone explain why they made this movie?


Javed Jaffry is great in this movie . A genuine classic comedy character up there with Sholay's Soorma Bhopali or Padosan's Masterji. Unfortunately , he can't live the movie enough to make me give it anything more than 1 point . For Javed's 15 minutes of screen-presence , I had to go thru' Preity Zinta's 2 hours.

How dumb can a Hindi movie be , when 3 people are sitting on a table and two are talking in Hindi , when the third one butts in and says 'English , Please' ?!! And why in the name of God , does this movie have to be based in Australia ? Is it to prove the Australia doesn't make good contraceptives ? ( By the way , the movie is about a contraceptive gone wrong ) The first half had some light watchable and listenable moments , but the second half was Ufff .... TOO MUCH SHREIKING for my pleasure . Abhishekh Bacchan enters supposed as a likable bumbling doctor. But he doesn't look like any doctor . He just looks like Abhishekh Bacchan with bad makeup and horrible overacting , possibly as a result of some contract gone wrong with the producer.

Overall , a bad movie . Worth watching on pirated DVD's just for Javed JAffry.


Well, comparing this movie with romantic comedy like Hum Tum or some other will not be justified This is a very different movie with a very bold story...may be Indian audience is not ready for this. This movie is made with extraordinary outfits which are really imaginary...characters are imaginary too i mean the whole movie was full of CRAP (said 50 times by Saif) ...cmmon Indian film makers...just because Hum Tum was a HIT does not mean you can make us fool.

Yes there were positives and Negatives in the movie as they are in all movies...but it went really boring at times...

could have been better


Yashraj films are normally considered the best production house even though they have done worst copies(compared to Bhatt who give at least better films though copies) And have made trash films

The film is a lame copy of NINE MONTHS

The comedy scenes are puerile except Jaaved's scenes rest are nothing great, the shouting scenes are lame

The twist is well handled but then nothing much happens and the film ends in a very bad manner

Siddharth Anand handles only few scenes well, many scenes are over the top Music is good

Saif repeats his DCH act and acts well though he often cribs and gets boring Preity is good in serious scenes but overdoes many parts Jaaved is funny Abhishek hams Jugal is okay


I don't want to remember "When You Remember Me," but I'm sure it will be etched into my mind for eternity. I understand that Fred Savage wasn't considered the greatest actor of the 20th century, but holy cow! A little more research and practice wouldn't have hurt.

I've heard that people work just as hard on bad movies as they do on good ones, but I wonder if the cast and crew knew they were working on a poorly done rip-off of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." If everybody realizes they are making something that isn't that good, maybe they don't really work "just as hard."

I'm not saying that everyone in the cast was terrible. People such as Kevin Spacey are almost always good and Ellen Burstyn did a great "Nurse Ratched" impression.


Film about a rebel rouser in a run down hospital for disabled kids. Imagine "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" from a snotty kid's perspective and you have this mess of a film. Direction, script, acting and just about every other form of input in this film is stilted and weak. The fact that Spacey spent his time on this film is truly disheartening--good thing is that you realize that no matter how great an actor one maybe, direction and script are very important. Do not watch unless you want a reason to put your fist through the television.


I watched 'Buffalo Girls' because of the Larry McMurtry 'Lonesome Dove' connection. With a cast of the calibre of this offering this TV movie could have been remarkable, but this books' translation to the screen just kept making me wince. Everyone in this sadly average offering seemed to be working on auto pilot and I can only put it down to schmaltzy dialogue that followed the letter of the novel but not the spirit.

I've seen Angelica Houston in a lot of things and enjoyed her in every one.... except this one. I wish I'd never seen it.

Sorry


In my life, i have seen a lot of bad movies, and out of those, about three handfuls of movies i never managed to finish. And "When Do We Eat?" is one of the movies i never was arsed to finish.

To be straight out honest, this movie is crap. I watched as much of this movie as I could (which was about two thirds of the movie), and during that dreadful hour, I laughed once. For a movie that is supposed to have "about a joke every minute, and sometimes too many jokes for one to swallow", that's not a really good thing. The jokes aren't really good, makes very little sense, and is about as funny to me as it would be pulling my toe nails out.

The plot, which I must say didn't seem so bad, actually turned in to a big pile of junk without sense after a while. The whole "crazy family holiday gone wrong thing" is, fair enough, overused, but the dinner part is new. Unfortunately, it isn't presented in a way which I enjoyed. It's messy, it's crappy, and it's boring. From the moment the dad in this movie found out he was drugged and until I turned it off, i was bored. I thought that was gonna be the funnier part of the movie, but it wasn't. I really can't come close to explain how bored I was. Go watch it yourself if you do not believe me.


This is possibly the worst movie since Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton graced the screen in "The Sandpiper." What a mess! It has a politically correct roundup masquerading as Passover celebrants. You have your lesbian and her Afro-American lover; you have your Hasid; you have your flighty mother; you have your wayward daughter; you have your handicapped child; you have your Holocaust survivor; and you have your bellowing businessman...You get the idea.

Jack Klugman is the best thing in this movie but even he can't elevate the maudlin, pointless, 'stoopid' script. Funny to see Klugman in this piece of crap because I recall him in "Goodbye Columbus," the movie version of Philip Roth's novel, in which Klugman played father to a luminous Ali McGraw. That movie made me uncomfortable, because it rang true. This is anything but true. "When Do We Eat" just made me cringe with embarrassment.

The worst thing about this movie is that the filmmakers (and I use that term very loosely in this case) actually go "art-y" at various times; attempting to equate 40 years in the desert and the Passover saga with the journey of these execrable people. They should live so long!


Ah, Passover! The holiday that nearly every Jewish family celebrates in one form or another--including, unfortunately, the Stuckmans. The characters are a silly mishmash of stereotypes--the paranoid Holocaust survivor, the neurotic, money-obsessed uber-assimilated (Dad makes Christmas ornaments), the neurotic, resentful Jewish mother, the "born-again" schnorring Hasid brother (whose ethics are less than sterling when it comes to his mom's glamorous cousin), the slut sister, the resentful lesbian half-sister and her black lover, and just for kicks, the secular, anti-religion Israeli guest . Add in the junkie, the idiot savant (more savant than idiot) and a tab of Ecstasy slipped into Dad's antacid, and we're on a strange, unenlightening trip through flashbacks and hallucinations that will leave you checking your watch long before the meal is served. The Four Questions, Stuckman-style 1. Who were the three bearded dudes supposed to represent? 2. Was it necessary for the black character to bring in Jesus every fifth scene? If the Hasisdic brother could bring his own mezuzah, why didn't he just bring the matzah? 4. And, last but not least, why did the "world's fastest Seder" feel longer than the whole eight-day holiday?


With so many praising reviews, this must be fantastic movie. Right? Wrong. I have no clue why almost every reviewer rewards this movie with a 9/10 or 10/10. If this is one of the best movies you guys ever saw, then please go watch some real movies.

I expect to actually laugh or at least have some smiles when watching a comedy. About 40 minutes into the movie I realized I hadn't even smiled once. Where are the jokes? I have a very broad taste in humor and like both sophisticated and lame jokes, but I had a really hard time trying to find any jokes in 'Where do we eat'. Of course, after those 40 minutes I couldn't stand it any longer and switched it off, so maybe the last 50 minutes really explode from all the fun.

It didn't seem that the movie is really bad, it's just not funny. Pitch this as a family drama and it might be sort of acceptable. As a comedy, I can't rate it over 4/10.


These days, Asian horror films are among the best in the world, noted for their atmosphere and reflection of contemporary society. This is not one of those films! Instead, "The Record" is a mediocre slasher movie highly derivative of American movies like "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and "Scream". The plot is familiar - 5 teenagers accidently commit a terrible crime, but cover it up swearing to secrecy. One year later, they're being stalked by a knife-wielding maniac (with the decidely unscary disguise of a hospital sterile mask and an orange jumpsuit). It doesn't help that the teenagers are a generally unlikable group (this is one of those movies where the killer's motives seem pretty reasonable) and there are numerous stupid plot setups to keep the story going. The direction of the movie is unsubtle, more influenced by MTV than by current Asian horror films (like "The Ring"). The last third of the movie isn't too bad though, delivering some decent suspense scenes, though there is probably one "twist" too many in the end. 4/10


Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.


This is a rip-off of already crappy hollywood movies like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer. The story is classic, some high-school students tries a prank on the class' asthmatic misfit but something goes wrong. Terribly wrong. When you watch the movie you know what'll happen before it happens all the time, not good if a movie tries to be scary. The actors are quite ok and the girls are cute (after all, they're asian) so i'll give it two out of five on the mojave'o'meter.


Korea's answer to "I Know What You Did Last Summer" follows a similar story route to its American counterpart: one year after a group of high school friends accidentally kill a classmate, a masked killer begins to pick them off one by one. Who could have possibly seen them that night - or was their 'victim' still alive when they dumped him into the sea?

Originality cannot be expected from the teen slasher genre anymore but an effort can still be made to ensure films of this ilke are entertaining and scary. RECORD is neither, churning out badly rehashed scenes from "I Know...", "The House On Sorority Row" and "The Faculty" (among many others) and failing to deliver one decent shock throughout the 95 minutes.

Acting is decent from the cast who, as seems to be the norm in Korean cinema, approach an uninspiring script with gusto and an undeserved enthusiasm. Direction is mediocre at best, however; a strange choice of camera angles and the worst killer's costume *EVER* contributing to RECORD's downfall. Most disappointing is the film's ending, where the two 'surprise twists' are that obvious you've earlier dismissed them as being too blatant!

RECORD's only saving grace is its bright start - the first act is actually excellent and shows the American counterparts how character development and setting the mood are supposed to be done - but, other than that, this is a very poor movie. Not recommended.

** / *****


I caught this movie on Sky Premiere this week and it filled 80 minutes. Being from the UK, I had no baggage coming to this film. I understand that the case received saturation coverage in the US, featuring as it does the essential ingredients of murder, sex and betrayal. I didn't realise that the screenplay was adapted from a book by Amber Frey, which clearly put the balance in her favour. During the movie, she came across as a person of integrity and high morals. What a surprise then, when I searched her on Google after watching the movie, to discover that she had written the required book, appeared on numerous chat shows, sold the film rights, etc.

Ah well, I suppose you can't blame someone for making a buck or two.

The film itself is serviceable but bland as you would expect of a TV movie. The central roles are all played by actors who bear a startling resemblance to their real-life counterparts. None more so than the actress Janel Moloney playing the role of Amber Frey. I am not familiar with Moloney's work in the West Wing but I assume her soporific turn here was a reflection of the real-life nature of Frey. If it's not - then, please excuse me, but this was a performance that ran the gamut of emotions from A to B. Considering the situation she found herself in I am surprised she remained so calm and composed - almost icy.

As usual in TV movies, there are huge leaps in the narrative and the audience is expected to fill in the holes. For example, one minute she is alone in the world after the revelations about her ex-boyfriend, the next, she is in bed with a massage colleague and has been made pregnant by him.

Finally, the courtroom scenes built up no tension whatsoever. They seemed tacked on almost as an afterthought.

All in all, it passed the 80 minutes, but if it had been a moment longer, it would have been too long.

There is probably a decent film to be made of this case - this ain't it.


Have to give this flick 1*, despite it being fascinating in terms of the presentation of Ms. Frey, and the wholly-vacuous lack of any qualities which would evoke empathy from any character.

Obviously presented from Amber Frey's perspective, and given her basic intellect, one can only imagine how many uncredited editors and ghostwriters, I failed to see anything of depth anywhere in this presentation.

You have a young unmarried, "roundheel" mother, from somewhere in the, say, lower quartile of the lower middle class. This remains evident even when all the occurrences depicted here were unfolding,

Story now skewed in her behalf, it's also boring as well. Later information indicated the man whom she purported to believe was her daughter's father, and had been paying a moderate amount in support, wasn't the real dad. While going through all of the emotional stress stemming from her Peterson affair, she then becomes pregnant from a male friend who is supposedly there for support. He indicates he's in no way ready either for fatherhood or marriage. Amber then rejects the possibility of an abortion, portraying herself as a caring, nurturing person, but is now ready to deliver a second illegitimate child (after the first, whose father was improperly identified for years).

And we're asked to believe this woman, with limited intellect and apparently a poor manager of birth control issues, is somebody to be admired? Come on!

Apparently she is now married to a corrections officer, operating a Fresno spa facility. The proceeds from this story - again, skewed markedly in her behalf - undoubtedly provided a nice piece of change for her business and bank account.

The real tragedy here is that despite the young woman and her unborn child who were viciously murdered, we're subjected to being asked to sympathize with this vacuous, promiscuous, uninteresting woman, who in the end profited far more from this whole gruesome chain of events than anyone else involved - and far more than she would ever have realized, otherwise, from her limited qualities and talents.


Unfortunetly, I found Tuesdays with Morrie to be quite disappointing. I live in Michigan, where Mitch Albom is quite a force in all medias, so the hype surrounding the movie was quite large. However, the movie itself was so weak I was looking for other things to occupy my time while it was on. The Mitch Albom character is not clearly defined, we know he is a writer, and has a girlfriend, not much else. Morrie, played by Jack Lemmon had a lot of potential but it seemed wasted. Many of the Morrie-isms that he spouts sound like the babbling of someone that is unconcious. Lots of grand sounding ideas like "Without love, we all die" and "Don't die alone", I mean really. Morrie comes off sounding like that one sappy person in your family that everyone tries to ignore when you get together. Other quality highlights: The horrible overacting of the boy that plays young Morrie ("Oh, he's got a huge smile, he must be happy" or "He's crying, he must not be happy" is the range displayed) and the very humorous method for making Morrie 20 years younger (think Jack Lemmon with Steve Wonder style hair extensions).

The legions of Oprah followers, most without minds of their own, will find it to be a great touching tale. Just try to go into it with an open mind, and you'll see how rank it is. (2 out of 10)


Hank Azaria's role is horribly stereotypical. He goes from ruthless soulless guy to I-love-life guy. Vapid, heavy-handed film. They beat you over the head with middle-school symbolism (his ignoring the telephone while in the middle of playing piano).

If you want to see real genuine characters with multifaceted personalities, watch Glengarry Glen Ross. I seem to recall Lemmon stating that it was the finest cast he ever worked with. Go see why.


I couldn't resist feeling this is director's self-loving creation. And I'm here to admire his talents... Quite boring and unabsorbing movie. I was expecting much, much more given IMDb score... Subject of the movie also added to the expectations. Unfortunately, that's about it. Big disappointment. I left few times (in my mind). In reality I was hoping something would develop. Any minute now. Very slow.... But nada. Reminds me of European school. Directors forget about viewers and get tangled in their own world... Aftermovie I've checked demographics of voting= chick flick. Should have checked it before wasting my time... Sorry.


I've read about this film before, & was interested in it despite the fact that most everything I read said it was bad....but I generally LIKE bad movies, that is, ones that have entertainment value other than what was intended.

So, here we have the checklist of positive elements: 1) Howard Vernon 2) A Creepy Castle 3) A Foggy Forest 4) Lots of Bare Breasts 5) A house-servant that talks like Boris Badenov 6) Open Heart Surgery 7) A guy in a dancing bear suit. So, given all those elements, put them all together, and what do you get? Uh, a really, really, abysmal movie.

We have a bunch of spoiled rich party-goers who decide to go horseback riding (despite the fact that they were blind drunk a few moments before), and of course they get lost in the woods & happen across the mysterious castle of one Graf Saxon, whose daughter just happened to get raped & dies. Seems that once upon a time, his ancestor had the same problem & to bring his dead daughter back he just slew his mistress & used her blood, etc. And of course, The Graf stands on family tradition. And, coincidentally, one of the young folks that showed up at the castle resembles his daughter, will wonders never cease.

There's some extensive scenes of open heart surgery, for whatever that's worth, because it's not clear who its on nor who is doing it, but it's about par for the course with this film. And one of the young folks decides to go for help & gets attacked by a guy in a bear suit, which quite possibly could not look more fake.

So, this had all the elements of a good movie, and this also had a lot of elements of a "so bad it's good movie", so I have to wonder...how did it turn out to be just plain BAD? 2 out of 10. When you read bad things about this film, believe them.


A movie with fair acting abilities and yet keeps your attention. This film was labeled 'Castle of the Creeping Flesh' in some countries. While watching the film, one can expect to see things such as zombies but instead this has a new twist on horror. It contains mystery as well as a vengeful statement. With a taste of Frankenstein, this film also shows characters who show little or no change of attitudes at all. Considering this film was made in the mid to late 1960's, the special effects is weak. The storyline has an excellent twist. Things that can keep you interested is the rape scenes and the characters that have been hurt in the movie. When you think you see a flaw in the movie, be careful, it could have been intentional. For example, a young and beautiful lady gets a cut across the forehead from hitting a tree branch while riding a horse. Hours later, the cut is completely gone and the lady is back to being full of life and still beautiful as ever. Paying attention to details like this will help understand the movie as this was intentional and if you want to know how it happened, all I can say is watch the movie.


There's SO much wrong with this movie, I barely know where to start first. Oh no wait, I do know! With the ending, seeing there isn't really one! The plot introduces many characters that each have their own odd personalities, there's loads of sexual tension & intrigue between them all, a mad scientist with blood vengeance on his mind and everything taking place in a castle with a sinister history. All these great ideas and Gothic-trademarks and then, suddenly, it goes terribly wrong and the film ends in a minor key. It feels like whatever tight budget Adrian Hoven was working with all of sudden ran out completely and, as a result of this, they just quit in the middle of shooting. Howard Vernon  a Jess Franco regular  plays yet another mentally messed up Baron slash doctor slash castle owner. Some centuries ago, one of his ancestors lost his beautiful daughter because she was raped and abused by savage men in the woods. History seems to repeat itself, as Graf Saxon's own daughter also falls victim to an assault. He and his loyal servants want to resurrect the dead daughter but they'll need essential body parts from living beings. Lucky for them, a drunken bunch of flamboyant party animals stumbles into the castle and onto the operation table. "Castle of the Creeping Flesh" is a very bizarre film for more than just one reason. I've been using the term "gothic" already, but I'm not entirely sure if it fully counts as goth-horror! During with era are the events even supposed to take place? The characters attend fancy high society parties, yet they ride horses instead of cars. And Howard Vernon lives isolated in a creepy castle, yet he's perfectly able to perform a complex open-heart surgery? And yet, underneath all the confusion, implausible story lines and downright horrible dubbing jobs, there is an interesting and obscure exploitation effort to discover. We have gorgeous euro-babes stripping their clothes off, an occasionally macabre ambiance and some really graphic gore moments. Howard Vernon is terrible but fun to observe as always and Michel Lemoine is genuinely scary with his horrifying eyes. It's really too bad about that crap ending, otherwise I could recommend it even more.


You know, I'm a fan of Connie Willis's fiction, which is the only reason I tuned into this dreck-fest of a film. I mean, it's a network made-for-TV movie called "Snow Wonder." The probability for awfulness was high from the get-go. But it was based on a short story by Connie Willis, so...I figured, what the heck, right? What a mistake. There's two hours I'll never get back. The story arc was awful--perhaps the fact that there were so many separate story lines had something to do with that, who knows? I never cared for any of the characters; almost all of them were tiresome to a fault. The cast was not so bad, but most of the actors seemed like they were flailing around without any direction. Camryn Mannheim and David Sutcliffe especially deserve better. I'm not sure what happened to Mary Tyler Moore... maybe it was just that the character she was playing was so stereotyped and tired..."Oooh, I'm so eccentric! Oooh, I wear a lot of scarves and drapey clothes--that shows how artsy I am!" Her storyline in particular was excruciating to watch. And I've never seen so many overused visual and verbal clichés that masquerade as storytelling in my life. If Connie Willis's short story is anything like this, I may have to revise my opinion of her work. Then again, look what happened to Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea when it made it to TV. Oh, the humanity. It's too late for me, but save yourselves and avoid "Snow Wonder" at all costs. I only give it a 2 out of 10 because it's not as bad as "Salsa" (truly the worst film ever made).


This horrible movie was on at Christmastime this past year. I thought I was going to shoot myself just watching it. The acting was terrible and Mary Tyler Moore was so clichéd that I was hoping her character had a terminal illness. Poppy Montgomery looked good as always, but the two guys vying for her affection were awesomely annoying. Everything was complete smarm and overly convenient. I have seen episodes of Walker that looked like Hitchcock compared to this drivel. And instead of turning off the lights and enjoying the evening, my wife stayed up to watch the whole thing.

If you've ever felt lower than a Hallmark TV movie, then you have experienced crushing rejection.


I don't know how anyone can give this movie a good review. It was terrible. Extremely cheesy, unrealistic, over-acted, embarrassing to watch. I love Poppy Montgomery, Jennifer Esposito (especially after "Crash")and the guy from CSI and I was so embarrassed for them that they were in this mess. It is about a freak snow storm that turns earth magical white Christmas . It shows about 6-7 different stories around the US that include a woman battling to keep custody of her son while the jerk of a father makes her life a living hell, a young man searching for the approval of his mother and estranged father - when his crazy aunt comes in early for their Christmas dinner to give him a new perspective, a young woman who is the maid of honor at her best friend's Christmas Eve wedding and the drama that ensues when it looks as if the wedding may be canceled due to weather not to mention the hidden feelings the young woman has for the groom-to-be, another woman who is trying to escape Christmas after her husband died last year at the same time, a conniving husband who is cheating on his wife while he tells her he is tied up at an airport, and finally the weather man who brings it all together during this once in a lifetime event. There was potential for this movie to be a cute yet somewhat cheesy hallmark type, and hey, since it is the holiday season I was fully prepared for that. But the movie was muddled by cheesy theme music, over done facial expressions and emotional outbursts. In the end some of the stories intertwine in a twist that's about as sneaky as an bull in a china shop. Sorry to be so harsh, but to me it seemed like this movie was 98% cheese and 2% absurd.


A little extreme, huh? I think my nationality has rendered my some point of patriotism, that the war criminal could not just get away with this, of just like the blockbuster "Pearl Harbor", in the spitting of the people of China, plus the modest performance of Harley and Trevor, I would rather delete it from my PC.

The acting and outline of a movie should be put to the very first, and I think the main problem with the movie will not be just an " old piece" but the attempt to be realistic and natural, and the whole thing just get mixed up, I think Harley will be another Sean, But not that luck under the atmosphere of destruction, and nothing to give him but to be yourself, not to be too real, After all you are acting, people rushing into that theater not to see your lives, but to see your understanding of the particular line of the story told by the diversity of all the human beings existing and living in the planet some E.T. will not get fully understand and be attached to.


This is the most awful film I have ever seen in my life...and I'm not exaggerating.

First off, the direction is horrible; there is zero suspense where there is supposed to be. Pat Morita's character is not developed at all, and the rest of the cast were mediocre. Lots of the dialogue is cheesy and robotic.

The kids find the Japanese sailor in their hide-out place and from there, nothing really happens for a while...it just lags on and on and on...

The Japanese sailor acts all goofy and is not convincing at all!!!

The ending is both flat and very un-realistic and you're left with a feeling like..THATS IT???!!!

Falls flat on its face, even for kids...it's a total waste of your time. It might start off looking good but it turns into a jungle of crap scenes.

WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!!!


If you've ever watched the hour-long "Magical World of Disney" show which had various Disney cartoons from the 1940s through 1970s played, you'll be familiar with what this video is. The exact same stories shown the exact same way with a grand total of 3-5 new minutes of wrapper animation (with different voices than the segments, as well as poorer quality animation) make this one to avoid.

The tape does include a little cardboard stand for a picture of some kind, but that's not really worth the money spent on this. Go get Monsters, Inc instead -- your family will thank you.


This video is just a collection of old Disney cartoons repackaged with very poor filler material involving many classic characters with boring one-liners. Reminds me of when they have a "special" episode of a sitcom which is only recycled bits from the whole season. Don't bother to buy this one. Very poor, Walt. Don't rip us off like that!


I enjoyed Disney's Christmas release last year so I thought that I'd pick up this movie as well. I regret it! It's a complete waste of whatever you spend on it. The movie is a poor compilation of only a handful of Disney Christmas shorts. The best part of it is the obviously edited version of Disney's Christmas Carol and even at that it's not worth it. This movie is a disgrace, don't waste your time.


I have no idea what this was supposed to be, but the end result was atrocious. It certainly seems to fit in nicely with the current Disney run of "cheapquels" being cranked out at furious pace to squeeze a few more dollars out of their "properties", quality be damned. Certainly whoever produced this misaligned heap of bouncing blobs set to jarring and annoying music was hired by ghouls in suits or possibly accountants to do a dirty job, and no love went into it whatsoever.

The direct-to-video animation is clumsy, the characters are ghastly and vague impersonations of themselves; worse, the storyline is retarded, so much that even my 5-year-old nephew (who made me watch this awful thing) could see that it was dumb and didn't "feel" like any of the classics. The characters all have the same personality of ill-defined bouncing blobs without motivation, and the "story" couldn't have taken more than a few minutes to work out. Indeed, this thing has all the sincerity of a street hustler and all the charm of a corporate powerpoint presentation.

The music was apparently provided by a handful of lounge entertainment dinosaurs armed with cheap Casio synths.


Before I rip this thing apart, let me clarify that I do NOT, as many have accused, hate the Disney Company. It's just that they're kind of like what a real-life Godzilla would be like. WAY too big and often making mistakes that shouldn't ever been allowed to happen. This video is one of them.

I got a little disillusioned with the Mouse when their direct-to-video-sequel thing started. They're rumored to have about eight more planned for the next few years. At some point, I guess, somebody decided it would be funny to have EVERY Disney character ever in one movie. And so we have... this THING. This monstrous THING!!!

If the "Snookums and Meat Funny Cartoon Show" couldn't do it for you; if the ZOOG things that stole the Disney Channel couldn't do it for you; heck, if you are *looking forward* to "Back to Neverland"; then this will break you into a weeping blob of protoplasm faster than you can blink. This here is the magic bullet for any Disney detractor. You Disney fans finally know what we Looney Tunes fans went through with "Space Jam".

The only saving grace is that for some reason, some wise fellow decided to use "Pluto's Christmas Tree" and "Mickey's Christmas Carol", in their entirety, to pad out this video. Fast-forward to those parts and only watch them if you are forced to sit through this.


Watching "Anatomy of a Murder" is as intriguing as watching "Anatomy of a Traffic Ticket". I wanted to like this film. After all it has a great cast based on a provocative novel at the time. The problem is it's slow, illogical, and no twist and turns to make the two plus hours invested worthwhile. It ends on a whimper with the only response that is appropriate is "huh?" or "Is that all there is?". Lee Remick is perfect as the horny slutty wife of military man, Ben Gazaarra. He also is well cast. George C. Scoot fares better as a member of the prosecution team than Jimmey Stewart does as the poor as a church mouse defense attorney. Jimmy does his "Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington" act and it gets very close to over the top at times. And the verdict simply does not pass the smell test. As piece of nostalgia this certainly is of interest. After all, it was a time when the word "panties" was risqué' in films. Yet when all is said and done it is a pedantic court room drama with lots of court room and little drama.


Major disappointment! I thought it was going to be a typical horror movie but with a bit of originality. I was wrong. The originality that the movie was trying to achieve was over-done and therefore didn't make any impression on me. In the end it's just another low budget movie, done in a reality-TV kinda way, similar to "Blair-witch-Project" in terms of VERY little action and WAY too much talking. It feels like it was not edited at all. Surely that makes it seem more real, but we all know it's not. It also wasn't entertaining. I honestly had to stop myself from falling asleep several times...it was awfully boring and a waste of time. If you expect to see a scary movie, it's just not it.


I've been a fan of horror movies and thrillers since I was a child. I'd like to think I know a little about the way they work, having studied film at university (not that that makes me an expert, mind you). In the post-modern world we live in now, there is a glut of cinema verite in our televisual entertainment, what with the plethora of reality TV shows and so on. Horror movies seem to have moved in a similar direction in some ways: witness The Blair Witch Project, Rec, Cloverfield etc. There is also an emphasis on taking the horror to its "logical" extreme by exposing the viewer to total violence and sadistic torture - note for instance the current trend of torture porn with films like Hostel and Saw. All these movies aim to place us in the action and make it seem more "real".

Taking this theme of placing-the-viewer-in-reality, the writer of The Last Horror Movie would like to think he is being desperately clever, but the script in this film is so patronising and transparent it can't even pass as "art".

The lead actor is just plain awful - his performance is incredibly affected and bland, with almost no nuance. Others give good performances however, especially the Assistant.

The serial killer constantly looks at the camera intensely and asks us "insightful" questions like "why are you still watching?" and "don't you want to see what happened?" and so on. Utterly tedious. We KNOW why we watch horror - we don't need to be lectured about it. Horror performs a sort of ritual of exorcism for our daily lives - it enables us to live vicariously through the fictional suffering of others, knowing we would never do it ourselves (and hoping that it will never happen to us). This sort of thematic material was explored with so much more finesse and artfulness in Henry: Portrait Of A Serial Killer (which is truly shocking in its coldness), Pasolini's incredible Salo (the end sequence where we are looking through binoculars at soundless torture scenes), Belgium's excellent "Man Bites Dog" (which was ahead of its time) and even less graphic movies like Hitchcock's Rear Window and the excellent "Peeping Tom" from the early 60s. Voyeurism being explored in film is nothing new. The premise of The Last Horror Movie therefore appears incredibly naive to me, with nothing new to say. The murders are rather silly, and the whole "I followed you from the video store" line just tacky. It's one thing to take the tack of "the viewer is complicit in this murder" theme, it's quite another to shove it down their throats.


This film seems to be trying hard to grip the imagination of the viewer but my tolerance for its knowing tricksiness and didactic attitude could only have lasted as long as I found it compelling, which was no time at all. The idea of a serial killer making his own personal film or having one made about him was executed to far better effect, both more entertaining and more chilling, in the Belgian film Man Bites Dog. In The Last Horror Movie the film-makers try to challenge our moral position vis a vis violence as entertainment, but this is done in such an unsubtle and hectoring tone that interest wanes very quickly. In Man Bites Dog, this was genuinely achieved through skillful and subtle film-making rather than preaching pseudo-philosophical student claptrap at the audience. It thinks that through its "post-modern" trickery that it includes and involves the viewer directly, just as the killer attempts to "include" his victims in the "project" but the end result for me was bored, irritated alienation. The performances are acceptable but nothing special and Kevin Howarth as Max has his work cut out delivering leaden text to us in tedious video-diary-style scenes, of which there are too many. If you want to see a film with this kind of theme, rent Man Bites Dog and let your conscience lecture you, not some self-regarding film student.


This is an objectionable film. Not because its shocking, or depicts anything that hasn't been seen before. But because it believes its saying something important. I keep reading that this film makes us think, makes us examine our own reactions / feelings about watching violence. That simply won't do. Post-Iraq any of us can download real life executions in the space of a few minutes - all of which would incalculably exceed the horror depicted here. Some of us do - usually to profoundly regret it. The premise of this film, or at least of the protagonist / anti-hero of this piece seems wrong. I really doubt people who rent horror movies secretly want to see real life murder; or that if they were to happen upon a film like this they would share any moral culpability for watching what was playing right in front of their noses. Then there's the notion that this rather unlikely not to mention very middle class serial killer thinks that what he is doing is art. Again, I don't object to the idea - I'm really looking forward to reading the Art of Murder by Somoza as soon as I can get hold of it - but this just doesn't make the grade. Besides all serial killers are arse-holes. None of them have anything to say and neither do films about them.


When I saw Fangoria listed on the cover of this DVD, I thought for sure it would be interesting and fun to watch. I'm a big horror fan. It's my favorite genre and I can easily find entertainment value in most horror flicks -- even if they are truly bad, they're usually good for a laugh or two...

NOT this one. I watched the first 30 minutes with genuine interest and curiosity, wondering what was going to happen next, and even thinking that this movie was promising, very different from most that I have seen. Soon after, the substandard acting and repetitive dialogue pushed me far past boring to extremely annoyed. Obviously the writers thought the audience's interest would be piqued, judging by Max's constant comments to the effect of, "I know you're wondering," "You must want to see," "I'll bet you want to know..." By the end of the film I honestly couldn't care less what happened and I just wanted it to be over. The bad acting completely obliterated the integrity of the characters and the storyline and I couldn't break past it to believe in it anymore... I couldn't see the characters anymore, just a bunch of really bad actors.

My opinion clearly differs with the majority of people who have commented so far, but I have to note it's very rare that I don't like a film. I am NOT one of the people who nitpick a movie to death and complain about every other movie that's released. Nine out of ten movies I see have true merit, whether it's in the writing, the acting, the cinematography, the styling, etc. As hard as I tried, I couldn't find any in this one. A complete waste of time and rental fees. Four thumbs down from these two very disappointed viewers...


This movie is well meant but poorly made...

I don't know how much sense that makes in English, but i hope it's pretty clear what i meant.

Indeed i appreciate his (by my knowledge) original idea but Max became at some point annoying. He kept repeating himself (although he disliked that...) and come on... every killer must have a reason for his murders (even a hidden one or something...).

After watching this movie (and even while watching it) i kept asking myself why am i torturing myself?, and my only answer was that i can't hardly wait for it to end so i can make some sense of it...

That never happened and i was left (at the end of the movie) in almost total darkness. Or maybe i did not understand what they meant to say... Maybe...

However, i have rarely seen more uninteresting movies...

In the end i would like to apologize for my bad English (i' not a native speaker), and i hope i made my point clear. For constructive criticism, feel free to reply!


I cannot believe that all the people on this comment section are actually praising this grotesque piece of horrid cinema! Where do I start? What the hell was the plot of this movie? The main character, Raymond Joshua, is an amateur poet and drug dealer who gets sent to prail(prison and jail, which I'll talk about later) after making the moronic mistake of attempting to jump a fence instead of running away from the fifty year old "doo-wop" cops. He then gets in the patty wagon with arguably the best character of the movie, an unknown convict named Jimmy Huang or some sort of phallic name like that. He screams, yells, gets beaten, and earns the third credit in the film for his three seconds of brilliance. Mr. Joshua then meets with his la la la lawyer who is obviously smoking some of the drugs that our "star" was caught with. Comprehending what the hell the lawyer was saying is like "trying to throw a snowball into an elephants mouth at a hundred feet..." Now he is sent to jail, which for some reason is made out to be like a prison, "you might make it out of here...you might not." Dying for a quarter pound of weed seems a little excessive for a jail, however, if only that had happened the suffering could have turned to slight laughter with mild nausea. He meets another street pharmacist in "jail," the for some reason free roaming Hopha, who is aloud to have his cell door open, maybe he has appointments with some of the bigger prisoners for conjugal visits or something, they don't really explain that. Raymond then meets a disgusting woman teaching poetry (go figure) to the troubled murderers and rapists with artsy souls dying to get out. I'm not going to say any more, I wouldn't want to spoil the filth for you entirely. Let's just say this movie is wonderful. In the way that having a catheter and an enema at the exact same time your limbs are being sawed off one at a time with a piece of looseleaf paper is pleasant. Do yourself a favor and watch Breakin 2: Electric Boogaloo, the Mountain Men, and Slam, and then try not to kill yourself, I dare you.


You can count the good hip-hop films on one hand. Well this is one of them.

Williams is excellent in his first lead role. The film has ghetto issues, prison, slavery and love all covered.

One complaint is that Williams isn't allowed to preach his poetry more.


This movie is utter torment for the modern viewer.

Filming a play is difficult; to be true to the play and to the film medium is challenging. "Country Girl" is extremely two dimensional.

The only lively scene is where Jacqueline Fontaine sings 'Love and Learn' with Bing.

The acting is wooden. It would seem that Charlise Theron climbed onto the ugly-Oscar wagon, but Grace Kelly got there first. She is totally unconvincing as a housewife. Bing looks elderly and weary; the music is dull but he does his best with the material.

The only acting strength comes from William Holden. His character learns and grows. The scene in which he kisses Grace, while somewhat unexpected, is powerful.

Cliché is piled upon Cliché. At times tears are jerked; tears of fury and pain. The modern audience expects a little subtlety. And Bing's alcoholism seems to be a try-on by all parties; an excuse to behave very badly and add a few more clichés. The only cure for him in the context of the film would be shedding Grace - and maybe going after Jacqueline.

Sure, there are good points. The audience disbelieves Grace and believes the charming Bing, but it is shown the truth in excellent filmic style, and swings just when Bill Holden does, into trusting Grace.

And the almost-ending, where Bing releases Grace, is filmically sound. Bing is on one side of the room and the other two share a shot. That chunk of the script is good. Bing does 'noble' very well.

Yet at the end Grace - lovely again - runs after Bing and good old Bill just watches from a window, giving a stylish long and elevated shot of Bing and Grace going home together. In real life she would have taken a break from both and ended up with Bill, or someone else.

Was this an ending added after tryout? Grace states that she wants Bing to stand on his own feet and be a man again so that she can be free, yet she goes back to him. Tryouts? Codependance? Infuriating!

Somehow the focus of this film was all wrong and the result was slow torture.

Not recommended!!!


The only redeeming quality this movie could possibly have had was a series of soft core scenes well shot with an eye to detail. That, unfortunately did not happen. The plot, what there is of it, is poorly thought out and does not sustain ones' interest unless you are looking for a primer on how not to script a movie. The actresses are no where near the quality of Kim Dawson or Tane Mc Clure and are never seen satisfyingly naked in the sex scenes, much less from the multiple camera angles one expects from a T&A opus. The company that produced this must have had the idea that they were making a real movie so they used the tease of Mary Carey and the other women to draw viewers who would then be amazed at the quality of the film just watched. It would be so nice if when making a T&A movie, the people responsible would simply make a mindless movie with lots of naked female flesh and leave the really bad film making to Ed Wood. Please do not expect anything from this excrescence other than the loss of hard earned dollars. Go watch Mary in a film that shows her abilities to the max.


"Ben Turner is the sexiest, kindest, gentlest, most charming man I have ever met."

Jade Dunbar says this line numerous times in the middle of "Sapphire Girls", and that was truly the only funny line in this film.

We begin with said Sapphire Girls--an all-girl rock band consisting of three kooky characters--Chrystal (Elizarah) the lead guitarist, Jade (Jodie Moore) the bass player, and Ruby (Mary Carey--yes, THAT Mary Carey) the drummer. They were once a hot commodity, but now they've been relegated to menial jobs and Ruby is now banging random guys in her van (as we see at the beginning of the film). An enterprising producer, Ben Turner (Tony Brale), has offered to let the girls use his studio to record their comeback album, so off they go to his house, where they get drunk, get naked by the pool, and participate in the usual hijinks.

However, there's a fiendish plot taking place as well. Ben Turner is conspiring with a scientist, Dr. Wuhrman (Dugan Hayes, a longtime softcore regular) to create a potion that will give a person the power to control the minds of others--all it takes is a "switch", such as a snap of the fingers or a "magic word"--to turn it on. Of course, Ben plans to use it on the girls, and use their music to control the minds of everyone who buys their album, which he hopes is many millions of people.

Far-fetched storyline aside, we're really here for the sex, and if you're expecting the best, look elsewhere. The sex scenes are bogged down with a cheesy rock soundtrack and uninspiring performances. I would think that Mary Carey, being a veteran of many pornos, would at least make her sex scenes look very real--but unfortunately they're as bad as the others. Jodie Moore, an Australian-born hottie who also dabbles in porn, had a couple of decent scenes.

There's a guy who works as a gardener of some sort on the premises, but he's actually a secret spy trying to bring down Ben's operation. He asks the girls to help him as "deputy spies." A bad storyline just got worse. Let's not go any further with that, it just gets stupid later on.

Overall, this film is NOT tapeworthy, but if you're in the mood for a laugh and a fair amount of nudity, "Sapphire Girls" won't disappoint. It's not stupidly funny like "Bikini Airways" was, but it'll do in a pinch.

Women: A- (I will give this movie credit in one category--the women. Mary Carey, as bad an actress as she is, has an awesome body. It's too bad it wasn't used to its full potential in this film. Jodie Moore is great looking as well, and her Australian accent was a big plus. Nicole Oring, playing Ben's hot Asian assistant, was great also.)

Sex: D+ (Lower the volume on the stupid music, please. It detracts from the sex going on. A couple of the scenes were okay, but overall they were pretty by-the-numbers and uninspiring.)

Story: D (I'm being VERY generous by giving this movie a D in this category. The plot was way out there to start with, but at least it didn't end in a stupid fashion. The girls singing a lullaby to put everyone to sleep at the end was pretty funny.)

Overall: D (Since the "Women" grade and "Sex" grade are of equal weight, they end up cancelling each other out. If this is the best Silhouette Entertainment can come up with, they might as well close up the studio right now. It was funny in spurts, and the women were nice looking, but the sex looked fake and it didn't seem like the people involved were "into it." On any given night, if this is the only softcore film on, by all means watch it. But if you've got other choices, go there first.)


'Mitr' attempts to portray the conflicts experienced by a traditional Indian mother living in the USA. She devotes her life to her family while her teenage daughter and ambitious husband grow increasingly independent.

Far from being a Bollywood production, I felt Mitr is closer to being a a high-school drama caught on film, based on its production quality. The lighting was flat and strange (candlelight dinner on a sunny afternoon?). Every line of dialogue was forced and overdone (clearly the director's decision). The audio was plagued by echo (too distant microphones?). The soundtrack was nonstop georgewinston-ey, with cricket chirps dubbed into the nighttime scenes. Mitr boasts "an all female crew," but the the quality of their work does not reflect well on female professionals in the film industry.

Mitr is partly redeemed by its strong character development, but it's poor production quality is so distracting that I did not enjoy watching it.


Vampires Anonymous starts in Los Angeles where Vampire Vic Weller (Paul Popowich) needs help controlling his addiction to blood so he calls Vampires Anonymous who run a twelve step program for Vampires. A program designed to make Vampires not want to drink human blood & be there if they need help or are having trouble, the first step is apparently to 'admit you have a problem' & ends with 'smile, your a winner!' although there's lots of hard work & temptation to overcome between. Vic gets packed of to Rock Creek, North Carolina where he has to blend in with the locals & feed on the blood of sheep but Vic finds it hard to suppress the Vampire within himself...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Michael Keller I have to say right off the bat that I hated Vampires Anonymous., of course this is just my opinion & I'm in no way saying that you will definitely hate it but I think there's a fair chance the majority of potential viewers will find much more to hate in Vampires Anonymous than like. The script by Keller & J.P. Srinivasan is the biggest problem here, again this is just my opinion but I thought it was terrible. Vampires Anonymous is supposed to be some sort of light hearted comedy horror romance with a pinch of biting satire about therapy groups & psychiatric help thrown in there for good (bad?) measure. If that basic story outline makes you laugh then you may enjoy Vampires Anonymous but I thought it was an awful attempt at trying to be clever & funny & different, Vampires Anonymous is one of the most unfunny comedies I've ever seen & the makers can't even pull off a good sheep shagging farmer joke. The genre of horror comedy is very hard to pull off & the makers of this fail in spectacular fashion, the horror elements are none existent, the romance is so cheesy & predictable I almost threw up & it took me four sittings of twenty odd minutes each to get through this because I literally couldn't get through it one go.

Director Keller turns in a competent film & that's the only reason this turd gets two stars out of ten rather than one. It's not scary, it's definitely not funny, there's no tension, it's utterly predictable, the story is all over the place, the character's are unlikable, the dialogue sucks & I found it a real chore to sit through. I didn't like it. At all. Forget about any gore, there's a couple of neck bitings & a bit of blood drinking otherwise nothing. No nudity either. According to the closing credits Vampires Anonymous was edited by the interesting named Farm Dog, either that it was was literally edited by a farm dog.

Technically the film is fine & is really the only positive aspect of it but since it sucks so bad in every other way does it really matter? Shot in Burlington in North Carolina apparently, I doubt this is going to do much for the tourist numbers though. I have some advice for Michael Madsen, get a new agent considering some of the crap he's been in. I mean from the classy Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003) to this as his next film?! Having said that the quotes 'I probably made a few pictures I shouldn't have done, but I have four sons and I have to pay the rent. If you have a decision to make about whether or not you can buy groceries at the market or whether or not you're going to make a bad movie, you're going to make a bad movie.' & 'My career has been very strange. My career is like a heart monitor. I get involved in a good project now and then to keep things going. And then I make things that I work on that I hope are going to be good so I can make a living and keep a roof over the heads of those little monsters I have in my house. You know, every movie you make can't be great, no matter who you are. Even Brando made some clinkers.' from his page on the IMDb explains why he makes rubbish like Vampires Anonymous. We all have to pay the rent I suppose.

Vampires Anonymous sucks as much as the Vampires in the film, I'm sorry but I really disliked every aspect of the story & found it so unfunny & moronic it's untrue. If your looking for biting satire go elsewhere, if your looking for some laughs go elsewhere, if your looking for some horror go elsewhere & if your looking to be entertained go elsewhere.


I have read this novel several times and I was stunned that some of you found this a faithful version. I am referring to the miniseries that aired in the US with Depardieu and Malkovich. Maybe the French version - twice as long? - is more true to the novel, but the version we saw here was shockingly distorted.

Yes - all of the characters were there, but their roles were often twisted beyond recognition. One GLARING example: Eponine. If you have read the novel, you know that she is one of the most heroic characters, sacrificing herself for Marius. Did I miss something here? They turn her into one of the villains. Gavroche's role is also misrepresented. If they were going to take all that time, why not do it as Hugo wrote it? It is also very odd to make Cosette the narrator, as she is deliberately one of the weaker, more insipid characters in the novel. And Valjean was never in love with Cosette. He is genuinely an adoptive father.

Depardieu is beautifully cast as Valjean, but John Malkovich (I'm a fan, too) plays Javert as if he were simply mean - with none of the nuances of the tortured character that Geoffrey Rush portrays. The 1998 Bille August film is by far the superior interpretation, despite what he leaves out. And the musical theater version is the best of all, faithful to both the plot and spirit of Hugo's masterpiece.


First of all, I have seen only some parts of the last episode and also some small parts of other episodes (more then it deserves). I also read the novel. Where shall I start? The writing is just horribly ridiculous and unrealistic (for example: Valjean tells Cosette that Marius was wounded in the barricade, and all she seems to care about is that Valjean finally accepted him), the acting of ALL the actors, except for the guy who portrays Gillenormand, is terrible (especially John Malkovich as Javert and Depardieu (spl?) as Valjean, with his one face expression), the characters have turned into something very weird (Valjean is in love with Cosette?! 'Ponine sleeps with Marius?! Cosette turns into a spoiled brat who wants to dance?! I'm sure that Hugo is turning in his grave...), the whole thing is full of plot holes (Gavroche never ages, the Thenardiers wearing nice cloths, Javert hears the "Vive la republic" and does nothing) and why the hell is Gavroche Marius' best friend?! and 'Ponine tells the gang to rob Cosette's house? and why do everyone call her "'Ponine" for God sakes?! This is probably because their source materials were the musical and some sick fanfiction. This is probably the worst adaptation I've ever seen. The only good thing I can think of is the setting and the costumes (and Gillenormand, who usually is kept out of adaptations).


...not that someone else is trying to cash in on the 9/11 conspiracism that runs rampant among people too lazy to research the matters for themselves, but it's mind boggling at how many people will just accept whatever internet video is hot at the moment at face value, no questions asked.

The film starts off by letting us know that the narrator/producer was a conservative Republican (why is this important?) and a demolition hobbyist (yep, thats what he calls himself). Because of the above qualifications, he knows the towers would not have been able to collapse unless someone planted explosives in them. Yep, the sound reasoning only gets more impressive from there as he explains his exhaustive research methods that consisted of surfing the internet and watching some movies. For a week. This certainly puts the hundreds of people with actual experience in these matters and the educational background necessary to understand the events to shame. This man managed to completely dismiss the hundreds of thousands of collective man hours of the industries leading experts in one week, by surfing the internet.

There is little "new" info or takes on already debunked nonsense in this home made vid, just regurgitated bumper sticker talking points. ("never before has a steel building collapsed due to fire", not only intentionally misleading but factually wrong).

What surprises me is in the wake of people being forced to face the reality of how factually inaccurate and intentionally misleading Loose Change and it's editions really were, these same people are now championing this similar video without skipping a beat. It's as if they learned nothing about thinking for themselves, and most likely never will.

Still, like loose change, this video has it's merits, especially as a study in mass paranoia and rumor regurgitation. I recommend watching it, as I did with loose change, and then seeing screw911mysteries as a companion piece. or don't, if you aren't really concerned with truth. But please, don't turn off your brains and just accept what someone says on an internet video as fact, look into it for yourself.


Sorry to all the hysterical types who want to believe in this hokum-- simple physics is all that's needed to explain the collapse. Hold the explosives. Ask yourself why the narrator asks an unending stream of questions (and not very good ones). Why? Because this film contributes nothing, just dramatizes clouds of falling debris (which do hold a certain ghoulish fascination). "Why the Towers Fell" and other serious documentaries actually answer questions, present facts, and contain 100% less Carmina Burana. Pause a moment to remember those who perished that day, work for justice, understanding, and peace in the world. What the world doesn't need is more groundless suspicion, fear, and hysteria.


Truly, truly awful. The questions were mind-numbingly dumb (as was the commentary), if anything it makes you realise why the Sept 11 campaigners still haven't been able to prove a single one of their allegations. This film must be a false-flag operation, it truly is that bad. Watch it only if you are a die-hard conspiracy buff, or you can suspend all disbelief at the banality of the film and it's utter lack of impact. I tried hard to understand why she really decided to make this film, and the only conclusion that I could come to was that it is an attempt to cash-in on peoples natural desire to think the unthinkable.

Only watch this if you have already lost the will to live!


Therefore, I can honestly say, this was TERRIBLE. Firstly, every other positive comment HAS to be made by the people involved with the production. 8.5 rating? Really? Secondly, I love "fake-umentaries", but this was just bad. The acting was terrible... below B-grade. The "great camera work" was... well, up there with the acting. I know they weren't going for "slick", but it was just bad. The production value was actually quite good, which just adds to the disappointing end result. I can never tire of the "faux-cumentary" genre, but it's only been done right a few times. I'll give the filmmakers the credit of coming up with a cool concept, actually getting it off the ground and distributed, but they failed at making anything remotely watchable. Better luck next time.


Count me as one who loves the whole documentary sub-genre of horror created by "Cannibal Holocaust" and made popular more recently by both "The Blair Witch Project" and "The Last Broadcast." Though not a huge explosion of these types of films have popped up, there is a handful out there, such as "Strawberry Estates," "The St. Francisville Experiment," and "The Collingswood Story." These films attempt to frighten the audience by giving them a unique perspective of witnessing the events of the plot unfold through the eyes of a character's own camera lense or, in some cases (such as here), a security camera. Additionally, these films often advertise themselves as being "real, authentic footage!" when in fact, any viewer with any brains knows differently. Often times, these films are able to create adequate suspense and uneasiness. Unfortunately, this is not one of those instances and is really a smear and insult to its much better predecessors.

"In the Dark" presents itself as "real" footage of the events that take place when a group of teenagers break into an abandoned, burned asylum, where years before, a few of them did *something* (raped?) to a female inmate that left her scarred after they started a fire to cover their crime. The footage is presented dually through the camera lense of one of the teens and through security cameras present in and outside the building. Why does a abandoned asylum that is barely standing because of fire damage need security cameras you ask? Well, you're guess is as good as mine and that is just one of many things wrong with this film. You see, viewers are to believe that the girl inmate who was picked on knows that these teens are in this abandoned asylum on Halloween night, is able to escape her current institution and come to seek her revenge. She is presented here are sorta of a cross between a possessed Linda Blair in "The Exorcist" and a zombie from the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, which is puzzling considering she is supposedly just a burn victim. Better (or worse) yet, she is able to smuggle of few other inmates out of her facility to help scare the crap out of the teens. You'd think, since money was invested to have working security cameras in the decrepit asylum, that the security would have been a hell of a lot better at the new one! Apparently not....apparently no security cameras at the new asylum captured a few of the inmates walking out to go wreak havoc next door.

The film's main flaw is the fact that is is extremely boring and filled with extremely bad actors who are portraying annoying characters we could give a crap less about. We are subjected to long scenes of one of the more annoying characters filming himself make rude comments and mock his equally annoying mother, and act like a total retard detailing his plan to sneak out while his mother is fast asleep behind him in the couch. This scene has to be seen to be believed and my jaw was dropped at the ridiculousness I was witnessing. Long scenes of virtually nothing happening are presented as apparently the director's idea of suspense; characters whine and fight with each other and sort of act scared, but for some reason never all just decide to group together and leave the place. After all, there was about 9 of them and only one "killer." Again, nothing about these characters is even remotely interesting and I really just wanted them all to die. The film also feels about 20 minutes too long and the pacing is just horrid. I really really had to stop my self from hitting the fast forward button on my DVD remote, or worse yet, just ejecting the damn thing altogether.

"The Blair Witch Project" worked because it felt real. The acting was superb and there was no ridiculous plot elements that felt fake. Everything the viewer saw and heard looked and felt authentic and it was scary as hell. This film feels fake. There is no suspense because some of the things that unfold (particularly the ending) are so implausible that it is an insult to viewers. I only hope that the filmmakers really did not expect people to believe this was "real" footage because they failed miserable. Avoid this borefest at all costs.

FrightMeter Grade: F


Shameless asrtoturfing in the comments section, obvious in the first quarter of the film, warranted an IMDb registration. Don't fall for it, 'In The Dark' is one of the most sloppily conceived, hackneyed and unintentionally incoherent films in a long while.

A group of wild teens break into an abandoned asylum on Halloween night to drink and get high and, their story told by the portable cameras left behind, come face to face with a 'presence' seeking revenge. In a vain attempt to relieve that mind numbing string of clichés the screenwriters employ an admittedly novel device, augmenting the shaky cams with scenes from the facility's security cameras. It's unconvincing and forced. All but one camera are so painfully and clearly positioned for the film instead of surveillance the main effect is annoyance. The characters never behave like people, befalling fates through a staggering display of stupidity and complete lack of sense for self preservation. Aware of a threat watching them from an asylum window as they party outside, the reaction is to run into the asylum. When one of them becomes too overwhelmed to cope, in this film's logic the thing to do is put her to bed in an isolated, unlocked and unguarded room away from the rest where she'll 'be safe'. Not that the viewer is given much reason to care. An all-purpose stream of overlapped yells too often substitutes for dialog - in this scene for fright, that one excess, the next one anger. Horror nor gore approaches that of Robocop 2 and the effects are... missing. The protagonists run around all film in freshly laundered pajamas grimacing.

It's not hard to find zero-budget independent horror films that deliver. This isn't one of them.


I hate movies like this because the germ of a good idea is there and you can see some talent in front of and behind the camera, but the final product is so far off base that it makes me really irritated.

I think the actors were probably good, although it seems they were allowed to improvise too much. A stronger script would have been very beneficial here. As someone else noted, their characters were amazingly shallow. You could take any two of them and swap the actors portraying them and you wouldn't have been able to tell. And all they talk about is drugs. This reveals little about their characters and gets boring after a few minutes, but it just doesn't stop.

Other problems? It takes too long to get to the meat of the story, i.e., getting the kids inside the asylum. We get long, drawn out explanations by a detective and a nurse and the kids themselves filling in the exposition, only none of them can muster up enough enthusiasm to tell the tale without taking mini-breaks for smoking, typing or horseplay. If they don't care about the legend of Lizzie, why should we?

When the kids finally do realize that Lizzie is still in the asylum, they have moments of panic, then they revert back to their druggy horseplay, then another panic, then horseplay, then panic again. It seems to me that if I knew a psycho was running around loose trying to kill me, I would go to and remain on Red Alert and not calm back down like nothing had happened.

The editing was awful. There was no artistic buildup of suspense, the lack of sound in some security camera shots but admitted in others was jarring. I got confused several times about who was holding the camcorder and in fact, how many camcorders there actually were. For a film that claimed to be a real documentary, the use of scary music and hard rock was out of place. The movie didn't know if it was pretending to be a documentary or a real movie.

The good things: while I think the director tipped his hand by showing us LIzzie's scarred face near the beginning, her determined running style was truly frightening. Whenever she ran through a shot, I usually felt a chill. The shot of her face in the window being lit by the flashlight was a good one, too. But I would have given her a weapon. Strangling kids isn't that scary. I liked the idea of her sucking out Barry's eyeball, but if you'd included in the legend that Lizzie carried a sharped spoon for scooping out eyes, it would have strengthened her fear factor. The revelation by Drako (it's not really a twist) at the end was good, but didn't have the umph that it required. And could we have heard some screams as the fire spread and the door was held shut?

I applaud the production of indie films, but this one had such potential and just missed its target. Pity.


I watched In the Dark last night. The acting of the main characters were awful, hammy at best. I didn't believe any of it while watching it, I wonder how someone could actually believe the movie was "real". And yes, they were acting, none of it was real. You even see the actors with the director and crew in the DVDs special features.

Good aspects of the movie were that is was scary. Ashame that the biggest scare was at the beginning, when we get our first close-up of Lizzy, making you hope for more intense scares in the climax.

Also, the back story confuses me a bit, like what about the girl that did die in the fire. They said there were two girls in the fire and Lizzy survived. I was expecting her ghost to appear. It makes me wonder if they are planning a sequel with the little talked about dead girl as an added twist.

If they didn't market this movie as being "real" I would have more respect for the movie. Again, most of the acting was sooo bad and it wasn't real campy, something your could enjoy in spite of the quality. Besides the acting, the whole set up, dialog, filming and execution were trite and it insults the viewer.

Jezebel


In Kihono, Hawaii, some scaly, clawed hands emerge from the waters and start shaking the boat of a bunch of dynamite fisherman, causing one of the guys to drop a stick of lit dynamite that blows up the boat. Those scaly hands naturally belong to a silly-looking man-in-a-rubber-suit creature that starts causing the usual problems in and around a tropical resort. Well, it's supposed to be a tropical resort, but they must have been filming during the off season because the scenery isn't even all that great in this one. Don't expect to see bikini-clad babes frolicking in the waves, long sandy beaches stretching for miles or sunlight glistening off of crystal blue water. Here, the clouds are dark, the sky is overcast and the water is murky and muddy. Now while the "filming locations" section here at IMDb claims this movie WAS actually shot in Hawaii, I have my doubts. Not only is it a Filipino/US co-production, but the director is from the Philippines and normally films his movies over there, so I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this one was filmed there, too. The native vegetation, the waterways, the buildings and much of the supporting cast certainly don't look Hawaiian to me, though I could be mistaken.

Superstitious local villagers do a hilarious ceremonial hula/fire dance, chant and throw leis into the ocean to try to appease the beast, but it kills their tribal leader anyway, so they begin to flee the area. Not so easily scared off is herpetologist Annie Essex (Kathryn Witt), who is on the island researching "the legend of the Akua." She teams up with skeptical new-sheriff-in-town Keefer (William Steis) to investigate. There's a bare minimum of character development between these two; she's ambitious and wants to discover a new species, while he is a widower who has come to the area to escape "the psychotic bulls**t" he encountered at his previous job in Reno. There's also a half-baked romance that starts to develop between them, but it's not really followed through with. Also sticking around are pushy, bearded, unbelievably obnoxious news reporter Ike (played by screenwriter Frederick Bailey), drug-addicted skin mag model Gobby (Lesley Huntly), British photographer Ted (Paul Holmes) and a slew of criminals who specialize in making illegal explosives. Also there is Ms. Cahill (Laura Banks), bitchy owner of the Paradise Resort, who uses the legend of the sea beast to bring in more tourists, against the wishes of the sheriff and lady scientist. The actors (who are mediocre, but not too bad) get to hurl around lame insults such as "You incompetent slouch!" and "Take a hike spaz ass!" The rest of the dialogue, as well as the plot, characters and horror/action scenes, are hopelessly clichéd and fail to save this from becoming a complete bore.

As far as the monster is concerned, it's a standard issue rubber suit with some seaweed glued on it, and we barely get to see much of until the very end. The doctor refers to it as a "carniverous lizard man of the Triassic age" and says it's a nocturnal eater and light sensitive, which doesn't really explain why the first two attacks take place in broad daylight. The creature does manage to cause around half a dozen explosions in the film, though. It even manages to make a little water front dynamite factory blow up. The National Guard are finally called in and show their professionalism by igniting sticks of dynamite with a lit cigarette to hurl down at the beast from a helicopter above. From a stationary position in the water, the beast manages to leap upward about fifteen feet, grabs the copter and pulls it down into the water. The almost entirely submerged aircraft then manages to explode. So much for realism...

There's also a monster egg hunt at the resort (don't ask), a police shoot out, one topless scene (from Ms. Huntly during a topless photo shoot) and overuse of a fog machine during all of the night scenes. The violence is very mild, most of the kills take place off screen and the gore is minimal. Not much else to say about this one, other than you've probably seen it all before. There are both better and worse films out there with nearly the same exact plot line, which doesn't make this any less monotonous to sit through for anyone who has ever seen a monster movie before.


Some fishermen using dynamite manage to blow themselves up and an undersea lizard man starts attacking people. Stuff blows up every once in a while.

A woman decides to promote her resort in the area of the monster sightings to people into the Loch Ness Monster, the abominable snowman, and the yeti. She hires an obnoxious reporter as her PR man. A bunch of people do show up. She has a monster egg hunt, and there's no payoff for this: we see the hunt begin, but do not see them find either the egg she hid, or a real monster egg (if there were any). The hunt starts, and then all of a sudden it's nighttime.

One woman takes her top off and goes swimming. She has a nice figure. Nothing happens to her, which is OK, but there's not even any suspense in the scene.

At one point the monster somehow jumps up out of the water, grabs onto a helicopter, and pulls it down into the water. This was pretty hilarious. Then the copter predictably explodes.

Inexplicably, the monster is bulletproof. Grenades, however, are capable of decapitating it. Is there more than one? You'd think so, but I don't know.

Not worth watching at all. You're much better off with the Creature from the Black Lagoon series, and Humanoids from the Deep. The back of the video box states "Come along on this tour and get it all., plus an unadvertised bonus: 84 minutes of monstrous terror." If the movie is 84 minutes long, how is its running time a bonus? If it is advertised by that blurb, how is it unadvertised?


When I was a teenager I used to watch a lot of Cirio Santiago's war/action flicks like "Equalizer 2000","Nam Angels" or "Last Stand at Lang Mei".His cheaply made but highly energetic movies were popular during VHS revolution in Poland."Demon of Paradise" tells the story of Hawaiian fishing community terrorized by a man sized amphibious monster.I consider myself very tolerant when it comes to rating and reviewing Z-grade trash,unfortunately "Demon of Paradise" is simply dull.There is no gore and the bloodless killings are mostly off-screen.Admittedly Hawaiian landscapes are beautiful and the music is fine,but "Demon of Paradise" is a misfire.4 out of 10 for this low-budget monster dud.


This is another boring low budget horror/monster movie. The video box art is quite cool (as usual) but the film itself is far too dull. The monster is a guy in a rubber suit, which usually would give you laughs due to the cheese factor, but sadly the monster isn't shown nearly enough to be entertaining. There's no gore nor suspense to be had either. The acting ranges from OK to terrible.

Demon of Paradise reminds me of another horror flick in a similar vein called The Evil Below, which is equally as boring. All horror fans will want to avoid both of these films - all they're good for are the VHS covers.


Demon of Paradise is set on 'Kihono, Hawaii' where a group of four men are setting dynamite off in a local lake, I have no idea why but they're all villains & up to no good. Then, out of nowhere, a fish-lizard mutant thing turns up. A herpetologist named Dr. Annie Essex (Kathryn Witt) is doing some research in the hope of finding a new species, she becomes involved with Sheriff Keefer (William Steis) so when the dead, mutilated body of a fisherman (Ramon D'Salva) turns up she goes along, I have no idea why Keefer would involve her but what does that matter? After examining the corpse for all of 5 minutes Annie finds a claw & confidently announces to Keefer that there is a fish-lizard creature in the area killing people. At first Keefer is somewhat sceptical as is his right as the local law enforcement officer but soon has to change his doubting mind when the bodies continue to pile up & he sees the 'terrifying' creature with his own eyes, it's up to Keefer & Annie to save the local residents from becoming fish-lizard creature food!

This Pilippines American co-production was co-produced & directed by Cirio H. Santiago &, quite frankly, is crap & stinks worse than a 2 week old kipper left in the sun to rot. The script by Frederick Bailey obviously steals it's best ideas, themes & situations from other, much better films such as Jaws (1975), Creature From the Black Lagoon (1954, 2006 remake if it ever happens) & Humaniods From the Deep (1980) for example. Nothing is explained with any degree of satisfaction, the plot is as thin as my plot synopsis makes it sound & it's incredibly slow & dull. I suppose it's a cliché but in the case of Demon of Paradise it's true, it would be more exciting watching grass grow. The character's are poor & unlikable, the dialogue had no effort put into it & the final nail in Demon of Paradise's coffin is that there are very few attacks, the monster sucks & there is no gore whatsoever, I have to ask the question what's the point? It has a snail's pace & takes itself far too seriously & provides little, if any, entertainment value. The ending hints at a sequel which thankfully has never been made, I shudder at the very thought.

Economy conscious director Santiago does nothing to liven things up, the attack scenes are rubbish, there's no gore or violence at all & he seems more interested in cheap action with a few boats exploding & a lame shoot-out. The monster looks pretty bad, it's obviously a guy in a rubber suit with a mask that looks more like a Wolf than anything else. To save on special effects there's no blood, violence or gore either, sorry I've already mentioned that haven't I? I mean I'm not bitter or anything but I want the 90 odd minutes I spent watching this crap back. However, if you can stay awake long enough there is a scene when a fashion model takes a quick swim topless.

The budget on Demon of Paradise must have been low, there is simply no other explanation as why the whole thing is so cheap & tacky. Actually shot in Hawaii the locations are the best thing about the film which just about says it all. The acting was brilliant & the whole cast deserve Oscars, only joking they were all awful.

Demon of Paradise is a terrible film, it's dull, boring, badly made & just painful to sit through (I still have the emotional scars to prove it). Don't even consider it, there are much, much better water & fish life based horror out there. Picked up for distribution by Roger Corman.


Someone wakes me up when something starts happening. Other

than Kathryn Witt's form fitting 80's jeans I see no reason to bother

with this stinker. Seems to have been fashioned as an excuse to

shoot a bunch of footage with one of those helicopter engine

pontoon swamp boats & discussion scenes at a Hawaiian tourist

resort during an off-season winter lull. I also love how the

hero/heroine are thrown out of the resort one scene & the next

they go back to have a drink. THEN they get thrown out again, and

are back four scenes later since that was the best set they had.

I love low budget horror trash as much as anyone else, but

something ought to happen every once in a while, and if you are

going to have an attractive woman play a herpatologist in a horror

film she had better be seen at least topless & getting far more out

of her career than she bargained on, or you have blown it.

As for the monster suit, heh, I thought it was kind of fun to see

someone not even bother to make something that looked "realistic" -- Kind of like Lamberto Bava's MONSTER SHARK, but

without any point to it & lacking that movie's ridiculous

entertainment value.

Best line: "It takes two to mate." [Flushing sound]


A quick Summary of this film: A Green Fish like Monster takes a liking to eating people 0n the Paradise island of Hawaii.

With the low budget and poor acting the only watchable aspects about this film are the scenes showing the Wildlife and the Island. I managed to watch the whole film on my Film philosophy that it can only get better, Unfortuantly it Didn't!

Why i gave it 2/10 instead of 1/10 shows the quality of films i have seen in my life time.

I would say avoid but make your own mind up....

Next


Mmm the poster artwork looked alright; too bad the feature didn't draw out the same excitement. 'Demon of Paradise' isn't the complete pits, but for most part is quite an flatfooted cheapjack co-American/Philippines monster feature, which treads water for too long and then amusingly erupts in the unimaginative final quarter. Philippine exploitation director/producer Cirio H. Santiago ('Cover Girl Models', 'T.N.T. Jackson' and 'Naked Vengeance') manages to keep you fascinated, but I don't know how. Maybe it's those cheap looking explosions. Yeah it could be. Caused by no other than the creature? No really it's plain stupidity. I don't know why they want to destroy it. I could've sworn when it's bobbing out of the water it likes to wave (not clawing), asking to jump in so it can hug you to death. But wherever it is about, for some reason there's dynamite and then explosions seem to follow. Maybe the director was adding those bangs to wake-up the viewer from the miserable dialogue exchanges and mainly limp acting. One scene involving a helicopter and the creature efforts to get up close for a ride is embarrassingly shonky. No wonder why he went all out in the final twenty minutes, but this creature could've been mistaken for a machine since all of the punishment it encounters and still it doesn't bleed. Where's Arnold Schwarzenegger when you need him. But more than one grenade thrown at the same time will get you a result. BOOM!

Really there wasn't enough buzz. Everything here is a cut and paste job with the story lazily mixing 'Jaws (1975)' and 'Creature from the Black lagoon (1954)' together. The prehistoric underwater monster (formed by some superstitious groundwork) is a lousy looking rubber suit, and the rest of the make-up FX is quite tatty. Performances come across rather drab, but Laura Banks, Frederick Bailey and especially Leslie Scarborough kick up plenty of spruce. The music score was painful.

Pointless trite, but watchable.


THIS IS QUITE A DIFFERENT MOVIE, BUT A TREAT TO BE SURE!!! It contains everything that makes movies enjoyable...almost. That is why I'd consider giving it 4 stars. The characters are entertaining enough. But the island locale which promised to be a delight, turned out to be a BUST. Sure, I can overlook the bad special effects... Rent this, if you are looking for an old-fashioned horror show, with a wildly modern twist, look no further. If you don't understand its "R" rating, just watch (or rather listen) to the scene at the beginning, and then you'll understand why. Oh, Kathryn Witt's character of the scientist was just annoying and proved to appear in the most boring scenes. Oh, and the ending, what a disaster! Maybe if WB went back and retook a new ending and then re-released this, they would have better luck. In the meantime, you'll just have to make do with a VHS or maybe DVD if one comes out...


The guy who was Poe was certainly the highlight of this very dull flick. Unfortunately, he is not in it enough to save the pick, rather he is sort of a movie bookend. For the rest of the movie we have a guy trying to win a bet by staying at a haunted house. A house no one has ever gotten out of alive...so basically he has to survive the night to win the bet. If he loses, well losing will be the least of his concerns. As soon as he arrives at the castle he meets lovely ladies and later a scientist who explains the situation. All the while nothing all that horrifying really occurs as we are treated to a few flashback like scenes. Truly a boring spectacle awaits you when you watch this flick...at least for me. Sure the scientist guy was kind of interesting too, but this is a movie that could use maybe a killing or two more, maybe a bit of nudity, certainly some time cut from its running time would have helped. Still though it ends interestingly enough and there are some people who may like this kind of horror drama hybrid.


hockeystudjx...please please, don't judge your life on whether or not you score a lot of woman. there is so much more to life than that (and this is coming from someone who doesn't get much). Many very famous people such as Isaac Newton, Eintestin, Helen Clark (well not that famous, but nz prime minister) have not had great sex life's, or none at all in newtons case. That doesn't mean however, that they have not lived a fulfilling and satisfying life.

Anyway, now that that rant is over, Average Joe was an entertaining enough show, but it just proved that all the stereotyping dating philosophies apparently still hold true. However, in New Zealand, i do know many, many average looking guys who go out with hot woman. What does this prove? that the show was set up in a contrived and unrealistic way. The producers purposely case a dumb model type who would typically be shallow, and case not only average looking ( and lets face it some below average looking) men, but in general men who were nice, polite considerate and smart, in other words much too good for a shallow bimbo like Larissa or Melanie. I truly believe these woman had nothing but 15 minutes of fame in mind when doing these shows. Larissa in particular really seemed to like none of the guys, although apparently her and jock boy were dating for a quite a while afterwards.

I thought some of the way the show was run was just stupid, i mean look lets face it, 99 percent of woman are going to find David daskal unattrac tive. Im sorry dude but they are. there is no way that Larissa even had a smithet of a feeling sexually towards him, yet the producers let some stupid viewers to believe that this might not be the case.

the one hero of this whole series was of course Adam Mesh, who is thankfully now happily married. But he himself proved to be just as bad as the girls when he rejected Rachel in his own series. A humorous moment apparently occurred when Rachel's father walked up to mesh a few weeks after the show had ended and said "you picked the wrong girl!". Mesh, not realising who he was, said "I picked the one I had stronger feelings for at the time!" overall, its still watchable, but unfortunately so many difficult stereotypes were confirmed that it really reflected badly on the state of dating in America