Curse of the Puppet Master is set in a small American town where the ever so slightly dim Robert 'Tank' Winsley (Josh Green) works as a lowly gas station attendant for $30 a week, that is until curio collector & owner of a museum of oddities Dr. Magrew (George Peck) & his lovely young daughter Jane (Emily Harrison) stop for gas. Magrew notices that Robert is an extremely skilled carver with an exceptional imagination & offers him $35 a week to work for him, with the $5 a week pay rise too much to turn down Robert accepts. Dr. Magrew show's Robert various living puppets made by puppeteer Andre Toulon that he brought in an auction some years previous & ask's Robert to carve the perfect puppet which Magrew hopes to inject with life & recreate Toulon's success...

Curse of the Puppet Master was the fifth sequel to the rather splendid killer puppet flick Puppetmaster (1989) & apparently had the working title Puppet Master 6: The Curse but by this stage it was probably a wise decision to stop numbering them & thus try to fool a few unsuspecting buyers. The first three Puppet Master films were really good & I think they are all great although Puppet Master 4 (1993) & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994) were pretty bad apart from some impressive stop-motion animation effects & the nicely atmospheric Bogeda Bay Inn setting which are both absent here from Curse of the Puppet Master as the ambitions of the filmmakers & the budget gets increasingly lower with each new entry into the franchise. Directed by David DeCoteau under the name Victoria Sloan one of his many pseudonym's he had actually directed Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) but there's no repeat of his earlier magic & Curse of the Puppet Master is pretty dire stuff & even at a paltry 75 odd minutes in length the script feels padded & uneventful. There's no continuity to the earlier films at all, there's no mention of the green life giving serum & Curse of the Puppet Master changes the whole central concept to animating the puppets with a human beings soul which is transferred into the puppet thus giving it life instead of the serum from the previous films. To be honest it's a lame story which is supposed to unfold as some sort of mystery but it's pretty predictable & the single worst aspect of Curse of the Puppet Master is that it relegates the killer puppets to no more than bit parts who do virtually nothing the entire film. There's no explanation of why the puppets obey Magrew or why they suddenly turn on him at the end & like the previous two films they are nowhere evil enough. Another thing is while Magrew makes Robert carve a puppet out of wood the puppet Magrew uses at the end is actually made out of metal is some awful looking tank like creation with a couple laser guns for arms. The ending is awful too & is one of those occasions where the film just literally stops dead & your left thinking 'is that it?' or 'what happened?' or 'did my DVD player just skip a chapter?'.

The puppet special effects are the worst of the series so far too, there's a few seconds of stop-motion by the vast majority of the effects work is simple poorly operated rod puppets which look still & have very limited movement. The opening credits have a montage of special effects shots from the previous five films & they beat anything else seen in this. For some reason the puppet Torch is ditched even though he appeared in Puppet Master 5 while Leech Woman makes a reappearance for the first time in the series after having been burnt in Puppet Master II (1991). The film is gorier than either parts 4 o5 although two bloody murders don't make this particularly good, there's some slashing & bloody cuts & Tunneller sticks his drill into some guy's groin & his wedding tackle. The whole film & production just looks cheaper than the previous entries, the moody setting & lighting have all but gone & there's a bland visually flat & dull look to it.

With a supposed budget of about $250,000 the budgets were getting lower & lower & it show's frankly. Apparently shot at Canoga Park in Los Angeles. The acting is forgettable from no-one I have ever heard of before.

Curse of the Puppet Master is worse than the five previous Puppet Master films & to be honest they should have stopped making them after Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge while the series was on a high. The only Puppet Master film I have left to watch in the series now is Retro Puppet Master (1999) which I can't say I am particularly looking forward too.


The "Curse of the Puppet Master" has a good premise that is undermined by unconvincing puppet violence and the usual weaknesses of low-budget films.

The direction was good, moving the story along.

The eye candy was limited to underwear/gym shorts scenes with the hero and with the bully, separately. There was a tasteful suggestion of a sex scene. The goriness was in line with expectations, not overstated.

Unlike other reviewers, I found the action straightforward enough.

SPOILERS

The new Puppet Master, Dr. Magrew (George Peck) is experimenting to discover the methods the original Puppet Master, Andre Toulon, used to create semi-living puppets. Assistants, who first carve the 444 wooden pieces that go into a puppet, can be transformed by a lightening-like effect into the inner workings of a puppet. (The director used this idea later in his "Voodoo Academy.") The movie starts with Dr. Magrew disposing the results of a failed experiment and finding a new person, Robert "Tank" Winsley (Josh Green), to be the new carver. The problem is that Dr. Magrew's daughter, Jane (Emily Harrison), takes a romantic interest in Robert. Bully Joey Carp (Michael Guerin) wants his way with Jane and isn't too fond of Robert. Meanwhile, the police are wondering why Dr. Magrew's former carver has disappeared. The threads all move along to their conclusions.

END OF SPOILERS

I can't say how this movie compares to the others in the Puppet Master series, but on a stand-alone basis it was entertaining enough. The big thuds for me were the victims' inability to get away from attacking puppets and the leap of insight which allowed Jane to find some evidence of earlier activities. Lightening effects were too pervasive. Say, 4 out of 10.


Based totally on the interesting looking cover I saw, I decided to see this movie. I had not seen any of the previous sequels, so I started from scratch. It starts out strange as a man is burning something and tells whatever it is that he was sorry. This man turns out to be Dr. Magrew, an old tinkering man that appears to be a scientist or something. There are these dolls, strange looking ones that move by themselves. One with a knife, a top's head, pinhead, and a cowboy with six arms. I assumed that they were evil, but they only seemed to kill humans that seemingly deserved to die. Two sheriffs and a bully were the victims. The most evil of the beings turns out to be Dr. Magrew who is turning an innocent man named "Tank" into some puppet. Jane Magrew is also innocent and for some reason loves the "Pinhead" doll. This doll loves her more than the human Tank whom she falls in love with. A very strange ending as Tank's anger gets the best of him with Dr. Magrew receiving his wrath. Poor Jane just survives but with many questions to answer with all the dead bodies laying around her house. If you like strange then this film is for you.


Dr. Magrew (George Peck) strives to give human attributes to expertly crafted wooden puppets. Emily Harrison who plays Jane Magrew is the bright spot of the movie. But the puppets themselves are the real stars. The killer puppets do away with the bad guys. The action scenes are good, but there are too few to get excited about. Even with the finale slamming the door on you; this mild horror movie is still fun to watch.

Peck is less animated than the puppets. Also starring are Michael Guerin, Josh Green and Jason Dean Booher.


This was not one of their best movie for puppet master and why was it called Curse of the Puppet Master if the curse didn't even happened but at the end. And why was this movie rated R, because only one person did in a not so bloody way and not so much cursing in this movie. And what bothered me the most was two things, one was why was their a doll under that girl, it was a useless scene that needed to be deleted. And why was that old guy trying to get his worker in a toy, up to know I don't understand both of those things. Al I'm saying is don't make more Puppet Master movies because after part 4 if was boring, stupid, and pointless.


Honestly, I have no idea what Gregory Peck was thinking when he decided to make this incredibly awful movie. Now I have seen ALL of the Puppet Master movies and besides the first and third episodes the rest were pretty much crap.It's interesting however to see the Puppets start out as evil slayers for their master Andre Toulon, but then become more as heroes fighting evil in the 3rd & 4th movies. Still, this movie is just plain BAD. The acting is horrible and the little bit of special effects is below "B" movie quality stuff. I'm not even going to go through what the movie is about, as other reviewers have already explained it. So much more could have been done with this series. Instead of it advancing to higher standard, it has actually sank way below what we'd expect. Stay far away from this movie. If you must see it, definitely rent it for the cheapest price possible. You've been warned though.


I rent horror flicks all the time, the campier the better, even such stinkers like Blood Diner... but this... I think that if they had used this film on Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange, he would have gone homicidal again. Full Moon begins to crash and burn, leading to the ultimate craphole, Puppet Master Retro. The kills are so retarded, and at the end, which made me wish to commit suicide... Tank spends the whole movie carving this puppet out of wood, when he is transferred into it, there's a TV screen? And a laser? Did I miss something? And then the way he zaps the scientist... I've seen better special effects in the Power Rangers tv show. What I realized is that if you read the back of this video box, it tells you the whole story... Seriously, the whole thing. Damn you to hell for making this movie, Full Moon, and may God have mercy on your souls.


About 95% of the Puppet shots were patched together from other Puppet Master movies. This produces the interesting effect of having someone from the present chatting face to face with a puppet in 1940's Germany. Did they think we wouldn't notice? It just shows you what these film makers think of their audience.

Then there's the scene in which Tunnler drills a guy between the legs. Where are the guys hands? Flailing around! I think I see a way out of this. Pick up the puppet that is drilling into your balls!

Idiocy. This was the beginning of Full Moon's death.


What's Mung you ask yourself, I DON'T KNOW! And I really don't know what this movie was ever made for, boy is it bad. Andre Toulon is abandoned for a new rich owner. Basically the maintenance man on the grounds is dim witted, and a bunch of guys make fun of him, so the puppets kill them all. At one point 2 of the puppets are walking side by side and the camera shows them down to the tops of their shoes, the legs were not moving! That is bad film making! You can almost see the stick connected to the side of their leg that they used to move them forward. BAD, BAD, BAD. Then the rich guy uses the dim wit to build a doll, so he can try to transfer a human soul into a puppet body. The daughter is a bad actress, she doesn't even get naked, which is a standard in bad horror movies. The puppets role is once again down played, so with bad human acting, it kills the movie. BASICALLY IT STINKS START TO FINISH.


There aren't very many movies where after I've watched them I've wanted my time and/or money back, but unfortunately this was one of them! After having endured the other 5 in this series, this one I was holding out for maybe a slightly different story twist or some more character development or something, but no, heaven forbid that'd happen!! Sitting through this felt like more of the same with some lame plot being given and then surprise, the dolls kill somebody! Oh sorry, I gave most of the movie away. The only major highlights of this movie were the underlining suspense throughout the movie, the top-notch animation of the puppets, and a rather nice surprise presence from Emily Harrison, who plays Jane carried my interest somewhat. However, the ending was probably the most abrupt and confusing ending ever, certainly leaving the door open for No. 7, heaven forbid that comes to light, which it probably will and I'll probably sit through that too.

Overall 2.5 out of 5


this movie sucks and is in no mean entertaining. the only cool thing is the killer puppets!! and the creepy music. i hardly know the names of the characters because they were barely mentioned.

the horrible plot: a country boy working at a gas station starts working for a puppet master while Toulon(the puppet master) plans to turn the boy into a puppet. the acting is outrageously pitiful. the boy seems half asleep throughout the movie. it is not scary! spare yourself the 90 minutes and watch a good movie. avoid at all costs. this movie is so boring too. i don't know how/why i finished it. it looks so good on the DVD cover but it is so bad. i hated it.1/10. i haven't seen any other movies in this series but i'm sure they are somewhat better. at least waist your time on those or good horror movies like Clownhouse by Victor Salva.

Rated R for Some Strong Violence/Gore and for Some Language


ok, Tank is under the curse, and he is making a puppet, which is going to contain his life essence... I understand this part. what I don't understand is why is he carving a humanoid body, when he ends up as a TANK!?!? I Don't get it.... also the use of old footage for the puppets is just bad. I usually enjoy full moon films.. . I did not enjoy this.....


The Puppet Master series is comprised of really awful movies featuring really cool puppets. The puppets, who sometimes are shown moving in stop-motion animation (very cool), are neat little killers each with their own little gimmick. The series' best entry was part three ("Toulon's Revenge"), but the following two installments were undeniably terrible, so it should've come as no surprise that I hated this, the most recent film and sixth part of the series.

Despite the fact that this is directed by the same guy who directed part three (the best) and was edited by J.R. Bookwalter (I've never seen it, but apparently his film "The Dead Next Door" is pretty good) it is really, really boring. The characters are uninspired, the sets are run of the mill, and the killings are non-existent (despite one okay moment when Tunneler drilled a guy in the crotch. I guess the only good part of the movie was inspired by America's Funniest Home Videos).

Worst of all, the puppets hardly ever make an appearance, and when they do they are obviously being held up by just-out-of-the-frame stage hands. There's hardly ANY stop-motion animation. I was also disappointed that Torch, one of the cooler puppets, was not in the film, even though he appeared in the credit sequence (which was a montage of footage from the previous movies).

In short: Don't see this movie. It stinks!


OK, this wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen, but it was far from one of the better ones.

I did not emphazise with the lead character, or even the supporting characters - and kept asking myself why this exec guy McCallister and his wife got so much attention. What was the point? The only one I felt for to some degree was Alice, you could literally feel the stress she's under for having to negotiate between the writer and the network guys, always pretending it's not all that bad and everything is hunky-dory.

The story line seemed to go nowhere. From the beginning I expected the things to happen that did happen, but I kept waiting for a twist, a punchline, SOMETHING. No need to say, it did not come.

What really bugged me, though: I did not think that Mike's original material was all that good. It tried to be really deep, I guess, what with the brother's suicide, but from what I saw in the movie, it would have been just as lame. So I just couldn't feel any regret for the producer's walking all over the writer and the pilot. If at some point I would have seen something really good, I probably would have felt differently.

If you want to spend time with an unoffensive so-called comedy that will not really surprise you or make you laugh, go see this movie. On the other hand, there are lots of funnier, more powerful movies out there...


how can you guys say its a great movie??? sorry, but it really sucks.. the plot is very poor of ideas and just to fill it a little the director has back-troubles? Is that really the best this movie can give us? I think it sucks.. you get absolutely nothing from seeing this movie. And I think its sad too, to see Sigourney Weaver in a role like this. She is more talented than this plot will ever be.

Come on, go compared it to a real movie and admit that i actually isn't any good...

I could say many things that i don't like about this movie. But it wouldn't be the time worth..


Ah, another example of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Garbage script gets "star treatment" and the go-ahead from the big kahunas. Next it is on to the marketing machine. The result? Why, two thumbs up of course!!! Let's put it this way: I picked up the phone and made an appointment with my dentist while watching this movie. One thing just reminded me of the other I guess.

Boring subject matter. Right up there with "Watching paint dry" and "Trading Spaces: They Hated It".

Fake characters. Too many swear words. Some movies choose their one magic F bomb with care; this one fires them out like farts from a teenager.

For David D. fans, save yourself an aneurism and fire up "House of D" again. Sigourney fans, you're on your own, I've never cared for her. Wait, what about "Working Girl"! Of course, there is a soccer game scene, but no fair asking for the final score. You'll just have to rush on over to Blockbuster to find out.


Perhaps my favorite part of "The TV Set" was the enlarged and mounted review of it from the LA Times that the theater put in the window to presumably attract casual moviegoers who don't know what they want to watch. And there it was, writ in letters as tall as coffin nails: "not that there is anything in this movie that we haven't seen before...". What a tremendous accolade! And perfectly true. The kind of movie that possibly passes for interesting outside of Los Angeles where presumably people think we must be so smart and funny and sensitive and so fail to realize that we are, in fact, as prone to vapid fart-noises as to anything else... Isn't it amazing what passes for thoughtful entertainment today..? "The TV Set" is in every way untrue, hackneyed, inauthentic, dull, uninspired, recycled tedium.

Enjoy!


I watched this as one of the movies in Rhino's Horrible Horrors Vol. 1 box set. While it wasn't entirely horrible, it was pretty poor.

It starts off with some narration (which is absent for the rest of the movie), and a scene of a monk turning Satanist in the 1300s or something like that. Then in the present day, the death of a priest who was secretly a Satanist prompts a nun to go undercover to try to infiltrate the Satanists. She isn't given much to do for most of the movie, though.

There's a young woman who had been abused by her father and a group of child pornographers who plans to get married. Apart from the sexual abuse as a child, she's never had sex. Her grandfather is one of the Satanists and plans to use her in a sacrifice. He would like to take over the group.

There's also the Satanist's goon, who goes about like a slasher killing some people, abducting others. The cinematography and editing and so on aren't incompetent, but the acting and story are pretty lifeless. Surprisingly, there's no nudity. There's not a whole lot of blood, but there is some, and towards the end some people rapidly age or melt, I'm not sure.


Okay, so we've got Roberta Findlay ("Tenement: Game of Survival", "Snuff") directing a cheesy 80's horror movie revolving on a brotherhood of devilish monks sacrificing young women to Satan himself and drinking their blood in order to remain immortal. How bad could this possibly be? Correction; it's unquestionably going to be extremely bad, but the right question to ask should be: How is this not going to be entertaining? What we have here is pure late-80's trash-gold, with a completely nonsensical and laughably incoherent plot, tacky make-up effects, gratuitous nudity and a whole lot of gibberish about Our Lord Satan! The script of "Prime Evil" is wonderfully incompetent and aimlessly skips from one theme onto the other without any form of continuity. The film opens in the year thirteen-hundred-forty something with a bunch of monks turning to Satanism because they're angry with God for allowing the Black Plague to kill millions of people. This was obviously a brilliant career move because the story suddenly jumps forward in time 600 years and all the monks contained their same age and virility. But the next winter sacrifice is coming up and one of the cult members suggests using his granddaughter because she's still a virgin. Meanwhile, the leader of the cult engaged a convicted killer to randomly kidnap the granddaughter's best friends and then  finally  there's also a sub plot about a devoted nun going undercover in the cult by order of the Catholic Church. This last sub plot is actually the most hilarious, since Sister Angela is hardly ever mentioned anymore after her initiation rites. This is why I personally love 80's horror movies! There are so many ideas yet they all just loosely connect together. There's no atmosphere of suspense whatsoever and even the whole devil-worshiping concept seems redundant. They're just a posse of bloodthirsty priests craving to cut open voluptuous young girls. There's fairly little gore until the climax arrives and that reddish puppet with horns, supposedly representing Lucifer, is just plain pitiable. The acting performances are horrible, but I don't suppose you expected it any other way. Boring, however, it was not.


Evil monks search New York City in the late 1980's for virgin sacrifices. Muddled movie by Roberta Findlay appears to have been shot about the same time as her film Lurkers since it has many of the same locations and much of the same casts. From the stand point of having some scenes of old New York this is good, but from any other stand point this really isn't worth your time. The problem is that the film's script isn't all that good. Its a stitched together affair with plot points from other films dropped in. The result is a kind of boredom that comes from a film that seems to have been made more for the money then it was for the love or need to make it. More dull then anything else it never generates enough interest to create any real scares because you really don't care. Watchable in a bad movie sort of way, its the sort of thing that is best seen only when going through a multiple film set since its not worth the time or the effort to see a film like this as a stand alone.


I will sit through anything with demonic rituals, so I sat through this. On checking web reviews, I have become convinced there are two different versions. "CryFi" from Lansingburgh says in his review here on IMDb "surprisingly, there's no nudity." There was also no nudity in the DVD (Rhino) that I saw (there is also very little blood and almost no horror). However, over on cndb, reviewers are talking about how glad they are that there is nudity in the movie and judging the different actresses' "racks". Mr. Skin gives it three stars (!!!) for "great nudity" and lists four actresses as being nude during the flick. Does anyone know what is the situation with this film. It's hard to believe Roberta Findlay would make a movie without nudity, but there was not an inch of skin on the Rhino DVD, though there were scenes where I would have expected skin. Anyone know what's up?


I got this movie in a collection of about twelve movies called "Gorehouse Greats". Funny thing is of the ones I have watched in it have been not all that gory. This one is also not all that gory, there is blood and lots of booby shots, but not a whole lot of gore. This one has a sect of devil worshipers living in modern day New York (at least I think it was New York). They perform sacrifices of blood relatives to Satan to stay nice and young, and they get bonus points if they are female and virgins. Meanwhile, a strange handyman is given a list and the next thing you know he is attacking a woman and her lover who is a rather clumsy kick boxer. Dude seems to knock out the handyman until the handyman teleports behind the dude and stabs him dead, then proceeds to kidnap the blond who offered no help during the scuffle. At this point the only thing worth seeing in the movie was the blond's boobs, and that is the theme of the movie. Boobs to see, not much plot to watch. I mean they show a sacrifice of a supposed virgin at the beginning of the film and it is supposedly the one guy's daughter, but she looked old enough to be the guys sister or something. Then a main gal's mother looks like she could be an older sister. Then a gal gets arrested for street walking and is said to be underage, if so being under 30 in New York must be underage. Then there is the boyfriend who raises objections over a certain priest as he kind of gets fresh with the main girl and it is obvious and the girl keeps going "Don't attack him" and stuff, though if I were the boyfriend I would have dumped the gal when she told me why she was hesitant about having sex as she had a bit to much baggage. I know it sounds kind of mean of me, but females dump men for being insecure and more inane reasons than what she had. If this review seems to be skipping around a bit I am just trying to be like the movie. You also have an undercover nun and two cops that looked like they were straight out of that Beastie Boys video Sabotage. So an all around bad effort, but they give you some boobs to look at and great lines like "Don't you wanna get poked?". I am not joking that line is in the film.


Prime Evil tells of a satanic cult whose members can achieve immortality and invulnerability through the regular sacrifice of blood relatives to a hideous demon (that is about two foot tall and seems to be made of red rubber). Aged acolyte George Parkman (Max Jacobs) intends to prolong his powers for another thirteen years by taking the life of his virginal grand-daughter Alex (Christine Moore), and then wrest control of the cult from sinister leader Thomas Seaton (William Beckwith); but with Alex's boyfriend Bill King (Tim Gail) becoming increasingly suspicious of George, will the old man's wicked plans succeed?

After spending the 70s producing and directing porn, Roberta Findlay had a brief career making horror films, but in my opinion, it wasn't brief enough: a few months ago, I watched her horrendous '87 whorehouse horror Blood Sisters, and last night, against my better judgement, I checked out Prime Evil, and all the evidence so far suggests that the woman should have stayed in the 'bump and grind' business.

Findlay simply doesn't possess the fundamental skill set necessary to make a decent non-porn movie, her usual objective being to capture a juicy extreme close-up rather than to present a coherent story or obtain credible (non-sexual) performances from her actors (not that anyone from her dreadful cast looks capable of such an undertaking). A poorly developed script full of diabolical dialogue and precious little action doesn't help matters, of course, and with Findlay's visuals having that distinct porno quality (an effect helped no end by regular nudity from some suspiciously low-rent bimbos), the result is a nasty looking and amateurish yawn-fest that, although not quite as terrible as Blood Sisters, is still a chore to sit through.

3.5 out of 10, rounded up to 4 for the topless tarts, the rubbish demon and a laughable decapitation.


Directed by Roberta Findlay Prime Evil is a straight to VHS abomination that is plagued by such a weak plot and bi-polar performances by the two leads, the walking dead Alexandra (Christine Moore) and the smarmy Thomas Seaton (William Beckwith), that you quickly realize why this was never released in theaters.

In 1349 a group of monks led by Brother Seaton denounce God for bringing the black death on to them and pledge allegiance to Satan. The pact comes with a price as the monks must sacrifice a blood relative every 13 years in order to remain immortal. Flash forward to modern day New England where the monks are alive and well and will apparently accept anyone into the fold including homicidal janitors. George Parkman's 13 year duty has arrived and promises to sacrifice his granddaughter Alexandra who was sold into child pornography by her father when she was six years old. Charming. This particular scenario pleases Father Seaton in such an oh so evil way that he replies, "Remember you get extra points if she's a virgin". I can't see Old Scratch himself devising a bonus point plan for his followers. What do you get with these bonus points? Longer life? More power? A free tank of gas? A side plot is thrown into the first fifteen minutes as a nun Angela volunteers to go undercover in order to expose the evil order. Her initiation consists of smashing ceramics and a change of wardrobe. Voila! Instant satanist! She doesn't factor in the movie again until the end. Alexandra soon becomes smitten with Father Seaton much to the consternation of her boyfriend Bill. When every person Alexandra has ever known mysteriously die her date with the devil arrives. Or at least date with the most evil muppet ever.

William Beckwith's performance as Thomas Seaton must have been the inspiration for Mike Myers's Dr. Evil. Every syllable he utters is dripping with "I'm so eeeeeeeeeevil". His character is more appropriate for an episode of Batman rather than late eighties horror. Christine Moore and her dopey Canadian accent sleepwalks the whole way as the utterly clueless Alexandra. The ending is on par with any junior high level production only with Prime Evil you don't have the benefit of missing algebra class. Rumor has it Satan himself denied any involvement in the movie and blamed it on his brother Beelzebub.


So there I was, standing in best buy with four DVDs in my hand trying to figure out which 'Grindhouse' double feature I'd buy. I looked on the back and was interested in the story of 'Prime Evil'. Sure enough, I bought the sucker. I got home and immediately put the DVD in to start watching. The first feature film 'Don't Answer The Phone' was awesome. A pure slasher flick with loads of nudity and gore. When 'Prime Evil'started, I was pleased. But by the end of the film, I was questioning why this movie was even considered to be part of the 'Grindhouse' dvds. There's little to no blood and the story d r a g g e d on and on until the 'climatic' end. BTW, the end is ANYTHING but climatic. I ~*~LOVE~*~ cheesy b-movies, but this one was so bad, its horrible.


An ancient immortal band of Satan worshipers, who were once priests whom casted God away & killed their fellow priests who refused to join their shenanigans, have to appease their dark master by sacrificing their virgin kin every 13 years.

Featuring a groan-inducingly bad 'big bad evil priest' & a vast assortment of other characters that you won't give two craps about, this stinker is a true chore to sit through. The occasional bare breast might keep you from falling asleep, but it's not nearly enough to keep you from losing all interest in the dreaded affair. Plus it has the worst hokey Satan puppet that I've seen in quite some time. Quite simply Prime Evil is simply Putrid.

Eye Candy: Amy Brentano, Ruth Corrine Collins, Jeanne Marie & Miriam Zucker all get topless

My Grade: F


- Over the years, I've seen my fair share of really bad movies. But none can compare with Prime Evil. I bow down before thee oh King of Garbage. It's the worst of the worst. I literally despise this movie with every fiber of my being.

- The story, although it doesn't really matter, starts with a 13th Century monk who turns to Satanism in exchange for immortality. He slaughters the other monks who refuse to join him. Switch to present day and the monk, now in the persona of Father Seaton (get it, Seaton/Satan - oh how clever), oversees a large cult of followers. Each is also promised immortality in 13 year blocks if they are willing to give Father Seaton a "pure" blood relation for sacrifice to Satan. The 13 year period for one member is coming to an end. He has a "pure" granddaughter that would make an ideal candidate for sacrifice. But the Church and the police are onto the cult's activities. Can they stop Father Seaton before another person dies?

- Every aspect of this movie is bad. I've racked my brain and I cannot come up with one positive thing to say. The acting is terrible, the story is lame, the muppet Satan is ridiculous, and the whole thing is a complete and utter bore. And none of it is bad in that so bad it's good sort of way. I defy anyone to find a scrap of entertainment in Prime Evil.


"Pressure Point" qualifies as just another formulaic hostage thriller that suffers from comatose direction. Jed Griffin (Michael Madison of "Reservoir Dogs") is taking his familywife, teenage son, and tweener daughteron a long overdue vacation into Vermont to ski. Meanwhile, ex-con Rudy Wicker (Jeff Wincott of "S.W.A.T.) and his partner plan to rob a bank and make a clean getaway in a plane over the border into Canada. However, everything goes wrong when they hold up a small-town bank. First, Sheriff Bingham Hunt (Steve Adams of "The Bone Collector') mortally wounds the driver of the getaway, and the vehicle careens out of control and smashes into Hunt's wife Tracy (Claudia Bess of "Strip Search") as she is trying to give him his personal radio. Rudy gets off with what appears to be a flesh wound and races out of town. No sooner has he left the city limits than another sheriff's deputy blue-lights him. When the deputy approaches the car, Rudy jumps out and guns him down, then ices his partner, and commandeers the sheriff's cruiser. The grief-stricken Hunt sets out to capture and kill Rudy, but Rudy outsmarts him and hijacks Jed and his family while the protagonist is making small repairs to his 1979 motor home. Rudy gets tire of Jed's sass, shoots him, and leaves him for dead on the roadside. Earlier, after Rudy shot the sheriff's deputy, he not only stole his cruiser but also his jacket. Now, Rudy leaves the sheriff's jacket with Jed and takes off with Jed's family as his hostage. Rudy is bound and determined to reach his rendezvous point with the plane so he can get out of the country. As it turns out, when Rudy shot Jed, Rudy's bullet lodged in Jed's cell phone and Jed resolves to catch up to Rudy. The problem is that Jed doesn't know that Sheriff Hunt is determined to kill Rudy. Moreover, when Jed tries to flag Hunt down, the sheriff sees the jacket taken off his murdered deputy and shoots first before he can confirm Jed's story. Director Eric Weston juxtaposes scenes of the sheriff's manhunt, Jed's efforts to rescue his family, and Rudy's desperate efforts to get away with the loot. Unfortunately, juxtaposing these three characters and their objectives generates no suspense. The cliff-hanger conclusion doesn't add much to this paint-by-the-number nonsense. Clearly, Madison needed a paycheck. In fact, we learn nothing about Madison's character because the scenarists provide him with no backstory. As this generation's Robert Mitchum, Madison has great presence but he makes no impression on this second-rate actioneer. Martial arts expert Jeff Wincott adopts a different look, but his vicious killer is a nit-wit. Michelle Scarabelli effectively plays one of Hunt's level-headed deputies who ensures that her hysteria-riddled sheriff doesn't kill the wrong man. "Pressure Point" lacks pressure from start to finish and makes no point other than to burn time.


When it comes to cardboard cutout villains Wincott is up there with the best.Almost as bad as allowing deranged cops to mete out their own justice. Michael Madsen will always be a bad guy to me, however this was a fair try at another style. Not a movie to recommend.Marvellous scenery though, and that was some RV so roomy! I did like Michele Scarabelli's performance she has the greatest eyes. The maps were confusing to me as quite a few of the place names were the same as here in England for example Berkshire etc. I had to do a double take quite a few times! To sum it all up if your'e at a loose end and can't get out and about for some reason then do rent this fella.


When I was a kid I saw a promo for A Kid in King Arthur's Court and got really excited for it but when I actually sat down to see it didn't make much of a impression on me and for the most part I forgot it. A Kid in King Arthur's Court is a film with unoriginal and uninspired dialogue, a lame plot, and jokes that only make you want to laugh at how stupid they are. (I guess that's better then jokes that don't make you laugh at all) Along with Blank Check and The Pagemaster this movie seems to have fallen into obscurity and I doubt it will be remembered during the 00s. If you somehow get your hands on a copy of this film I recommend that you put it back where you found it.


if Kate Winslet wasn't in this film i would have never bothered with it.

the main kid Kevin is such a loser with the softest voice i wonder how anyone can ever imagine him being a threat.

Princess Katey has a horrible accent, not to mention they ruined her character.

the only good thing about this film is Kate Winslet, Daniel Craig and Ark Milk. and if only the story was focus on them and their almost love triangle, it would score much higher.

Kate Winslet looks every inch the princess and is obviously the best fighter in the film, and the most useful character.

Daniel Craig has a head full of blonde hair and a British accent. nuff said.


A Kid in King Authurs Court is just about the worst Disney movie I have ever seen. The plot was fairly predictable, except for Princess Sarah being the black knight. I mean, come on, a Disney movie where the princess doens't marry her true love? Puh-lease! The acting was okay, Thomas Ian Nicholas was okay, but seemed to be there mostly for eye candy. I thought Paloma Baeza did a good job as princess katy, but wasn't as fantastic as I think she could be in other roles. Kate Winslet, as usual, did completely fantastic as Princess Sarah, as in all her other roles, she added a lot to the movie. If it wasn't for her I wouldn't even have watched the movie anyways. Art Malik was quite good as Lord Belasco, and Ron Moody was a great choice for Merlin. So, mostly good acting, but a not so story.


HAHAHAHAHAHHA...and so forth. That is the primary reaction watching this spoof of a movie that wasn't intended to spoof anything at all. The biggest challenge in this film isn't finding beaver to trap and sell, it's watching the first forty five minutes without busting your guts all over the floor laughing! This movie was not intended to be comedical, (I don't think...) however, it proves to be funnier than any actual comedy.

 Ok ok enough of the silliness, I will now try and explain and summarize this hahahaha movhahahie. The film starts out with Mr. Bill Tyler (Charlton Heston) meeting up with old friend Henry Frapp (Brian Keith) by way of Frapp knocking Tyler down into the water along with his horses...HAHAHAHA...oh ok sorry I lost it for a second there. They are both men of the mountain or "Mountain Men" trapping and selling their Ploos of Beaver to the highest bidder for cash money!!!! Obscenities fly through the air almost as much as random bodies and there is even a brief appearance by george of the jungle himself Brendan Frasier as the evil Indian. You need to see this guy he looks JUST like Brendan Frasier. The movie is filled to the max with memorable one liners, characters, and donkeys running off in random directions for NO REASON WHATSOEVER!!! HAHAHAHA!!! One theory about that part that I have is that there wasn't enough money to re-shoot the scene, the donkey wasn't supposed to run away but the budget was too tight to stop production so they captured it and worked it in thinking people would be all captivated!! It hooked me I'll tell you that much!! There are many memorable things that happen in this movie that I really can't give away. But please watch this movie, and when I say watch I really mean purchase and I'll give you two reasons. One, this movie is too funny to just rent, you will want to relive the experience over and over with all your friends and that will cost you a fortune. Two, I'm sure the creators of this movie aren't really pullin in too much moola for this heavyweight box office smash, help them pay rent, buy this flick.


This belated attempt at a Western adventure is a curious anomaly: the script is, on the one hand, terribly old-fashioned and cliché-ridden and yet equally replete with such 'modern' elements as four-letter words and bouts of violence. Charlton Heston hams it up like never before as a beaver-trapper reluctant to make way for progress and accept the fact that his precious trade is being supplanted by finer materials like silk; Brian Keith provides the brightest spot in the film as Heston's foul-mouthed partner, along with Michel Legrand's beautiful score and the desolate snowy landscapes. The plot, also involving Indian ambushes, the abduction of a squaw (who, of course, falls for Heston at his hairiest!) and rival trappers (notably Seymour Cassel playing a Canadian), renders the film just about watchable but in no way memorable.


Another movie where a relation of the star wrote the screenplay. No screen writing credentials equals poor movie. Rated as one of the worst movies of the 1980's for good reason. A poor attempt to profit from, and bear similarities to, Jeremiah Johnson fame. Heston ends up with an unwanted Indian girl 17 minutes into the movie. Like many of the "Indians" in this movie she was more like a Mexican than an Indian. Why can't we get one or two real Indians? In one scene Indians approach their camp. The Indian sounds like a Mexican trying to talk in broken English like an Indian. Minutes later Indians attack. Laughing and hilarity throughout the battle. Just another fun day in the mountains. One of the guys is standing and is hit in the chest by an arrow. His concern would be on the level of someone who stepped into a puddle of mud with freshly polished shoes. So Heston nonchalantly stands up beside him. I guess he wanted to be a good target for the Indians. Heston pulls it out of his chest like he's dusting dirt off the guy's sleeve. The next day the guy is running around with no problem. In another scene here is Heston stumbling through the woods. You're wondering where his walker is. He's attacked by half a dozen young Indian braves. Of course, the old codger bests them in hand to hand combat. A poor sight at best. He arrives back at the camp and Keith sees he was attacked. And they were joking about it. You'd think he just got back from the 7-Eleven and spilled an ICEE. Throughout this movie I was never sure if it was supposed to be a serious movie or a comedy. Either way it flopped.


Wow, is this bad.

The problem with this movie--besides a budget of $11--is that the premise contains no real conflict for the hero to overcome--it just wouldn't be that hard for the US military to detonate a bomb in an evacuated Los Angeles. So the makers start pulling obstacles and conflict out of thin air about halfway through--none of which make a lick of sense.

Characters inexplicably turn bad or suddenly start behaving contrary to everyone's interest, including their own; boogie men pop up out of nowhere for no discernible reason; and of course the hero's daughter improbably needs to be rescued from conveniently nearby. She, by the way, survives a car fire by hiding--get this--in the trunk. Yeah, that would work.

About three-quarters of the way in you realize that the reason the bomb has to be detonated in Los Angeles is that the director needed to shoot this movie across the street from his brother's dry cleaning shop so he wouldn't be late for his shift.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "A-hah! This guy doesn't recognize a spoof when he sees one! Clearly this movie is tongue-in-cheek!"

Wrong--it isn't. It's just really, really bad.


Scorcher is a doomsday film which depicts the end of the world if too many nuclear bombs are tested. In this one, the world's tectonic plates are jarred out of alignment and sets the world on a fiery collision course with the apocalypse. The exhausted end of the world scenario claims the end of the world can only be prevented by an elite group of men trained for just such an emergency. Taxing to watch, an avid movie fan can nearly anticipate what will happen next. Whoever suggested the making of this film, obviously was hampered by a limited budget and restrained by anything novel to include in the script. The actors are subjected to curious scrutiny as to why they accepted their roles. Mark Dacascos easily plays hero, Ryan Beckett. Veteran actor John Rhys-Davies is Dr. Matthew Sallin who is hindered by the traditional over achieving scientist daughter out to prove herself. Rutger Hauer, who usually plays the heavy or hero looks out of place as the President. Finally there's the duplicitous G.W. Bailey as the double-crossing General Timothy Moore. In the final analysis, this film is realized as nothing more than of a poor-man's 'Armaggodon', or 'Core' or Earthquake, etc, etc. You get the picture. *


L.A. gets nuked in this Final Solution to the Problem of Traffic and Urban Sprawl in Southern California. Most of the other reviewers of this turkey have given it the pan it deserves, but this is the kind of film that just invites more comments. I grew up in L.A. and left more than 20 years ago, and with every visit back, I grow to hate what it has become more and more. This film was probably thought up by some disgruntled New Yorker who moved out to L.A. and is stuck there and wants revenge. It's a direct-to-video attempt to capitalize on the latest string of planetary catastrophe movies. It may fool you because despite its low budget, it starts out looking like a real movie: Its production values and musical score are actually quite respectable. However, the plot is based on a ridiculous premise and feels like something that was banged out in a 30-second story conference. There is some kind of complication involving nuclear testing that results in a shift of the tectonic plate that runs through Southern California (the plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault). If the plate displacement reaches 44 centimeters, boom! Global catastrophe as the molten mantle spews out and causes a great mass extinction, including all human life. How to stop the plate displacement? Why, a little old 15-megaton nuclear explosion or two right in the middle of the L.A. basin. A seismologist I'm not, but what little I know about plate tectonics tells me that the forces driving the plates are such as to defy any merely human intervention. Why is the film set in L.A.? So that the filmmakers don't have to leave town but can use L.A. locations for the shoot. One laughable premise is followed by another when the feds order the evacuation of Los Angeles, and we're asked to believe that the local and national authorities can 1) actually carry this out, and 2) do it in just a couple of days. Then there is a race against time to place the nukes and detonate them while dealing with stock villains, irrelevant and contrived side-stories about family squabbles, impossible coincidences, and implausible crises.

Let's not ignore the cast, which consists largely of third-rate B-movie regulars who don't exactly light up the screen. Mark Dacascos, who appears to be a cheap imitation Bruce Lee, has little or no screen charisma as the male lead; ditto for Tamara Davies as the female lead: She is beautiful but not much of an actress. Ditto for most of the rest of the case. Two very good foreign-born actors, Rutger Hauer and John Rhys-Davies, are completely wasted in their roles: Hilariously, the Dutchman Hauer plays the U.S. president (!), and Rhys-Davies plays a scientist who is essentially a reprise of the role of Maximillian Arturo that he played in the series 'Sliders.' The excellent and under-appreciated Mark Rolston, who has the misfortune to have been born with a face that invites type-casting as an evil guy, looks so bored and unhappy in his stereotypical role as the evil FBI agent with the hidden agenda that it's actually distracting.

This movie is strictly desperation time for insomniacs. Turn it off, take a sleeping pill and go back to bed.


On the brink of disaster, with time running out, the fate of the world rests in the determined hands of a crack military unit, and a scientist with a plan that's risky, but just might save the world.

The soldiers are led by a handsome young colonel, whose daughter has been hijacked by a madman. Thrown in for sexual tension, and a woman's touch, is the scientist's daughter, reknowned in her own right, but with a chip on her shoulder because she thinks her father cared more for science than for her. Rutger Hauer, as the President of the United States, wrings his hands and worries with real flair.

This is strictly formula, the same you've seen in "Deep Impact", "The Core", and "Armagaeddon" (and those are the variations just from the last few years). This is a largely unknown cast, less John Rhys-Davies, Rutger Hauer, and the actor who played "Zale" on TV's M*A*S*H.

The story is stale, but still this is not an awful film; the actors turn in, in my opinion, as good a performance as could be derived from the material. If you're like me, and you're faced with a choice between re-runs of "Full House" and "Scorched" at 2 o'clock in the morning, pick this film. The nuclear annihilation of Los Angeles has got to be more entertaining than those horrible twin girls!


Except the horrible cast, the ridiculous script & the lousy dialogues:

Did the author only read ONE scientistic book about climatic structure, tectonic plates, or just physics?

Never saw a more ridiculous movie.

Better to spend the money for renting to me. :-)

Why is it not possible to vote zero?

No movie in the last years would deserve it more!

AND: Which drugs are necessary to write a script like these? Which people are financing this waste of time?

Worst movie of the last years!


I am giving this flick a "2" because it is not the worst Sci Fi Channel movie I have ever seen.

That classification is reserved for one of those hand-puppet, creature features called "Centipede".

The plot of "Scorcher" is unreal, the script inane, the acting bland, and the casting just unbelievable. No matter what one might think of Ruger Hauer as an actor, he does not look nor sound much like a native born American, which some, but apparently not the producers of this disaster of a disaster movie, know the President must be.

All these deals seem to have one thing in common. A tension building disaster timer, in this case the plate movement toward the critical 44 cm mark. I get that. What I don't get is the fact that the script then has the cast sitting around whining, BSing, cracking jokes, whispering sweet nothings, while the clock counts down toward the end of the world.

OH! and 12 minutes to get out of the tunnel, find your plane (not to worry about the rest of your team), take off and get out of range of a 15 megaton nuke. Gimme a break! Oops, my bad. I didn't have to watch.


The plot: the earth's tectonic plates are all screwed up, and a colonel has to place a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles to set the plates back the right direction. Other than the obvious fact it was inspired by "Armageddon", the plot has potential.

But there's theory and there's practice. And the actual movie is really messed up. There's a pause every five minutes for a speech about fathers abandoning daughters. There's a military man who wants to stop them, although the motive is really fuzzy. There's a romance that is never carried out. The fate of the 8 million or so LA residents is never mentioned. Basically, this film is full of subplots not fully explored and then ends very abruptly. It was like a novel ending mid-sentence (not unlike Douglas Adams' "Salmon of Doubt").

There were some good parts. The teenage girl, played by Raine Marcus, was a great choice. Beauty, brains, strong driving character. And she runs into a very unexpected turn of events when trying to escape from LA (if only Kurt Russell had been there). And John Rys-Davies is in this film, so that's good. I think maybe there was a line or two of dialogue I liked, if that counts.

So, yeah. Unfinished plots. A ripoff of Armageddon. Too much moralizing about the wrong things. And one big non-stop advertisement for the Blackberry (that Palm Pilot thing). Remember kids, carry a Blackberry on you at all times just in case you're knocked unconscious and kidnapped by a deformed serial killer with a love for fanatic Bible-thumpers! This film, obviously, is not recommended.


Half the actors mailed in their performance, the other half couldn't act. Cheesy beyond belief. Horrible plot. The relationships between the characters aren't fully developed or explained. Don't even let me get started on the complete lack of any real scientific reality. I know it is a B-Movie, but at least make it plausible.

Rutger proves yet again that he is if anything, utterly incapable of picking a real role. He must have been lucky with Blade Runner. He totally mails in this one. Guess he was looking for a paycheck.

It was so bad I just had to sit through it for the sheer joy of seeing ineptness in action. If you like to see really really bad movies... this one is for you.


Whoever played the guy that held someone's daughter hostage had by far the worst acting I have ever saw in my life. It is a scary thought to think that this guy was casted. That means that there had to be someone out there worst than him. It was a horrible role to take. The movie was horribly unrealistic!


This movie wasn't bad enough to make me fall asleep. Because I was laughing hysterically throughout the entire film. I want to know how anyone associated with Lord of the Rings (John Rhys-Davies) could allow themselves to be a part of this project. I honestly didn't know these types of films existed. When it is obvious footage is taken from the likes of Dante's Peak you know this movie will be horrible. Whoever green lit this film could have given the money to any charity and probably felt better about his/herself. After the initial "shock" that the world only has the time left for the plate to move another 20 cm or so I said to myself, "Okay were is the villain because the movie can't rely only on an evil-moving tectonic plate." And boy did the movie deliver! All in all the film is an SNL parody of all the disaster picks that plagued the late 90s.


This movie should be viewed by all who value hilariously bad movies. If you loved Plan Nine From Outer Space you will be happy to know that the genre still lives on, albeit only on late night HBO. Get out your VCRs and record one for posterity. This film rates a solid four skunks.


Don't waste your time on this boring movie. You would be better entertained watching TV commercials. The actors performances are jerky, forced, totally unbelievable. Special effects rate a zero. Sci Fi factor is zero. Ditto on action sequences. No decent humor. Plot, kind of. What value does this movie have? I can't find any. I'm taking this time to spare you a wasted time. Following is a repeat of above text because I've already said it all, but IMDb rules require 10 lines of text before a review can be submitted: Don't waste your time on this boring movie. You would be better entertained watching TV commercials. The actors performances are jerky, forced, totally unbelievable. Special effects rate a zero. Sci Fi factor is zero. Ditto on action sequences. No decent humor. Plot, kind of. What value does this movie have? I can't find any. I'm taking this time to spare you a wasted time.


I happened to tune into this one just as it was beginning, mainly because the log line seemed interesting. The opening scene seemed interesting enough with the obviously processed shot of the inferno in the arctic, but as opening credits started to roll I found myself wanting to watch this movie as an example of how not to make a movie. As a filmmaker, I find watching bad stuff like this to be a learning experience of what not to do in a movie.

I found it amazing that a movie like this can be made. It had relatively good production value, considering the bad script, which is why I was confused as to how this movie got made. The writing is not layered with well-developed characters; instead, it is layered with one cliché after another. There is no truth to any of the acting or the characters at all, and it seems like no research was done in order to make this a more believable story, or at least to suspend disbelief, which would have helped make more believable characters. The acting was so mechanical and cliché.

The director is obviously to blame for the bad performances, but I have to admit that the bad script would have made it hard for any director to do a good job on this one. The actors need to take some responsibility as well. I can't imagine any self-respecting talent not weighing in on how to make this story better, but then how could anyone have saved this cinematic disaster. It was so poorly written that the only way this movie could have been made worth watching is to simply rewrite it - completely. It should have never been made. This is not art. It's not even commercial. It seemed like the movie was made for its own sake, and the money spent on this one was spent for the sake of producers wanting to simply make a movie. I don't know  maybe write it off, or to take advantage of some tax break. It's hard to imagine anyone buying or renting a DVD of this, much less HBO picking it up. I guess the producers are making money on this one, since it did air on HBO. Unbelievable!!!


This movie is one of the best YAAS movies I have seen recently. - Good actors, great effects, even music is great and everything is full of action. It keeps watchers focused on USA flag all the time. Sure, like as always USA saves the world from catastrophe. - God save us all.


This movie was billed to be EARTH IN DANGER. After this team embarks on their mission, there's two minor tremors (where I don't see so much as a street lamp keel over), very scary scene in a tunnel and other than that not a hint of additional disastersanywhere. For the last hr fifteen minutes of film. The plate shift moves ever closer to that 44 centimeters mark were were informed mankind's doomed, at the end stops at 35and until the bombs are set off all stays as quiet as a emptied parking lot.

I started watching this after seeing footage of devastation in the film's first 25 minutes thinking there's going to more, even it if was CGI or old archive stuff there would be more chaos--BUT I got instead was boring by the numbers human dramaHey this is not the Hallmark Channel; I was baited and then the emphasis of the movie switched--and I am still livid over it! The (young) daughter subplot was good because both characters were somewhat likable while the scientists father daughter subplot reeked--I hated the scientist daughter. But neither one didn't need to be in this storyline cause they pull away from the supposed terror of the Earth on verge of disaster. Instead the Earth gets final billing. And testing was the cause of this why lob another bomb into Earth's precarious undergroundand why Earthquake prone California in all places. And nukesWhat about planting food, the radiation spreading to other statesEven ID4 had a higher degree of reality in terms of nukes there were someone protested using them and the President hedged.

I rate it 1 for the 2 prayer scenes, John Rhys-Davies and Mark Dacascos


This movie is an entirely forgettable low-budget production.

It's got dumb writing and obnoxious contrived characters and situations serving only as random obstacles to a paperthin 'plot' having to do with some world-threatening geological disorder, which, according to the Scientists, can be fixed only by nuking the city of Los Angeles. That's it! That's the whole movie: The President (Rutger Hauer) says go for it, so they go nuke L.A. Kaboom, The End. Except for those obstacles along the way, which are : 1) Traffic. They don't just fly the damn bomb in on a helicopter, they DRIVE IT from the airport. While the city is being EVACUATED. 2) Then there's Some Annoying Guy with a blowtorch, who wants to set fire to Some Chick, who is the daughter of the special forces Colonel assigned to nuking L.A.; she gets out of her mess by using some gratuitously product-placed pager to page (oh no sorry : INSTANT MESSAGE) Daddy. This pointless subplot grates on forever, but even that didn't quite manage to pad the movie to the intended length of 95 minutes, so they throw in obstacle number 3: Some Other Annoying Guy who annoys everyone for another 15 minutes or so, at which point the good guys blows up L.A along with the annoying guy and everybody's happy. Unbelievable piece of trash.

Oh, if you have to watch this, be sure to look for all the lifted pieces of footage from other films and the last L.A. riots. The cheapo F/X are pretty fun too.


This film one would think was a woman's film but the rating say otherwise. The chemistry between the female and male lead was the only interesting part of this film. If it was acting then that is impressive! Watch it if your not really wanting to get engaged because you won't.


Like many religious movies and TV shorts that the industry makes, the industry seems to be confused in regards to God and His Will. Such was the case with "The Soul Collector". I was enjoying watching the movie till it was implied that the soul collector or angel had sex relations outside of marriage. I don't know of any religion that condones sex outside of marriage, but they would probably say that it was that sin that greatly contributes to the population in hell. This movie was sacrilegious and greatly disrespectful to the Angels of God, by implying that any messengers of God would perform any act that is strictly against God's law. I am surprised that the movie was recently shown on "Lifetime (Original)" on Cox cable,if I am correct? If the movie or TV industry cannot make a religious movie without showing the messengers of God having teenage puberty sex outside of marriage, then they should not make any religious movie, because they do not know how to make a religious movie. Sincerely, Craig.


One of the reasons why I tuned into this show was because I like Bruce Greenwood's work, but, after watching as much of it as I could stomach, I can only hope that Bruce was paid well.

This is a complete turkey from start to finish. The script has some serious problems not the least of which is believability. The chemistry between Greenwood and Gilbert is nonexistent and their love scenes seem rather contrived. I finally stopped watching after the scene in the stable. The only performance in this that was any good was Ossie Davis as Mordecai. When Greenwood plays off of Davis he manages to actually put in a effort where as other times he seems to be going through the motions.

A friend of mine told me that this movie was based on an equally unbelievable historical romance. Why any network would want to put time and money into a movie based on a bad novel God only knows.


AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA was a hit at the BO so The makers decided to make DEEWANE HUYE PAAGAL, and with the now famous Akshay's comic timing there decided to make a copy of THERE's SOMETHING ABOUT MARY

Took Suneil, Paresh added Shahid, Rimii Sen

Made a commercial comedy film

The narrator act of Viveik that starts the film drowns it first only, luckily the film gets interesting with Akshay's entrance and then a few jokes are nice but then we have so many stupid scenes

A boring leading lady whom i doubt any guy of her age will also fall for Sorry Rimii, But why did the director choose her for the role that required someone damn hot and beautiful to explain people like Asrani falling for Budget constraints?

Plus there added another subplot of the evil Om Puri and his family especially Suresh Menon which makes the film boring

Too many cooks spoil the broth

Luckily the comic scenes between Akshay, Paresh make you laugh Second half gets nice but too lengthy The entire climax is so lengthy and uninviting, like a 70's climax The choosing of the right guy too is prolonged and boring

Vikram Bhatt does a good job in some comic scenes Music(Anu Malik) is good

Akshay steals the show and owns the film, He is the real star though now he has come a long way as an actor Suneil Shetty overdoes the limp bit but does well in some scenes Paresh Rawal is boring and too loud Shahid Kapur is boring in the lead, while Rimii Sen is pure teakwood with a dubbed voice Johny Lever is loud as usual Vijay Raaz is hilarious, Om Puri hams Suresh Menon irritates Asrani is alright


While it is not a complete ripoff of the Hollywood blockbuster from Farrelly brothers (There is Something about Mary), it is largely based on it. The whole Ompuri/Magic formula angle does not work and is totally unnecessary. However the biggest annoyance is Vivek Oberoi popping in and out at the narrator (played by the Farrelly brothers themselves in the original). Similar material would have been gold in Priyadarshan's hand. Akshay and Paresh Rawal are the only performers of any notice in the movie, rest of the cast is poor to average in terms of performance. Shahid Kapur was particularly disappointing playing the role Ben Stiller played in the original, no laughs for him at all!! Anu Malik is no longer the music director he once was a decade or so ago, he has not delivered a knockout soundtrack in ages. Overall it might be best to re-watch the original; a definite miss for everyone who is not a hard-core Akshay Kumar/Paresh Rawal comedy fan.


If you haven't watched 'There's Something About Marry' then you might enjoy this lame movie .... Lame because every joke is lifted directly off 'Something About Marry'.

Seems like nothing original is left in Indian film industry (or may be very little). Stay away from this piece of junk, watch 'There's Something About Marry' and you'll laugh throughout the movie. After watching the original you can watch 'DHP' just to compare how cheesy it is!! Its sad to see that good actors like OM Puri are working in such movies. As far as other actors are concerned they are ordinary actors not like Amir or Shahrukh who like to work in quality movies only.


If you haven't watched 'There's something about Mary', you might enjoy the story of the movie. Only the 'scientist' variable is an added component to the story.

Akshay was too irritating after the first 15 minutes of his intro. But I was impressed with Johnny Lever's comedy rather than Paresh Rawal.

There are too much off unnecessary stunts in the movie, which is plainly meant to show off and does not add anything to the movie scenario.

But I was impressed that they did not take a complete rip off of the original movie, but made a few stitches in the movie.


I walked out of the film, i paid 9 dollars to watch one of the years worst comedies. The acting was horrid in the film. Akshay Kumars excessive crotch banging and Sunil Shetty's horrible portrayal of Tucker from something about Mary would make anyone wan to walk out. This is definitely the worst American remake ever. The songs weren't even original one was the beat of Kevin Littles hug me hug me and the other of jazzy b's dil lutiya. The best song would be the remix of Chakle Chakle, thats it and it might be stolen too. I walked into the theater thinking this should be good because its the Hera Pheri cast, but two hours into it i stopped hoping for something funny and original to come out. I say watch the film on DVD, you might even think you've wasted your money there.


One of the horrible movie I have ever watched. I saw this movie in Mumbai, my last ever picture in Mumbai. I paid Rs. 200/- to watch the movie and the movie wasn't worth 25/- even.

Akshay hams too much in the movie so are Sunil, Paresh & all others. The only saving grace of the movie was Rimi Sen who was fresh out from Dhoom then. She certainly is improving film after film. She was good in Hungama. She plays the same kind of role. In Hungama there were two guys after her. In this movie, there are seven characters who are after her. I don't want to waste my time writing review of the movie coz there is no story altogether.

A must skip.


I'm so mad at this movie. The plot was absent. The acting was awful. The sound was unintelligible. I can't believe that this came out the same year as Back to the Future! Poor James Earl Jones! Poor me! There was a montage in the middle of the thing that referred back to things that were apparently cut out of the film. The costumes were cheesy, and the hair--don't get me started on the hair! You know, I do kind of enjoy a B movie, but I need something to chew on. Some fixed reference point--like a character name or something. I mean, even the credits were inept...they lasted for about 15 minutes and were filmed in irritate-o-rama--a cheesy stop-frame thing. I've had more enjoyable infections.


Continuing on with my very slow motion Johnny Stockwell Film Festival (i.e. i see one of his movies every few months)...

Hmmm... obviously someone had some wild idea for a movie, managed to attract some naive and gullible investors, found some actors who were in desperate need of a paycheck, and voilà, this came into being!

I'm writing this review as i watch this movie. I'm about a third of the way through, and so far, i have absolutely no idea what it's purpose is supposed to be. None of it has made any particular sense.

About the only thing i've really enjoyed is that demented skull motorcycle helmet that Johnny wears. I liked that. It appeals to my deranged sense of humor.

And i've recognized "Charlie" (Don Opper) from the "Critters" series. Which leaves me to wondering where Ug is.

OK... i'm now a little more than half way through and i'm still clueless as to what it's all about... I've already seriously contemplated turning the movie off because it's so dumb, but i continue on despite all odds to be true to the concept of a Johnny Stockwell Film Festival.

Well, i made it to the end credits. As far as i could understand what all the hubbub was about, the baddies were doing Our Heroes wrong. Our Heroes got cranky about that and taught the baddies the error of their ways.

I'm not sure, but i may have perhaps seen that plot done in possibly another movie or two. ;)

I can't realistically recommend watching this to anyone. It's pretty awful. I watched this from a commercial DVD that apparently was made from a VHS transfer and the VHS tape had degraded badly. Everything was pretty blotchy and fuzzy. Maybe if the movie had imaging that was crisp and clear, it might have been at least a little more bearable. Or, more likely, probably not.


Gee, are we done with the high points already? This is for the people who watched Mad Max and said, "this is nice, but why can't the gangs wear dumb plastic masks, have even less personality, find their savior in John Stockwell, and be weak enough to be ruled by Robby Benson? Add in a script by Don Keith Opper(Critters) and you start to realize why many people consider the eighties to be a horrible decade for cinema. James Earl Jones(Conan the Barbarian, The Star Wars Trilogy), Rae Dawn Chong(The Color Purple, The Principal), John Diehl(A Time to Kill, Stripes) deserve better; not that anyone deserves this movie. This is like Battlefield Earth lite without aliens. That is the kindest thing I can muster. Tony Plana(Three Amigos!) and Jennifer Balgobin(Repo Man) appear in small roles. In my opinion Jennifer could probably destroy John Stockwell in a fight. Less discriminating video heads may be pleased, but I find this movie dull and more than a little pointless. Put this together with Porky's and you have a full frontal shot of Kim Cattral(rejoice or recoil as needed.)


City Limits is so mind boggling since it can't make it's mind up if it's an apocalypse/biker/romance/comedy. Admittedly, I have never seen a society relying so heavily on comic books and the significance of Insect Man. Add lots of crappy costumes, cheapo sets and even more cheapo actors, typical 80s soundtrack drenched with crappy casio tones and James Earl Jones impatiently waiting for his check and City Limits will have you wishing for Soonya Corp. to take over!! Guest starring (oh, I don't think so) Robbie Benson as the epitome of corporate lifestyle refusing to die in the apocalypse. And Kim Cattrall, one of the dues she had to pay early on. She was great in Big Trouble in Little China, why this Kim?? I still laugh seeing James Earl Jones shooting a shotgun and delivering fine lines like, "Damn boy. I told you to find adventure, not to drag it home." Watch this MST style and it becomes a tad more entertaining.


I only watched this film on MST3K so I could bare watching the whole thing, but watching it on that show didn't take my attention away from the film itself. I could still notice the sadness and the general rubbish of the movie. It looked more like a music video for a 80s rock band than a actual movie.

There's a lot of bad points to this, such as the acting. It was boring, plain and it didn't make me react at all, just made me want to go to sleep more than anything. Also the acting of the mentally handicapped character was pretty unconvincing as well, and slightly offensive. I mean he was portrayed as somewhat of an idiot and someone who doesn't get anything, even the part when he was eating the dog food was completely wrong for the character he was supposed to play. It's not how it works and how the character should've been portrayed. I don't mean to make out that this movie is rubbish just because of this, it's rubbish for many reasons.

The action was like watching paint dry, I just couldn't get into it because it was just so corn. The fighting scenes for one was very slow, it seemed like they were both scared of injuring each other when they were fighting, even though they were wearing god knows what inches thick. It's all staged of course, but you have to make it seem like it isn't, which wasn't very well pulled off here, that along with the other forms of action within this movie such as the bike riding and carnage etc.

The only thing that was least unbearable about this movie was the theme. I mean an apocalyptic world is a good setting for a movie I've found with watching others such as Children of Men or The Matrix, but the difference between those movies and this one, is that they were very well written and everything about them was great and provoked the right reactions out of you when you watched them. But this, the only reason I didn't fall into a trance-like state was the fact I was watching it on MST3K, which is where it is only worth watching.

In short, boring, corny and generally you'd just rather go to sleep than watch it.


I watch many bad movies each year, but every once in a while, I come across a film that is without a single redeeming quality. This is one of those rare films. Quite simply, everything and everyone in this movie stinks. Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on the actors, because some of them have shown talent in other films, but how desperate must they have been to appear in this dud? The story is dull, the action is lame, and nothing about this movie is original. Only watch this movie if someone gives you considerable financial compensation in advance.


Hello , my dearest fellow IMDb's. Well, I saw this "vehicle"but then the MST3K version........and even Crow/Tom and Joel could not change my constant wondering; how the hell is this "thing"made possible??????! Oh my Good Gracious God.....BAD , really bad..I mean REALLY BAD. I saw a lot of filth being grinded trough the minds of Joel/Mike/Trace and Frank f.e., but this ....tomorrow(27 December), I am going to report ill for my work(serious!), let's hope it was the amount of food that sickened me...... Aaron Lipstad? Shame on you!! There are countless young new directors waiting for an opportunity to prove themselves and knowing your "golem" terrorized our eyeballs could make them really feel like a hopeless pile of driftwood!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well, oversee, was this movie serious? Was it released on cinema circuit?? I really would like to know this. ATTENTION PEOPLE, HERE IS A SPOILER:"They survive!" Eh....what actually?? hahahaaa. Cheers my friends. I am going to bed, listen to some music and get up at 08.00O'clock so I can call my boss to let him know of my bad condition..........:)

bye bye


My boyfriend is a huge MST3K fan. I usually watch the movies and laugh along, but this was the worst one ever. Even with the jokes of Joel, Crow and the others, nothing could make this turkey fly. The female lead is the woman who starred in Mannequin and she's the best actress in there. The wardrobe people even managed to make her butt ugly and look like a man. There's no eye candy for anyone in here. Sometimes that can be a saving grace in these films. The shots are so dark, you have to squint to see what's going on. All I can think is that the lights were turned low to hide the terrible sets and wardrobe. All I can say about the plot is that it's abysmal. The only reason I'm even giving it 1 star is for the kitch value of seeing James Earl Jones in his worst role ever. About half way through, I noticed my boyfriend (who had been looking forward to seeing this all week) was fast asleep. There was no way that I going to endure this crap alone. If you want to see a better B movie set in the future, may I suggest MST3K's "Overdrawn at the Memory Bank." It's an early Raoul Julia movie. He escapes his Orwellian society by watching the banned, controversial film "Casablanca." It's pure B-movie, futuristic genius. Don't waste your time with "City Limits." Even "Angel's Revenge" is better.


I sometimes think my expectations for a film are often aimed far too low. I only wanted to watch this film because I'd read that Kim Cattrall got her tits out...and then I had to wait over an hour for that.

So..was it worth it? Er...no...The future is going to be far worse than we could ever possibly imagine. The awful scenario of the 'Terminator' series is a picnic compared to this horror! Because 15 years in the future we will all dress like 1980's 'New Romantics' and have BIG hair in the style of 'Duran Duran.'...Kill me....now...

A biker gang fights an evil big business and that's it really. This is the sort of film I would love to hear an DVD audio commentary from the people involved and what they made of it. I can't believe they set out to make such a bloody terrible film, what were they attempting to do? Obvious that some people were just taking the money and running but the writer, director, producer? All a mystery.

Some films are so bad they are fun to watch in a perverse way but this is just dull and boring, although, seeing respected actor, James Earl Jones, taking out the baddies with remote control radio Spitfire planes has it's bizarre, surreal moment to be sure!

Though, I very much doubt that he or any other members of this will be putting it on their CV...

Stay away....rent or watch the Mad Max films instead.


Considering the "name" stars involved in this flick (James Earl Jones, Robbie Benson among others), you'd think this film could rate above a 1 star. No such luck. This post-Mad Max, post-apocalyptic rip-off hits the same lows as most other such attempts, but finds some unique qualities of its own to make it even worse. Take one-part Mad Max, one-part The Warriors, mix well, and turn into foul-tasting hash. There are some feeble attempts at action and excitement, but even the ineptly staged action sequences defeat that. A yawner.


City Limits find initial appeal for it's readily identifiable cast (particularly if you're a regular viewer of obscure films such as these) which includes John Stockton,Rae Dawn Chong, James Earl Jones, and briefly Ricky Benson. Not to mention at least an intriguing plot (with all of the political possibilities) of teens abandoned in a post apocalyptic setting where they form feuding factions as they seek to rebuild, one struggling to build its power while the other struggles for a peaceful existence (not to mention, a somewhat failure of modernity), and interesting sociological study for sure in the development of power and governance.

Unfortunately, the film has a poor script (especially, dialog), mostly poor acting, and scrap shooting budget (including poor sound engineering) which detract from the value of the aforementioned qualities of cast and plot. Many of the scenes tend to drag on, many of the events in the film are made painfully obvious (aided by horrible acting), and worst of all, it looks to be shot along stranded California farm landed or in garages and other cheap, scant locations you might expect from the late-night variety of science fiction and fantasy shows you see on cable. I find this last point to be significantly disappointing where you expect visual flair (even if improvised for lack of budget, but creatively so) from your science fiction films to match the possibilities laden in the story. Fans of highly obscure science fiction who's stories often compensate for forgivable absence of display, you may be pretty disappointed with this one. I'd recommend Prayer of the Rollerboys as an acceptable substitute.


This movie looks and feels too much like what it is--a play. As a result it has an artificial feel to it, and does not cut it as a movie. William Hurt is one of my favorite actors, but his prancing around his jail cell is painful to watch, and is a poor and uninteresting characterization of a gay person.

4/10


It is amazing to me the kind of trash that people pass off as art! Now, I'm an educated person with two graduate degrees, and the only "lesson" I learned from this movie was that if you are sharing a prison cell with a homosexual for an extended period of time, you too will become a homosexual. Hmmm, that makes perfect sense! What kind of dopes do these filmmakers think we are? If you're going to write fantasy, please stick to a plot that's interesting and enjoyable, like a rebellion against a galactic empire. Please wake me up when they release "Wrath of the Spider-Man!"


This was so Hollywood. Julia Roberts goes to Mongolia... What can I say, please Julia, stick to your role as a shallow actress, you play that role good. However, that role doesn't quite fit in this so-called documentary about Mongolia. Julia goes something like: "There are no fences here, the horses stay because of respect..." Well, in my opinion, the horses stay because they are in need of food, which they get from the horsemen, the law of nature or something. Anyway, I kind of liked her acting in Pretty Woman, just to say something nice.


As every other "shockumentary", "mondo death film" and the like out there "Traces of Death" also holds nothing back and pulls virtually no punches as we are treated to one revolting and sickening clip after another of people dieing and or being horribly injured in ways that no sane clear-thinking person could ever actually fathom! Amongst some of the worst and most vile clips seen in the film include the actual on-air news footage of a disgruntled husband shooting his news reporter wife to death live on Spanish television; a helpless and innocent pig who get's literally roasted to death in a slow and unbelievably sadistic fashion via a blow torch by a group of scientists obviously doing what would be considered now (and even back then) illegal animal experimentation; and a really gross and totally uncensored male-to-female sex-change operation that goes above and beyond anything you might have otherwise seen on TLC's infamous surgery shows! The list of equally as nasty sights and sounds just goes on and on from there I'm sorry to say these, however, were just some of the more shocking and severely stomach-churning things that viewers should probably be made aware of before watching as they are sure to horrify, if not psychologically scar you, depending on the fragility of your mental state at the time of viewing. On a personal note here I watched this lurid and thoroughly disgusting exercise in the grotesque a number of years back right after seeing both "Death Scenes: Volume 1" and "Death Scenes: Volume 2". This and the two aforementioned films have a dark freak-show like allure to them that as ashamed as I am to admit it now was what initially peaked my curiosity and eventually drew me to actually picking them up from my local mom-'n-pop movie store. "Traces of Death", unlike the other two, incorporates only news footage and clips taken from around the world as opposed to the really old police file photos and such which made up the bulk of the others. This makes the film just that much more disturbing if you ask me because when you're looking at live and in motion footage and can see exactly what led up to that person's death, one has a tendency to want to play that terrible scene over and over in their head for days after; and for me it isn't always done intentionally, it's just that it get's in your head and doesn't want to leave until you are able to focus your thoughts on something more pleasant instead until it goes away...which is easier said than done I'm afraid! That is the type of damaging effect such films as this one can truly have on you, and if you find yourself doing the same thing as I just described after watching even one of these films I implore you: please avoid "Traces of Death" like you would the plague because ultimately all it will ever do is give you horrible nightmares and leave you thoroughly nauseated for days after viewing! (Turkey-Zero Stars)


Without a doubt one of the most inept, atrocious, badly edited, microscopically budgeted movies you're ever going to find. "Death" or otherwise. The great majority of the movie is still photographs of murders, suicides, electrocutions, car crashes, blah blah blah blah blah ... and it's mostly SILENT FOOTAGE, so they've added in some canned background music and an idiotic narration to fill that particular void. If your idea of a good time is watching a silent video taped sex change operation, I guess this is for you then. (And by the way, to the producers, clever title there guys, what did it take you, maybe all of about four seconds to think of the title for this one?) "Faces of Death" and "Traces of Death" may have similar titles, but they're nothing at all like each other. "Faces of Death" at least had a documentary feel to it, some attempt at a sequence or progression from one scene to the next, not here though. Just one still photograph after another, another silent video after that, all edited together randomly, with that annoying hack hairball "Damon Fox" providing an obnoxious and grating narrative. That FRAUD- trying to pretend he's a big time movie producer, musician, alleging that he graduated high school when he was 12 years old, etc. What a pathetic little fraud he is.

1/2 a star out of ****


This is the most nastiest piece of junk I've ever seen. Forget Faces Of Death, this is all real and very graphic footage of well, let's see, Medical Operations, Accidents, Autopsys, plus pictures of suicides and police photographs. The shockementary is badly edited and is clearly meant to be exploitative and as sick as they, the producers, could get it. It's that badly edited in fact, that it just looks like a 2 VCR editing setup with a MIC attached. The commentator only rarely speaks, and when he does, his comments are gibberish and just to poke fun at the mayhem what unfolds. (During a scene of 'death' pictures) Comments include, " You will witness visions so incredibly graphic that your brain will surely comprehend the ghastly images it will receive!". Although, this footage is supposed to be 100% real, you won't know what the circumstances behind the scenes were, and therefore I found it boring and just vile. At least in Faces of Death, the commentator explains each scene so you know what has happened. Traces Of Death also includes the televised suicide of Bud Dywhite. This scene is replayed in different angles, replayed slowed down, and plainly just played till it would make you sick. If your after a rambling collection of death scenes this is your dream DVD!. However, if your after a serious documentary, then don't bother with this. I see its also banned in the UK, normally I think censorship is abhorrent, but in this case the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) should be given an award instead of the baseball bat!!!!. At this point I'd also like to point out this part does NOT have any death metal music. It's sick, vile, disturbing, and is strictly for adults over 18 what has a open mind, In my opinion, if you want a real shockumentary, Get Bumfights Presents: Terrorists, Killers & Middle East Wackos. Be warned, this is very graphic. I'll give Traces of Death a 3, because of it's pure exploitation!


As far as these "true death" documentaries go, I've seen a few of the "Faces of Death" films and one of those "Death Scenes" tapes a while back, but I can't say I am really "into" these. It's mindless "shock" and if you like stuff that will upset you than, by all means, seek out "Traces of Death", but this type of "entertainment" doesn't really "blow my mind". So, as most people have come to learn, the majority of those "Faces of Death" movies were faked, so it seems that "Traces" wanted to just pack as much REAL death and injury footage as they could - probably in an attempt to 'make up' for "Faces" deceit. There is occasional narration in this one and some repetitive keyboard music (I haven't seen any of the sequels but I hear they switch it up to death metal) over home video and news reel footage of animal attacks, racing accidents, suicides, murders and stock autopsy footage. Most of this actually bored me as I can only watch so much cadaver carving before I am ready to watch something else. These scenes go on way too long which just led me to believe that there wasn't enough images to display to last an hour... Of course, the notorious pig scene is what everyone talks about - a gruesome bit of animal experimentation where some guys take a flame thrower to a shaved pig until it's skin melts off... Yeah, okay. At least "Faces of Death" had that so-called doctor on there adding some commentary to the scenes and without that here in "Traces", it just moves along slow and is just ridiculous to actually sit through... Unless you enjoy gross imagery, "Traces of Death" will most definitely leave you unimpressed and unfulfilled...


Now,I'm 14 so I haven't seen many good mondos in my life.But,this is by far one of the best mondos I've seen yet.Traces of Death and Faces of Death are similar,but have one thing different.In FOD,the narrator explains what is going on,whereas the narrator in TOD,doesn't say much.Also,Faces of Death has about 85% of the footage faked.From what I hear about this movie in particular is that most or all of this is real.My problem with these types of movies is if they are real or not.This looks more realistic then Faces of Death.

Like Faces of Death there are many "disturbing" scenes and recordings.Animal slaughter,murders,suicides,autopsies.There is just about the same amount of gore and violence as FOd,but this seems to have more of an edge.Faces of Death was a bit too dull.I'm still watching the movie,so something might change.But so far,this movie is very good with keeping me watching,except I'm not at the point of throwing up.But,the only thing that almost got me there was the autopsies.Pretty disturbing and graphic.I think these series would have been a lot better off without the animal slaughters. ______________________________ EDIT:Okay,I'm past the half way mark,and all I have to say is,this is just about as boring as Faces of Death.It's like watching a whole bunch of FOD shorts throw together.A guy blew his brains out with a hand gun,race track accidents,more autotopsies,a sex change operation,brain surgery,crime scene pictures and so on.The final clips shown in the movie,was the classic tourist killed by lions and one last autotopsy.This movie was a big disappointment.It's an okay mondo,but nothing even close to a snuff.If you want a good mondo,go watch the Guinea Pig series.It will make you sick,but keep you watching at the same time.


I had seen all the "faces of death" films ,i wasn't shocked or anything at all with these films and as said before they had some documentary feeling However... watching this film (partly)i had the same feeling.... until the incredible evil torture against animals,this is so sickening violent that i had to to something,if only to warn people not to spread this filth,(as a torrent,(OR ANY OTHER WAY)To my amazement i saw that this movie is widely sold and advertised. Why anybody would wanna see this as entertainment is totally beyond my (and any sane person IMO)comprehension,so if the people who are making these films get a commercial success out of it, they are gonna repeat it! So the viewer will be responsible (to a certain extend) of what he sees. Think about that when u see this! i would say ignore it,also there are certain people like myself who would (and will!!!!!) pay a small fortune to get my hands on any of the persons involved in making the animal clips in this film,or providing someone else with the means necessary to make it for them!

(ADMIN,IF YA WANNA DELETE MY POST WATCH THE FILM AND YOU WONT!!)

"BARBARICFELLOW"


I didn't care for this movie. I found myself wishing that the murderous husband would throw himself overboard! He was clearly unhinged. However, the movie's effects were wonderful and there was constant movement throughout. There were also several instances of foreboding-the wife telling the nanny that she won't be back for a while and when the dog breaks free and swims to the boat as if to save the wife. I found the scenes in the city to be spectacular and fun, but here the plot failed me. I didn't feel much towards the characters and didn't see how there interaction made him fall back in love with her. It appeared she loved him all along but he betrayed her trust and apparently won her trust back, that did not seem credible. The cinematography and the presentation were amazing as was the set.


The main problem with this film is more fundamental. Laura is essentially a very tragic character, not a comical one.

The story is a tragedy, but it seems that the director himself has missed that point. Ludomania, which is the film's underlying theme, is not funny, but pathetic and tragic.

Instead, the director attempts to dress up the story and present it as a hybrid of a comedy and a "love story" between an alcoholic and a compulsive gambler. It just doesn't work.

The ending is also a complete letdown: Laura informs Claus that she has decided to sort out herself and work on her (very serious) problems. She states that their relationship cannot continue.

This could have been a decent ending, leaving on a hopeful note, but it is completely ruined during the end credits where a number of idiotic sketches show that Laura and Claus have moved together anyway -- with Laura constantly betting with Claus over ridiculous things.

Give it a miss. 2 out of 5 stars (** of *****).


Poor Guy Ritchie wannabe tells the thin story of gambling addict Laura (Hjejle, in an annoying one-note performance) hooking up with hard-nosed debt collector Claus (Bodnia, a bit more softhearted than usual, but on autopilot most of the time - he should definitely resume working with better directors). Spang Olsen's direction is less incompetent than usual, but with the emphasis less on action this time, the film also suffers from many dull stretches. Nikolaj Peyk's supposedly "authentic" dialog is simply not funny. A bunch of good actors are wasted in bit parts (Erik Clausen in particular) and a highly inappropriate soundtrack, as another user mentioned, make for an unimpressive movie.


The theme for this movie is quite similar to much from the same genre of danish films. But this one is probably the worst one of the lot! Movies like 'Gamle mænd i nye biler' (Old Men in New Cars), 'I Kina spiser de hunde' (In China They Eat Dogs) and 'Blinkende lygter' (Flickering Lights) are light years ahead in every aspect. This movie is a sad production which could have been made much better. One can't help wondering about that soundtrack from the HORRIBLE Swedish singer Lisa Nilsson - was her record label the only (or should we call it rightfully lonely) sponsor of this flick?!? No wonder people turn to piracy and download instead of purchase DVDs. Movies like these makes you never want to spend another cent on the corrupt Scandinavian movie industry! Get real!!

An ultra-generous 3/10 because of Bodnias acting.