Sorry, but Zemeckis is no Hitchcock.

This movie paid great homage to other films (see others' reviews) and had several unsettling and subtly horrific shots, but was otherwise pretty bland fare. I recommend waiting till it comes out on video so you can fast forward past the many uninteresting and unnecessary filler scenes. By the time the tension actually increases, you may find yourself waaaay past caring.

***SPOILERS***

Michelle Pfeiffer gave a good and varied performance (much better than in 'Wolf'), in contrast to Harrison Ford's humdrum husband. Which is interesting, since 'Norman' was supposed to be a 'brilliant' scientist. He did nothing in the film to even be considered 'bright', IMO. He seemed very tranquilized (yawn) until the "hahahahaha, I'm a killer and you're next" bit. I'll take Anthony Perkins or even Vince Vaughn's 'Norman' any day of the week compared to this passive loser.

The film wasn't awful, but several things made me chuckle out of sheer disbelief. The first time Claire sees the ghost in the bathtub, before Norman runs in after her scream, it takes what, 5 seconds for the whole tub to drain! Then, later, it takes forever for the water to drain past her nose when her magic toes pull up the plug. And what faucet do you know that will cut 80% of the water supply after only a quarter turn? It wouldn't have been as laughable if the ghost had been involved, but this was not even hinted at . . . and the cliche's continued . . .

This movie took forever to advance the plot, and the silly, obvious red herring involving the next-door neighbors was pretty irritating.

The slow pace of the film felt like the dredging of a lake bottom. Too bad the film's body didn't surface a little sooner.


Although the movie has the same theme as the Sixth Sense, its ending is rather chaotic and unbelievable. The movie should have ended in the bathroom ... but the subsequent scenes were just added to increase the tension with opposite effect. In these horrible scenes the sound volume was increased to unbearable heights (annoying), and the movie glitched from moderate level down to disaster level.

You can skip this one !


Probably one of the most predictable and boring movies of this year. The plot is so stupid that it is insulting to the viewer. It takes about 25 minutes of the movie to figure out how it is going to end. The ghost part of it contributes even more to the feeling that you really wasted your money this time. To find this movie scary you would have to be very young or have very little movie experience. The movie contains about 50 scenes where you know that in 2 seconds time, there will be a BOOOO effect and when it comes you do not get scared rather angry that you actually paid money to watch this rubbish.

How Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford ever agreed to take part in this misery is a riddle to me, but I guess they were both paid good. Michelle Pfeiffer is to me one of the most beautiful women of the world - she almost gets better looking as she is getting older and her acting is very fine in this film, but it just is not enough. Avoid.


Because this movie is a waste of talent and time. If you have seen the movie trailer, you've seen most of the movie. Granted,I usually like Harrison Ford, and this was a good role for him. However, Robert Zemeckis seems to be obsessed with rich and affluent white people than about the horror story that this movie is suppossed to be about. I think everything in the movie came out of L.L. Bean. Anyways, I'm digressing...the movie is just plain bad...sure there is suspense in this movie, but it's minute. How many times are we suppossed to believe that Michelle Pfiefer is going to go into that bathroom? And another thing, I'm all about adapting or taking some part of a previous movie and use it as an homage to great directors or movies, but I am tired of Zemeckis ripping off other movies and directors. Watch Diabolique or any good Hitchcock film and save yourself 2 hours of this immeasurable bore of a movie.


I gave it a 4. It made me laugh and I really like Pamela's work for PETA.

With the exception of Courtney Love, Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson I didn't know much about the other people in this show. Who are they I thought when they started their hilarious and vulgar orations? My excuse is that I'm not an American and I don't follow the current American stand-up comedy scene.

Here's my take, it was funny and very vulgar, not that I mind, I had lots of laughs and enjoyed the roast. But, just like eating food you know isn't good to your body, these kind of shows could deteriorate your mind. The show has no meaning except of upholding the myth of the celebrities by making fun of them in a predetermined way. The celebrities become some kind of one-dimensional characters and that's good for business, I guess. Otherwise they wouldn't have participated.

It seems like that the good old roasting of celebrities back in the days of Dean Martin and Truman Capote had more substance than just talking about Tommy Lee's endowment and Pamela's tits. It was more clever in the old days and I miss that. But hey carry on with your roasting, it's a very American entertainment and thank god there are no beeps. I *beeping* hate that.


Few films have captured so accurately the true nature of gambling as has Owning Mahowny. First there was Air Bud. Then there was Air Bud 2. And now this, the final installment in the triumvirate of films about dashed dreams and unfortunate morals. Not that these films were all about gambling per se, but that they evoked it in spirit. For just like the act of gambling itself, or indeed, not unlike the Air Bud movies, Owning Mahowny seems enticing at first, that is, when you and your friends are just planning to see it, joking that you might strike big, that this might be the one movie that comes out of nowhere to surprise you, but then from the moment you enter the theatre, every time you give this movie a chance, it's just one bad hand after the other, until eventually you are completely numb to it, and you stop paying attention to your wife, and you start cutting out of work early, and you no longer enjoy anything again in life anymore because all you want is your Owning Mahowny. You must have your Owning Mahowny. "Just let me watch five more minutes," you say, "and I swear it will get good. It's due." Which is a shame really, because the movie just really blows.

In fact, they should have called it Blowing Mahowny, or Owning Baloney, or some reasonable facsimile--only then the ace detective on the trail of Mahowny would not be able to wittily observe that "Mahowny" spells "How many?" when the letters are rearranged and a question mark is inserted, which is a lazy anagram at best as it only requires two permutations. A much better one is "O Man Why?" as in "O man why, o why upon why o man did this movie even get made?" or "O man why didn't I save that $7 for Vegas where I could be far better entertained by an hour and a half at the nickel slots?"

Nothing against Mr. Hoffman, who is one of the finest, most important actors of our day, but this movie has nothing to hold him up. It is not worthy of his talents. The dialogue is forced and hackneyed, never fully deciding if it wants to be moralistic or sympathetic, but always settling on being just plain crappy. The protagonist is never shown to have a single redeeming quality, except possibly in the end, when he tells his girlfriend "I love you too" and kisses her hand, and this is supposed to make up for the fact that she has always come in a strong second to his addiction. Apparently in real life they got married eventually, but the characters in this movie could never have gotten married in more than a postscript, because they were just too ingenuine, and the movie omits any moments that could have explained why on earth they ever got together in the first place.

There was something maniacal about the casino boss who was so inviting to Mahowny but at the same time stood to gain millions of dollars from him and completely ruin him. A better movie would have explored this, but this one was content to revel in his clown-like antics. Elsewhere, the token black floorman and the Italian bookie were an insult to multicultural casting. And what was with the suspicious co-worker at the bank, or even more so, the scruffy cop who tracked Mahowny down? He was clearly a ripoff of Brad Pitt's scruffy cop from Seven, only in that movie, Pitt was chasing someone actually scruff-worthy. No, this movie would have been better suited with a Fedora-clad Tom Hanks in a fake Boston accent. Perhaps these characters were all based on real-life scruffy or ethnic people, but this movie didn't convince me as much.

In the end, on a scale of 100, with 100 being Air Bud 2, I give Owning Mahowny a 20. And sure, maybe 20's good enough for some people--even Mahowny himself. But me, I just want my money back.


Ex-military, black belt professional bodyguard/soldier of fortune Ken Conway (Matt McColm) is recruited by his ex-fiancée Marisa (Annabel Schofield), who left him at the altar, to find her missing coworker. The search leads him to world renowned virologist Dr. Ramsey Krago (Ron Perlman), who is secretly creating deadly viruses, releasing them, then "developing" an antidote (which he had created in tandem with the virus) and selling it to the highest paying pharmaceutical company. The Doctor, via poison ring, infects Conway with his latest invention leaving him forty eight hours to get the antidote or die.

TV movie quality. The opening music is incredibly tacky. Not the most brilliant dialogue. The lead (McColm) has a tendency to go over-the-top-cocky. A rainy day watch.

Perlman is the elegant epitome of class and style as the suave, debonair and totally villainous Krago. An enjoyable performance as he is so damn smooth and so damn ruthless; a silken snake.

Worth a rent/buy used.


Okay, so it's not Shakespeare. I still say it's better than any movie with Pauly Shore in it (I realize that's not much to live up to but still). If you like B movies, you ought to see this. The acting is pretty awful/hilarious, and Clint Howard turns in a classic performance as the whining sidekick of the tough hero. Carol Alt is not too bad (for a supermodel... better than Cindy Crawford in FAIR GAME anyway!) and Ron Perlman is sufficiently evil as the bad guy. I don't know why Morgan Brittany was in this though since her character didn't really do anything of any importance. I guess she's friends with the director or something.

My favorite line: "Now I'm infected too! Til death do us part..." Any part with the C-list actors trying to explain virology in scientific terms was pretty good as well.

4/10. Funny stuff.


1st watched 10/18/2001 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Jack Gill): I actually expected this title to be much worse than it really was, but it still was not good enough to merit it a good rating. Actually decent performances from Matt McColm as the he-man star and a good supporting role from Clint Howard as his silly accountant sidekick, but they couldn't overcome the bad plot with dim-witted unrealistic responses to the situation from mostly everyone involved. The plot revolves around a money hungry virus-vaccine producer who decides to make the virus first, put it airborne then make millions on the vaccine that he was ready to put out on the market because he knew their would be a need for it. Pretty smart guy, except that he didn't expect he-man bodyguard turned private eye `Conway' to be on the case and spoil his whole evil plot. Conway ends up getting the virus and here is where the movie becomes down-right ridiculous and then turns even sillier at the end with former lovers bickering with each other in the after-life as the credits role. A-Pix entertainment doesn't usually even come close with it's offerings but this one was closer than normal but still a grade-b movie that tries to be a little more than this but doesn't pull it off.


I liked the design of the lead character for this film and the basic premise of the virologist bad guy. I also like the always adorable Annabel Schofield.

Aside from that the film is lousy. Bad performances from everyone including Ron Perlman, who is usually very convincing in aloof shadowy roles (particularly his TV role as Beauty and the Beast's Vincent), simply underscores the bad dialog, the silly story line, and the listless direction.

Annabel seems to have a gift for rescuing really bad films from the absolute dung heap (cf. Solar Crisis).


If you listen closely, you can catch subliminal advertising for another WB show "Smallville".

The oldest of the three children is referred to as "Kansas" at one point, and is even called "Man of Steel" while surfing. Where the relation there is, I have no clue.

A mix of "Raising Helen", "The OC", and "Everwood" and blended together in a really terrible mix, this has all the makings of another forgettable soon to be cancelled series like "Run of the House", "Glory Days", and "Hyperion Bay".

Don't remember "Hyperion Bay"? I just proved my point.

This mess stars the beautiful Lori Loughlin who plays a driven self-involved business woman whose sister dies. For what reasons? Not sure.

So naturally, the kids are given to the sister ala "Raising Helen". There's three kids. Three. Why not one or two? Who knows, but there's three and their one-dimensional characters with one-dimensional personalities played by terrible actors.

The supporting cast is just as bad. Loughlin's character is one-dimensional too, though she looks like she tries hard.

There's the obligatory Aussie stud, there's Loughlin's boyfriend character, and the token minority character. All clichés for a show that has no future.

The kids are spoiled, obnoxious, and predictable. The oldest son is brooding, blonde, and is learning to surf, stating in the pilot "I prefer surfing" though he lived in Kansas. Oh, and he has a love interest already who's given no introduction or set-up.

The middle child is a mother figure trying to fill in for her mother which would be tolerable considering she can't act or deliver her line to save her life. She's tepid, obnoxious, and spoiled.

The youngest child is worst of all. His lines are terrible, his delivery awful, and the pilot consists of he and another kid talking about death in a cornfield. A creepy and odd subplot considering the kid comes seemingly from nowhere.

The emotional scenes are intended to pull at our heart strings but they're just awful. At one point the youngest child has a nightmare calling out for his mother, the middle daughter reaches for him and he runs to Loughlin's character, she gets upset and runs off.

This made me laugh aloud, because it was such a badly done scene. She then proceeds to run to her room, turn up her music and cover her ears. Once again, comedic and ridiculous.

Then there's a hilarious scene in which the oldest son confronts the middle child who tries to control everyone and they begin fighting. It's so funny, and its sad because it probably wasn't meant to be funny.

This is a very contrived, pretty awful and annoying show without an original bone in its body. It's ashame because Lori Loughlin is a good actress and this will surely fall into the cliché pit falls with this terrible vehicle.

I'm sure we'll see a mean boyfriend of the love interest, some obligatory fighting, and even more bad acting from the children.

This is awful and unintentionally funny.

-1 out of 10.


This film is a useful corrective for those who think that French cinema is inescapably urbane, intelligent and stylish. Counter-investigation is a shallow, nasty, derivative, clunking little film. Though its authenticity is widely trailed, the film's basic premise - that a police officer whose daughter has been raped and killed would subsequently be allowed to investigate the same crime as a miscarriage of justice - defies disbelief. Character development is jettisoned in favour of a nuts and bolts plot which delivers few pleasures. Men suffer, you know, when their children die; but they can get through it by squaring their jaws and drinking liquor. Paedophiles, well, they're clever, cold, and calculating. And evil, pretty much. The police, they'd do a fine job, if it weren't for bureaucrats. And liberals, especially. The film's ultimate message - that the only justice is old testament justice in a neatly defined world of good and evil - is as absurd as it is juvenile. One to miss.


Wow this movie was a total head scratcher.Firstly I'd like to point out the cast is a bit off.Not only in who is in it but who the star is!And after watching this and checking all the names in the credits and checking here and yes googling it.You know what I have no idea at all!But it's not Carter Wong or Lau Ka Wen aka Chia Yung Liu aka Lau Kar Wing.It's the cop in Turkey yes Turkey who's a karate expert but no names in the credit fit?Anybody see this and have clue who he is?Anyhow the director of this movie is probably the worst part of it.The action is decent in fact some fight scenes are pretty good.However the story is choppy,the acting weak and the speedup of the final fight scene didn't help at all.Although I give it 9 out of 10 for location shoots!The director was intent on spicing this one up with romance and fun in the sun.And hey watch Bolo run run run!Actually there's too much running in this movie entirely.This really could have been a good movie if not for the director I think lol.Oh and don't miss Carter Wong's extended cameo in the lead role!

Oh here's the spoiler there is no Ninja Killer at all!


Even though when I buy a film like this I don't really expect good acting, story, or quality I buy them anyway just in case there is some good fighting / scenes in there. Unfortunately this one was a dud and a total waste of money. It is so bad that it is actually quite amusing in places so it gets a 2 out of 10. It is deffo frisby material but before you wang it out of the window it is worth one watch because you don't want to miss out on : What is going on with Bolo? The lead guy is a joke and is meant to be some kind of tough guy but looks like a mixture of Charles Bronson/Don Johnson/Columbo or whatever you cannot take this guy seriously.


That's the typical salad bowl martial arts movie from the early 70's, when hong kong low budget movies were the new wave in cheap entertainment. The acting is poor, yet not unwatchable. The white martial artist looks like a Miami vice ripoff Don Johnson ripoff ante litteram. Bolo makes his figure as a henchmen's leader playing two drug kingpins against one another. It gets scenes shot in Turkey, so it hadn't to be a really really low budget flick.

The screenplay is a mess. You get drug kingpins & traffickers trying to cheat on their colleagues without a clear understanding of anything. You get lame subplots about romance. Many people run, like in the police thug telepictures, ex Inspector Bluey, etc.

You watch it, and suddenly you can't make a difference between it, the many "American ninja" hotdog movies & hong kong rubbish.

There is no Ninja in the movie, except for a fight scene where masked people overpower Bolo, who then just asks them who they are, and they take the mask off!!!

Cheap VHS feed even during the cheap VHS boom of mid 80's.


why does everyone in the film have super powers? even the normal people could jump 5 story buildings, and had super human strength. the best part of the movie is knowing that they had to cast the part of affleck's father and flashback younger self with actors with butt chins.


After watching Daredevil, it looked like they went out of their way to make the movie awful. The acting was pathetic, as was the script and the special effects. It clearly looked like a rushed job, I'm sure if you listen carefully you can hear the actors' cell phones ringing, it should have gone straight to viewing on some small airline, but that wouldn't be fair to subject the passengers to that. The only positive thing to say about the movie was that the character of 'Bullseye' was limited in screen time.


Why the hell did anybody like this? Ben Affleck is a terrible actor. DAREDEVIL is yet another bad comic-book-movie in a long line of bad comic-book-movies. The story isn't strong, and it's poorly told. The film uses montages to pop music to convey emotion. The "dark" edge to this movie has such high gloss that viewers might need contacts after a sitting. The visual effects are all highly unconvincing CGI, and the hero's point of view effect is over-used. The direction is unimaginative and I've seen better scripts in Saturday morning cartoons.

As if anyone should care, SPOILERS follow.

Affleck's character starts the film as a poor kid (who looks like he's fresh from the pages of Tiger Beat) living with his father who is mixed up with criminals. This soon leads us to our superhero's origin. He sees something he shouldn't, drops his A+ report card (spare me!), and winds up with toxic waste in his face. He wakes up in the hospital blind, but with all his other senses heightened enough to completely compensate for it (that's why Stevie Wonder is such a bad-ass). Through the first part we have to hear Affleck's lame narration. When grows up he's a lawyer by day and DAREDEVIL the rest of the time. Naturally, he meets an attractive girl, whom he fights for some reason (think the scene in BASIC, except dumber and without gravity). She is the stuff of centerfolds, Elektra King, whose father is in trouble with the evil Kingpin, who killed Daredevil's dad, which makes him his arch nemesis. A romance blooms and the villain does villain stuff. Daredevil becomes a problem for Kingpin, so he sends in Bullseye to frame him for Elektra's daddy's murder. The frame-up scene is so incredibly dumb that Paul Verhoven probably had a laugh on it. Elektra thinks DAREDEVIL killed her daddy, so she must become a costumed freak in order to take revenge. Costumed freak Elektra really only has time to spill some sand, misuse Eastern weapons, and die. Daredevil and Bullseye fight in a cathedral. During the epic battle, scale disappears, and the pipe-organ (which they fight on) changes size and hight several times, particularly when they are falling past it. Then comes the real showdown, between Daredevil and Kingpin (the ever misused Michael Clark Duncan). Rather than do the logical thing and kill his enemy, Daredevil leaves him alive (minus his knees). Yeah, injuring a major crime lord, identifying yourself, and leaving him alive is not the smartest thing a person can do. But superheros seem pretty dumb these days anyway.

Let's face it, people, BATMAN (1989) is the yardstick to which all superhero movies and comic book adaptations must be measured. Nothing has ever measured up (except maybe DICK TRACY). X-MEN, X2, HULK, SPIDERMAN, and DAREDEVIL are all crap, both by comparison and by their value as films. Anyone who thinks DAREDEVIL is good is either plain stupid, or an obsessed fan who shouldn't be listened to anyway. To yawn at this movie would be a compliment.


I remember seeing a short trailer for this superhero film, and I didn't think it looked too bad, but the critics give it two stars, so I had to see why, from director Mark Steven Johnson (Ghost Rider). Basically, in Hell's Kitchen, New York, after being blinded by a toxic waste chemical, which increases his other senses dramatically, young Matt Murdock (Scott Terra) loses his father Jack (David Keith) to an unknown man dropping a rose. Years later, Matt (Razzie winner Ben Affleck) has become a respected criminal attorney/lawyer, but by night he becomes "The Man Without Fear," costumed and masked hero Daredevil. He one day meets (by smell and touch) Elektra Natchios (Jennifer Garner), daughter of a wealthy tycoon, and they fall for each other quite quickly, and she is quite a skilled fighter also, with her knives. Daredevil has a new enemy though, the super-enhanced Bullseye (Colin Farrell), who never misses his targets, hired by big villain Wilson Fisk, aka The Kingpin (Michael Clarke Duncan). Also starring Joe Pantoliano as Ben Urich, Jon Favreau as Franklin 'Foggy' Nelson, Ellen Pompeo as Karen Page, Kevin Smith as Jack Kirby - Forensic Assistant and Stan Lee as Old Man at Crossing. There are some good special effects, I didn't think Farrell was that bad, and even though the premise of a blind superhero is ridiculous nonsense, there is still some fun to be had. Okay!


This is where John Hughes started turning over his work to other lesser directors, with mixed results. Pretty in Pink is basically a cinderella story with a laughably unbelievable ending, apparently re-shot after the studio reacted in fear to what was originally there. In the original she did NOT get the 'hot guy'. Which would have been much more interesting. Featuring good performances from Jon Cryer as the "I'm not gay" friend who is clearly gay, and Molly Ringwald in the thankless title role.

Another great sound track, and great supporting performances from James Spader et al. When it came out, this was the 'bomb', but it hasn't aged well I'm afraid. One of the lesser of the "Hughes cannon".


I am a big fan of teen movies, and was surprised that I didn't find this one engaging. I enjoy the work of all of the actors, but frequently found myself looking for the kind of moments and engaging characters I found in Sixteen Candles, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, the Last American Virgin, etc. Perhaps I am mistaking the film as one that fits in that category, but humor should be a greater part of the storyline. The film seemed slow to me, and just didn't have the memorable bits that really make a film a classic. I just wish it weren't so. I did enjoy Molly and Harry Dean, but that didn't carry the day for me. I would have liked to have seen a more memorable sound track as well.


I might be missing something, but I do not understand the appeal of this particular John Hughes production. I tend to enjoy John Hughes and I am not a member of any anti-Ringwald clubs, so those types of prejudice do not factor into my acute disdain for this particular film.

The film is woefully dated. It is not the references to records, slang or the clothes that date it. Instead the intangible style and attitude possessed by the characters ages the movie.

On a more personal level, what makes me want to throttle this film is the is the creation of high school as the summit of life. Around this perceived pinnacle swirls "adult" conversations of understandings of life, and particularly love. I watch and cannot help to snicker at the thought that anyone would take Andie and Jack's or Andie and Iona's delving into these matters seriously. Perhaps the most realistic view of high school romance and love held in the film, as morally despicable as it is, is by Steff. This was almost as funny as overhearing a two hour symposium on love given by Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.


Anyone remember that 80s sci-fi series V ? It`s best remembered for a scene where a teenage girl gives birth to an alien mutant baby , but what a lot of people can`t remember about the series is that every single scene has a studio microphone popping into view . Guess what ? IT LIVES AGAIN also features mutant babies and microphone goofs . Look at the scene where the party has just broken up and Jody and Frank sit on the sofa . You can clearly see a microphone sticking up from the coffee table . I`m surprised the scene wasn`t reshot because the microphone is so obvious it`s impossible not to notice it . Director Larry Cohen has noticed it but instead of reshooting the scene he seems to have dispensed with microphones for the rest of the movie ! Seriously I`m certain he has because the sound mix after this scene is all over the place , when someone speaks the volume of their voice increases/decreases from shot to shot and there`s also plenty of scenes with obvious overdubbing , and not to mention bizarre background noises .<br /><br />As for the rest of the film it`s a disappointment . You`d think a movie with mutant babies on the rampage would have been so bad it`s brilliant , but the screenplay takes itself far too seriously and most of the actors seem to have other things on their minds especially Frederic Forrest who seems to be thinking " I just hope Francis Ford Coppola releases that Vietnam war movie as soon as possible "


This sequel to the somewhat cult classic horror flick "It's Alive" just is not up to that movie at all in my opinion. Not really alive at all this movie crawls by at a snail's pace and just seems to be a less fun movie than the original. Add to that the fact they take all the mystery out of the first movie, basically spelling out how the mutant killer babies are born the way they are something I do not think really needed to be addressed so thoroughly. Granted, it may be that I would have preferred a more supernatural type origin than the scientific one so it may be just my tastes that make me think ill of this movie than anything else. I also thought they showed the babies to much in this one and this kind of made the impact of seeing them lessen to a great degree. The movie basically has a whole place of mutant killer babies to see. Though as bad as this one is they would make another one, however, it started promisingly enough with a cab birth scene, but once they showed the island and the babies I could watch no more. This one was barely watchable too as it was very boring for me to witness.


Weak follow-up to the original cult classic It's Alive is virtually a remake of the first film, but with three babies this time around instead of one. Dull, boring, talky horror flick with a disappointing score and just about all the action and scares confined to the end, but by then it is too late. Rick Baker actually did the poor effects for this horrible sequel to It's Alive! Not to mention a rotten script and ending. Also, the beginning is garbage which should be stomped on and thrown away. What was Larry Cohen thinking? He could have just made another movie besides this. He must have been thinking "I'm bored. Hey guys, let's make a sequel to It's Alive!". Don't rent it or buy it. It's a horrible movie.

Rated R for Violence and Profanity.


In a direct sequel to Cohen's 1974's cult favourite "It's Alive!", Forrest and Lloyd take over as a couple playing host parents to a newborn 'sacrilige' being observed along with two fellow mutant tots by a mad-dish ("perhaps theirs is the race that will be able to adapt to the future") scientist.

The script's impartial stance on the blindness of the 'authorities' against the plain stupidity of nature-tampering science, along with the excellent and affecting portrayal of parental suspended grief by the two leads, are sadly the film's only virtues.

On the back of the cult critical plaudits poured over his "God Told Me To" the previous year Cohen seems to have transformed into the Tarantino of his day by the time of this production, resulting in an overly-discerning, archly facetious parody of his original. Following a coherent and workable first 20 minutes the babies escape, characterisation fades into evanescent memory, and suspenselessly-edited sequences telegraphed as 'shock' but ending up as anything but become the order of the day.

Cohen's career subsequent to this was a pretty unambiguously hit ("Q") and miss ("Wicked Stepmother", "Return to Salem's Lot") affair. Visually it's all pretty ugly, and just like with the aforementioned Mr T it's hard to discern (ie care) whether or not the amateur slapdashness is in fact sick slickness. Hardly a gracious return to American movies for Eddie 'Lemmy Caution' Constantine, either.


for what is certainly a great premise, it's unfortunate this film is such a failure. i've never watched anything so loaded with filler. it felt like half the 90-minute run time was probably dedicated just to watching characters entering driveways and getting out of their cars. this time there's three killer babies. who cares. none of them do anything. why does Larry Cohen even bother making a movie that are this diluted. i would credit Frederic Forrest's performance as the tormented father with holding the film together .. that's if there was anything to hold together. a total waste of my time. you know what would have made the movie better? if the story took place on the titanic in an alternate universe and the babies were faster, amphibious, had spider legs, and could reproduce within seconds of being born. imagine all those stuffy aristocrats in life jackets bobbing up and down between the glaciers with spider babies attached to their necks.


I read James Dixon's great novelization of this sequel first, so my expectations were high. Too high. It plays like a retread of the first film with three killer tots instead of one.

John Ryan is back trying to warn other parents of the infant scourge, but nobody listens until it's too late or they're dead.

Once again, Cohen gives us a dialog-heavy, vapid time-waster with little action until the last ten minutes and badly directed action at that.

Bernard Herrmann's score is culled from unused cues from the first film and is the film's only saving grace.

If you can still find it, read the novelization and consider what this film could have been.


One of the MANY movies that mistakes profanity for powerful dialogue. Like horror movies that use gore to supplant suspense, these movies use profanity as a crutch. This was Nick Gomez's first film and it shows, from the "artistic", read too shaky, hand-held camera-work to the script which I imagine was two pages long, the rest of the film being improvised (I have a hard time believing anyone can write that kind of dialogue). The film starred Peter Greene (doomed to be forever known as Zed from "Pulp Fiction")and a cast of future Soprano actors. As for the story, it involves some old friends that are no longer friends coming back to the neighborhood, how original. See "Mean Streets" if you want a slice of life from the seedy section of town.


What can I say?

Starts off fine and dandy, the usual story, a BRAVE STORY! Downtrodden hero got some family problems make him want to run and hide and make things better. Kid meets kid, second kid has some problems too and a way of making things better. Cue the fantasy world! Real world is tough, fantasy world is tough too but there you have a goal, a reason for being, people to help, quests to fulfill and dark demons to vanquish. Same old same old but done well enough.

BUT

What were they thinking with the end of this film? What message are they trying to give? Where were they coming from? I was left dumbfounded! My mental ability is not something I brag about so it's possible there are people other than the writers who have a clue about this finale.

On TV they showed people leaving the cinema crying after watching this, I think I know why!


Seeing a movie like "Simon Sez" is like going to the circus as a kid. For one and a half long hours you rub your eyes, not quite believing what you're seeing. It's amazing somehow, but you never quite believe it. Maybe that's not the best comparison, but can you tell me an event which makes you as speechless as such a movie?

To call it a movie seems to be wrong anyway. It's a 90-minutes crazy, absolute over-the-top Rodman-"thing" with no sense at all.

Usually I start with the story, but how could I do so with the total lack of one here? It pretends to be about some villain getting some kind of disc for some kind of weapon and to say this is more than you get from the film. Rodman plays a agent for Interpol it is said, although I'm not quite sure these are Interpol's working methods. Let's get this straight. Rodman is an agent in a french town with two monks as companions. They all live in a cellar under a church and have more crime to fight than the CIA in the whole US. Their gadgets include a CGI-fly, which can be directed in any direction and delivers an excellent view, a super-motorcycle which can drive up walls and ceilings and a lot of weapons.

The two monks are obviously insane, as they sing and dance and laugh all the time very madly. One is fat, the other black. Your turn to make something of this.

Rodman's other companion is another lunatic named Nick. He appears suddenly and stays without reason or explanation. Even more unreasonable is that Rodman lets him stay. Looking at this guy talking and 'acting' (sorry, but I got no other word for it), makes you wonder if there was a director who actually filmed him. In his first 10 minutes of screen time he impersonates three animals so unconvincingly and hilariously, that it's hard enough for itself. But seeing him 'doing the raptor' for about 30 seconds is just painful.

There is also a woman which half of the movie fights against Rodman and the rest fights and sleeps with him at the same time. Where she comes from and who she remains a mystery.

We also have a villain, so mad, it would be an understatement to call him a caricature. He always smiles, makes little jokes only he laughs about and gets scared the first time when his car is blocked by a sheep's herd. And he has maybe the first computer ever, which has not only a little animation looking like him, but this one can also talk for itself and change visually in order of the things happening around it. When the villain gets electrocuted, the animation gets to. Amazing.

Which leaves us with a bunch of actors who laugh, dance and make crazy noises all the time, no story and the most unrealistic action sequences since Moses went through the Red Sea. Rodman lets himself fall down a long column, while he holds himself onto it with his legs, because he needs his arms for shooting. As I said, he also drives with his motorcycle up a wall and along the ceiling in a tunnel. And I can't forget the most hilarious sex-scene ever filmed, involving Rodman and his girlfriend/enemy, a strobo-light and a see-through bed.

Movies like this leave me kind of exhausted. I'm a fan of bad movies, but bad movies are only enjoyable if they take themselves seriously. "Simon Sez" tries to be both a comedy and an action-flick and fails desperately at both. The classic bad movie "Double Team" was funny because van Damme was so damn serious all the time (not to mention Mickey Rourke). Rodman playing crazy was just an addition to the serious stuff and made this film perfectly bad. But here everybody just plays crazy. It's "Batman & Robin" mixed with "Double Team" on drugs. And when you succeed in watching the movie in full length without running away, you can be sure to feel as crazy as the whole crew must have felt to make this film. So, in a way you're get in contact with the filmmaker's emotions. There are just aren't enough emotional movies out there. Here's a new one. Who wants to cry anyway when you just as well can become crazy?


I can't find anything good to say about this movie. The acting is poor; the plot seems to have a mind of its own (like a 2-year-old's); the fighting scenes are some of the worst I've ever seen in a movie. They're so unrealistic, it's more like watching a cartoon. Dennis Rodman does seem to try, sometimes. Most of the time, he's just trying, unsuccessfully, to be cool. Half of the characters in this thing seem to be there for comic relief. Seriously, half of them. It's that stupid. Don't pay money to see this movie. And don't EVEN consider buying it.


This reeked of a bomb, yet I had to watch it because Dennis Rodman movies always provide that so bad it's good theme going for them. This one was no exception: terrible acting, bad music, and an even worse plot are all repertory examples. This was the worst out of the 3 legitimate movies he was in ("Double Team" and "Cutaway" were slightly better because they either had better actors in it to somewhat make up for the loss or at least fairly suitable dialog). But in this the one-liners just fell flat and weren't even laughable for how bad they were. It's good I saw this so if by some chance there was another unfortunate such as myself that saw this as well we can ever so delightfully bash it together. Such a bad movie!

Final put-down:

Movies : NO! It was released straight to video anyways.

DVD Purchase : You've got to be kiddin' me.

Rental : If you say so.


Some films are so poor that and unintentionally amusing that they become quite enjoyable (the usual straight to video nonsense starring the likes of james belushi, jean-claude van damme etc.) However, one occasionally comes across a film which is so poor that any enjoyment one might have been able from the poor script, poor acting, poor continuity and the sense of "i can't believe they are taking this seriously" is eroded within the first half hour. Simon Sez breaks records on this note. After 2 minutes, i thought i was about to watch an enjoyable, if predictable, action/comedy with pretty poor acting. after 5 mins, i realised that i had found a film even worse than Carnosaur. After 10 minutes, a reverse triple summersault in the pike position out of my window 12th floor window seemed preferable to siting though the rest of this rubbish. Saving graces: sealed windows, i didn't rent the film but watched it on cable...though i am tempted to unsubscribe after this, and, finally, this "film" got my mind back on doing some out of work reading on the financial markets. a dry topic at the best of times, but compared to Rodman, Sjoberg and that clown of a sidekick in this "film", it was humorous, witty and left me feeling refreshed.

So, for those of you who have read the above and ca see that i am still sitting on the fence regarding this film. i shall be explicit: DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM. IF GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN PAINFUL TOOTH EXTRACTION AND THIS MASTERPIECE, GO TO THE DENTIST. DENTAL PAIN GOES GOES AWAY PRETTY QUICKLY, THIS MAY WARP YOU FOR LIFE!


I had the opportunity to watch this on cable. And man, it is bad.

The most laughable must be the camera work. It manages to be the second worst camera work I've ever seen in my life (the worst being in "Venni, vidi e m'arrapaho", a film that I believe to be from the screwiest corners of hell itself). As soon as the movie had some action -- say, somebody jumped on a chair -- the cameramen went frantic. I kept vomiting during the car chase scenes, and that's pretty bad if you consider that they were driving at 10 mph with a bored frown on their faces.

Then ugh... the acting. Not one performance even came close to being decent. The script... was there even a script? It looked like there was no story and they came up with (bad) ideas while shooting. And some scenes were so idiotic I wonder how a sane brain would came up with them. I mean, at one point Nick, the "good friend" of Simon Sez, has a gun in his hand, and loses it because he is making fun of the "bad girl" by playing a tyrannosaur. This is the kind of comedy that you don't laugh at because it's funny, you laugh at it because it's so unredeemable and idiotic you literally can't believe it. By the way, him being a tyrannosaur was as believable as Rodman being an ex-CIA agent. Hell, they even managed to make the French Coast look somewhat small and crappy!

Oh well... 1/10


Not only is this an awful movie, it ranks on my bottom 10 of all time. I had very low expectations when I went in to this movie. (I had nothing else to see at the time I was there)This movie is so much worst than I thought possible. I would rather go and watch paint dry than see this again. The sidekick (Nick played by Dane Cook) is so bad that I think that Rob Schneider's part in "Knock Off" was an Oscar performance by comparison. There is not one person in this waste of 90 min of film that can act. Yet it is not bad in the spirit of Airplane. It is just BAD BAD BAD. There is no plot, story or acting. Enough said. You have been warned. Stay away at all costs.


Get this: Dennis Rodman is an Interpol agent (ha!) living in the cellar of a French monestary with two monk buddies (one fat, one black) who try to battle an evil diabolical villain who plans to use some kind of computer chip thingy to arm a weapon so he can blow up the world (or whatever it is mad movie villains like to do).

This movie is SO LAME! I remember I was vacationing in Nags Head, North Carolina when Cinemax started airing ads for the film and presenting it as some kind of "great film." I thought it looked like total garbage but I watched it anyway, just to laugh at Dennis Rodman.

Good god, it's bad. Is it EVER bad! It's got that distinct crazy directorial style all bad movies of today have - you know, everything's all crazy and over-the-top, ranging from coloring of sets and characters to plots to dialogue to action sequences.

Some of this seems fairly reminiscent of that similarly awful Rodman movie named "Double Team," which co-starred Jean-Claude Van Damme (ha!) and Mickey Rourke (poor Mickey). But any movie with Rourke is at least tolerable...this is not tolerable in the least.

Rodman gets my vote for being one of the worst actors of all time and this movie certainly fits his talents.


The acting is amongst some of the worst I've seen in a while, especially from Dennis Rodman. What's that Dennis Rodman a bad actor? Yes! and as hard as it is to believe his 'hilarious' sidekick Nick is almost as bad! Not to mention annoying. I'm not just talking Jar-Jar Binks annoying here, he takes it to a whole new level!

The one redeeming feature about this movie is that some of the action seqences are quite well done. But good action scenes does not a good movie make.

If you like bad acting, bad dialouge and wasting your time then by all means watch this. You won't be dissapointed!


(r#40)

TV 3, a "quality" TV channel here in Sweden, recently decided to have a bottom 100-marathon and showed BOTH Gigli and this turkey during the same night. Now, I don't know any of TV3's producers personally, but it seems to me like they're torturing us rather than entertaining us. Simon Sez is a "comedy" so offensively stupid, it makes the Scary Movie series look like Bergman films. It seems to have been written by six year olds, for six year olds, but the foul language and violence would be too much for kids, so what was the target demographic, anyway? Oh right, idiots.

Dennis Rodman, professional basketball player (which is always a good sign) stars as Simon, a secret agent of some kind. He takes part in a kidnapping gone wrong. I won't waste any more time explaining the plot because it couldn't have taken more than a few seconds to write it. Simon is accompanied on his mission by annoying white sidekick Nick Miranda (played by excruciatingly unfunny Dane Cook), who desperately wants to be Jim Carrey, and a sexy Emma Sjöberg.

This is not a good movie. It's over-flooded by dumb action, hilariously retarded lines, and annoying characters. My favourite is the English/French/something villain Jérôme Pradon who wants to blow up the Eiffel Tower ("Why? Because it's big and it's beautiful and I'm tired of looking at it!"). Best line since "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". Seriously.

Even the special effects suck. Avoid! And TV3, how about a Coleman Francis marathon next Sunday?


This film has ruined a good storyline. The location and the action are very good but the silly charactures spoil it, by trying to compete for the main role after "Simon". Anyone considering watching this film should be aware that it is best viewed whilst doing other tasks.


This movie is awful. It has only a few redeeming qualities, and they don't include Rodman. The man can't act worth a damn. PLEASE, HOLLYWOOD DON'T HAND ANY MORE SCRIPTS TO THIS MAN! Throughout the whole movie Rodman tries to be cool, but fails miserably. Is it me or did anyone notice that most of the people in this movie couldn't act. I could of done a better job and I've only taken one acting class.

Minor Spoilers: On the bright side, the 2 monks did help move the movie along. But at times their jokes began to wear thin. In addition, I liked the chick who was working against Rodman at the beginning but soon joined on his side. She spent half of the movie kicking Rodman's a** everytime she met up with him; that was enough for me to sit through this pitful excuse of a movie. Besides beating the crap out of Rodman, she did have some nice fight scenes with other characters in the movie (especially when she was fighting against Rodman and the bodygaurd to the villain in the movie). Another character that made this movie slighlty better was the boyfriend of the kidnapped girl. Sure, he looked like a pretty boy but he had some okay fight scenes. I kind of liked the bodyguard too. I gave him points for kicking Rodman's a**.

The bad side to this movie is Rodman, of course, and the sidekick. What was the point of that guy? All he did throughout the whole movie was make lamb jokes and act stupid. I was glad when Rodman's enemy/girldfriend, in the movie, kicked him in the face and shut him up. In addition, the villain in this movie was lamb. Villains are suppose to be smart, charming, and kind of likeable. The villian in this turd was awful. Everytime he came on the screen I got a headache. The special effects were awful. The scene where Rodman rides his bike on the wall of a tunnel was so fake it wasn't funny. Also, the fight scene with the overweight monk was weak. A couple of times during the fight I could tell it was a thin guy padded down to look overweight.

This movie would have been decent if Rodman wasn't in it, if the CGI was better, if it didn't try so hard to be funny, and if it had focused on 3 of the characters in the movie (Rodman's enemy/love interest, the bodyguard, and pretty boy). The two guys who played the monks I have seen in other movies 10 times better than this. Hell, the Snoop Dog video that Taa-Dow (the black monk) was in looks like Oscar winning fare next to this dog. I give this movie a 3.5/10. Next time I will go rent a movie or read a book, when there's nothing on television.


As bad movies go, this is pretty bad...which is pretty GOOD if you're a bad-movie buff (like I am). But then what else would you expect when it stars Dennis Rodman? Surprisingly enough, Rodman is almost low-key, to the point where you could actually say he almost gives a decent performance. Almost. Still, it must be said his performance here is WORLDS better than in "Double Team", that classic of bad-moviedom. Perhaps because he's almost restrained, the makers of this have decided to bypass intelligent character or plot development (a fact given away by its grammar-savvy title) and packed it with common-denominator bits that are dime-store quality even by the action genre's sorry standards. And then there's the acting...Dane Clark, as Rodman's bumbling sidekick, pours it on thick with what is meant to be comic relief, but is neither comic nor relief; at NO MOMENT is he even BARELY amusing. If THAT were the very worst, it would be borderline tolerable, but oh no -- they've thrown in the comedy stylings of Ricky Harris & John Pinette as two computer-geek-slash-ass-kicking-slash -jive-slinging monks (monks!!!) who help and/or guide Rodman (it's never really explained); John Pinette is an embarassment not only to actors, but comedians, fat people, monks and especially himself: 'fat' jokes are one thing but nearly every opportunity is taken -- with his blessing and help! -- to show him eating, or shaking his bountiful belly, or wanting to eat...until, of course, at the movie's climax, when he (or, rather, a stunt double) suddenly turns kick-boxing action star. Said scene provides the single most unintentionally funny moments: try holding back the laughs when it's obvious Pinette's double is only about 6 inches taller and 100 pounds lighter (despite the padding), and watch as a baddie is kicked over a bridge and actually SLOWS as he falls, thanks not to slow-mo but to the bungie cord. Oh, and then there's the, ahem, "special effects". Can you say "blue screen"? The only member of this cast (designed to appeal to every possible international audience) that shows signs of real energy is Emma Sjosberg, who shares a thankfully-brief love scene with Rodman (she kisses him on the lips and does NOT vomit. Now THAT'S what I call 'acting'!!!).


Simon Sez is one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. Its another one of those monstrosities that you have to force yourself to watch only so you can brag to your friends about how you were able to "watch the whole thing", and to see their shocked expressions after you say that. Other than that, there is no reason to force yourself through the consistent ineptness of this poor excuse for an action adventure.

First off... It stars Dennis Rodman. That alone should be enough to turn most people away, but because I'm Mr. "Open To All Movies", I put in the video and watched it anyway.

Since my brain has an automated trash filter and defragger (I still run on NTFS), I only remember small pieces of the film. One scene that stood out, and shouted to me like an old woman with a bad hip, was the scene where master martial artist Xin Xin Xiong and some woman (I forgot her name) were engaging in a tightly choreographed fight. But because Rodman was the "star" and didn't want to be upstaged up by his "co-stars", a way had to be found to bring him into this action. But Rodman can't fight. So their solution was to just have Rodman stomp into the scene like Frankenstein and claw, pounce, and push his way through the fight. And this didn't just happen once. It happened many times...

Before I start cursing I'll just end my review here.

Don't see this movie. Spare yourself the pain.


John Pinette, although larger than I have ever seen him was entertaining. I love Dane Cook, but if I were him, I would take this movie off my resume. Rodman should stick to basketball and the freak show, because he can not act. I won't say that this is the worst movie I have ever seen, because I have seen BloodSuckers (Michael Ironsides) and DogSoliders. But, like those movies, it is a train wreck, no matter how awful it gets you just can't stop watching it. The wire work was horrible. Rodman can't even pretend he knows martial arts, John Pinette's stunt double was more convincing than Rodman. One of my biggest pet peeves is poor movie editing. For instance, at the end of First Wives Club count how many different pairs of shoes Goldie Hawn is wearing in the last seen. I counted four different pairs. In this movie, can you count how many times Rodman's bike changes in a single scene. We counted four in the the first scene of the movie, an three in the scene where he is escaping the blast in the tunnel. Did anyone else notice that the "dad" in this was trying way to hard to look like Robert Redford? This movie isn't even good enough to become a cult classic.


I saw this on DVD for £2 and i thought i would check it out and see if it is any good and............it's crap. Seriously this is not worth £2. It is a load of crap. They make so many mistakes. At the beginning this bike does a flip and on 1 shot he faces the wrong way but in the second shot the bike amazingly turns the right way. The acting is rubbish. Dennis Rodman can't act to save his life and neither can the others but i must admit that i found Dane Cook funny at times. The action is poor and ruined by special effects and the gadgets are just stupid. What ever you do don't watch this film. It is rubbish from start to finish.


This movie is so bad, it's hilarious. Acting is terrible, and there is no sript. This is really disgusting. I can't believe TV had the guts to show this drivel. I would never see this again, not even if got paid. There's not really much more to say.


I won't pretend "Simon Sez" is a good movie, but being a fan of bad cinema, I have to admit that I really, really like this movie. This is the kind of movie you scoff at when you see the trailers on TV for it's theatrical run. You pass it by without a thought when you're browsing Blockbuster Video on a Friday night. But one day you'll be flipping aimlessly through your cable movie channels and that's when this movie will get you. If you're into the whole 'B-Movie' thing like I am, then what more could you ask for? Dennis Rodman in a leading role, a supporting cast that comes nowhere near respectability, and an absolutely mindless plot padded with a bunch of action, sex and bad stunt doubles! If you're bored one day and feel like watching a movie that makes you cringe and laugh for all the wrong reasons, then check this movie out. If not, why are you looking at this page anyway?


Every once in a while a very bad film comes along and renews my faith in the sport of watching terrible schlock and having a wonderful time of it. Simon Sez is such a movie; a film filmed, acted, directed, and written with such ineptitude, you'd swear that it was made by a bunch of dumb monkeys. It's like the Dan Quayle of movies.

Dennis Rodman stars as an ex-CIA, ex-secret agent, ex-everything it seems, who becomes embroiled in a convoluted kidnapping/extortion/hijacking/computer heist. Give these villains credit where they are due; they do know how to multi-task.

I don't really have anything against Dennis Rodman, but the man simply cannot act. He wears one expression the entire time, bemused detachment. It's the same whether he's fighting off an army of thugs, dealing with his army of sidekicks, or riding his spiffy yellow motorcycle. Every single thing that he encounters causes him to smirk. I was waiting for someone to shoot him in the foot and have him smirk. Sadly that moment never came.

I mentioned his army of sidekicks; and there really are a ridiculous number of them, and they all are complete idiots. First there are the two Monks, Micro and Macro, who help Dennis in his quest for whatever it is he's looking for. These guys live in a church, dress like monks, have the monk hair, but have a high tech lair filled with sophisticated equipment and post-it notes (I called it the Rodcave). I thought something about them was fishy; were they real monks or not? Then later I was informed that monks take a vow of silence, and these gents certainly don't uphold that vow. And did I mention one of them is really fat? And he does kung fu? No, really, he is. And he does. I didn't say he does it well though.

Then there is the generic looking whiteboy sidekick, who is a stand-up comedian I've seen on a few talk shows (and who has not impressed me). He's some sort of ex-agent, who knows from where, and he's the most incompetent idiot this side of, well, those two monks. He does both a raptor impression and a dog impression, and fights like his life depended on his gruesome death.

There's plenty more to mention here, like Simon's ex girlfriend who alternates fighting and stripping with him; the car that tilts on two wheels, but doesn't fall over; the laughable wire stunts; the bizarre tendency for almost every character to have a nondescript accent; and my personal favorite, the "pole sliding scene." Trust me, when you see it you'll know.

I haven't enjoyed a bad movie this much in a long time. Thanks to plenty of poorly made mindless violence the film rarely drags despite its stupidity. The laughable dialogue also helps this clunker speed along towards its action packed finale. For fans of the bizarre and big rebounding NBA forwards turned film stars.


Words cannot describe the feeling i had after watching it....total waste. This movie is totally crap. For all film students, this is an example how not to make a movie. Give me a one dollar budget and i make a better movie. This is my first post on IMDb and i read that u must have a comment longer than 10 lines. Sorry but for this movie i cannot think of more than 10 lines to fill it with. But for all of your protection. Do not see this movie. Never. Period. But if u do don't take it too seriously. I hope that when the producers shot this movie, they didn't have the intention too make a serious, good movie. Maybe they meant to shoot it as one big joke. If thats the case.... Job well done!


This is by far the lamest hollywood film there could ever be. This film is such crap that it comes out to be funny. Cheap special effects, phoney love scene, and a fat monk. Need I say more?? Why would a company put up money for something like this is beyond me. Why not make a low grade horror film or porn. At least more people would see it. I know for a fact that in 20 years this film will have a cult following due to its great crapiness. There are people who love Ed Wood's films, and there are people who love bad films, and this is by far the worst of all time bar-none!! I need one more line in order to submit this mess. Today is Monday, April 5th. Spring break rules all men and women.


This is the worst movie I've seen in a long, long time. It's supposedly an action comedy, but the "humor" is less funny than puppies getting run over on the highway. The action scenes are funnier as Rodman tries to look like he knows martial arts, but you just wonder how come he isn't getting beaten senseless by people who are obviously thousands of times better than him. No action, no comedy, only pain.


I don't understand this film. I even bought the DVD to see if there was an explanation of why it is so awful. None was supplied. I like Dane Cook, and I am sure he acted the way the part was written. I don't think he ad-libbed things like "The Raptor". Only top shelf actors are generally given the freedom to "over-write" the writer. So obviously the awfulness was written to be performed the way it was. Maybe Dennis Rodman was allowed to ad-lib his awfulness.

If I was allowed to use negative numbers I would give this film a -10 on a -10 to +10 scale. For the range I was allowed, I'll give it a 1.

We need an Arabic translation of this film, so that when we capture Osama bin Laden, we can prop his eyelids open with toothpicks and force him to watch it over and over again - yes, there is a cruel and unusual punishment worse than death.


...which makes me wonder about myself! This film is horrible...no question about it. The only question is does it belong on IMDb's Bottom 100 list?. Well, I'd say no...but its inclusion doesn't bother me as it is a terrible film with very little to recommend it and it is so incredibly irritating. One one hand, the stunts took considerable talent but on the other hand this is mindless trash through and through.

For the most part, the biggest problem was NOT its star Dennis Rodman. He wasn't particularly good, but he wasn't terrible. Yes, he had practically the personality of sawdust, but in this film that's a relatively good thing! That's because at least he wasn't an irritant--like his co-stars. Dane Cook, on the other hand, was about as welcome as cancer in this film. This annoying troll managed to be more obnoxious and unfunny than folks like Chris Tucker or Uncle Joey from "Full House"--now THAT'S bad! Nearly every second Cook was in the film I hated him and wanted his character to die. He was loud, he was unfunny and he made goofy sounds and acted like a dinosaur at one point for no reason whatsoever. The only good thing about this is that his obnoxiousness overshadowed the few times that the normally funny John Pinette was also obnoxious and unfunny. I have never seen a cast of sidekicks less funny or welcome than these trolls! In addition to totally unfunny comic relief, the film suffers from the notion that the only way to hide the fact that Rodman is no actor is to throw over the top stunt after over the top stunt into the film--sort of like 4 or 5 James Bond movies' worth all shoved into one film. Believe it or not, the stunts here are even more ridiculous than those in "Mission: Impossible"--another movie designed for brain-dead audiences who hate plots and only want non-stop action.

Normally, I would try to explain the plot and tell you more about the film but I'd rather not and just scream loudly "THIS FILM IS HORRIBLE--AVOID IT LIKE EBOLA!!!!". Dumb, poorly written and childish--there isn't anything (other than a likable villain) to recommend this steaming pile of .....movie. Yuck!


I really enjoyed the first Phenomenon movie, John Travolta carried the part well enough to surpass the somewhat obvious Hollywoodisation and gave a truly heartfelt performance.

This movie is nothing like that movie, yet it is exactly the same; and this is why. Phenomenon 2 is pretty much word for word, scene for scene, storyline for storyline as the original, but without any emotion. I don't know what the producers were thinking here but I bet they thought "Hmm, Phenomenon got a good review and net income, lets make another one exactly the same so we don't have to write a new story, the public will buy that right?" No they won't. Oh no no no. If I wanted to watch a rubbish version of Phenomenon I would of gone to a high school musical version of Phenomenon and even then I have the option to throw things on stage. Unfortunately, this movie stole from me approximately 90 minutes where I could of been doing something more constructive... like licking broken glass.


Very sad, that people make the exact movie twice, with the same script, and that only a few years after the first one. I don't understand why they made it twice, but i guess they are having there reasons for it. It's almost miserable that they used they exact lines that John Travolta used on the first movie. I just don't understand why they made it twice, with only a few years between it, it's against all movie rules. And the second one is even worse, you see almost no emotion in the leading role called george, it's like he studied the first movie (John Travolta), and is trying to act like John Travolta, almost like a robot, because i totally mis the emotion in his words and face. If you remake a movie, than make it good.


Ambitious reporter in old New York begins to receive tomorrow's paper today, and tempts fate: A pleasant premise for a '40s fantasy, with elegant Rene Clair direction, and your appetite's set for evocative mid-century whimsy. But the modest independent production looks pinched, and the scriptwriters haven't thought their intriguing situation through. Why does Dick Powell (not very interesting here) read only the headlines, instead of perusing the future-predicting stories to really understand what's going to happen? Is the giver of the paper alive, dead, or both? Why employ a flashback construction, which robs the plot of whatever suspense (will the reporter cheat death or not?) it may have? Why give Linda Darnell, the lovely leading lady, nothing to do? A thoroughly conventional, though Oscar-nominated, score doesn't help, and Jack Oakie, as Darnell's vaudeville partner, provides what little energy there is.


This show is so boring. The actors are bad, the jokes are not funny and the plots are plain stupid. Is it just me, or does this family learn a valuable lesson every day. Crap! I don't know why nickelodeon aired this, it is one of the worst shows I have seen!!!

I'm glad this show is not on anymore, cause my sister used to watch it and me and my dad just there laughing at how crap it is! I don't understand why people would like this, it is a total rip off of malcom in the middle!

Brothers Garcia, i hate you!

Rating - 0/0!


Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.


...is Sean Bean. How did an actor of his caliber allow himself to get trapped in this mess? My God, this is bad! The writing is something out of an afternoon soapie (though even those shows have enough pride not to hand out this many clichés, usually). Most of the acting--except Bean, whose professionalism apparently extends even to trash like this--is almost comically lousy. The only name I recognize (other than Sean Bean) is Amanda Donahoe, whose performance is so cheap it makes her crappy work on "LA Law" look like an Academy Award winner. None of the other actors deliver anything more than dull-eyed recitations of their bad lines, which makes me wonder: Are these actors all this bad, really, or are they this bad only because the script sucks so completely? All I can say here is that if you're a Sean Bean completist, as I am, you'll want to watch this--and then check it off your list. Be shocked that he ever agreed to be connected to such dreck. If you're not a Bean freak--avoid, avoid, avoid, because minus Bean, this has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it.


Warning : spoilers ahead

In 5x2, OZON's daring narrative approach consists of 5 isolated moments of a failed romance, played backward. The structure is largely artificial it seems, leaving too many blanks for viewers to fill in, and I didn't manage to enter the whole story.

In addition to experimental choices, I found that Marion and Gilles were, except for a few scenes, uninteresting or even despicable characters (especially Gilles, the unconsiderate, sex-driven husband).

On the other hand, OZON's accurate direction, combined with soft lighting and scarcity of sound, create a unique atmosphere, like in his previous movies.


I honestly don't see how so many people thought this is a worthwhile children's show. My daughter refuses to watch it (she's 2) and I couldn't be happier. It's so annoying, the story lines are idiotic, the voices are cloying and awful ... If it disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it. I just don't understand why the animals whine all the time, and are so afraid all the time, and just so under-your-skin pests all the time. I can't believe there are only two of us who've posted negative reviews. The others have to be employed by the show or something. It doesn't teach anything useful, it's not entertaining or funny ... It's a waste of 24 minutes.


I first became aware of this via the Blue Underground DVD, though I was not intrigued enough by the online reviews to acquire it; however, coming my way recently while being in a "Nunsploitation" frame-of-mind, I could not very well let the opportunity pass me by (in hindsight, the English dubbing is atrocious  even if the print reverted for a couple of brief scenes to the original Italian language). I have never been a fan of voluptuous Anita Ekberg and watching her as a demented, dope-addicted and sex-starved nun promised non-stop camp; with this in mind, obscure director Berruti lent the proceedings a matching deliriousness  but, alas, the end result is considerably less than the sum of its parts. The rest of the cast is interesting but, apart from Paola Morra  who, perhaps not to give the game away too early, effectively underplays her role as Ekberg's devoted 'room-mate' (incidentally, she would don the habit again that same year for Walerian Borowczyk's BEHIND CONVENT WALLS), clearly operating below-par: Joe Dallessandro (completely out of his element as a young doctor whom Morra effortlessly manages to keep in check at the climax  if you get my drift), Alida Valli (literally phoning in her performance as the Mother Superior), Lou Castel (as a nosy crippled patient) and Massimo Serato (as the irascible elder doctor who, however, continually cuts Ekberg's clumsiness some slack because she was the most valuable assistant he ever had!). Mildly interesting is the fact that THE KILLER NUN is book-ended by two confessional scenes (the second of which abruptly terminates the film without a proper resolution!) in which each of the protagonists spit out their hatred of the male species; for what it is worth, though clearly unbalanced and given to foul-mouthed outbursts, Ekberg is not the homicidal sister of the title but a victim of circumstance and rejected affection. Noted for its blending the "Nunsploitation" genre with the typical Giallo formula, these elements ought in fact to have made for a doubly enticing proposition; yet the two styles never properly jell, so that the film is too often ludicrous as opposed to gripping (much less scathing). In its favor, we do get Alessandro Alessandroni's score  which has an agreeable 'hard rock' vibe to it particularly redolent of Led Zeppelin's music! Unsurprisingly, the film is most memorable when it goes over-the-top  such as the irate Ekberg crushing an old patient's dentures under her feet (with the latter expiring soon after!), all the murder set-pieces but especially the one where a nurse has needles painfully stuck in her face (years before Takashi Miike!), and its two risible sex scenes (an old wheelchair-bound patient being serviced out in the rain by a young nurse and Ekberg herself picking up a man at a café and then making love in the corridor of his apartment-building).


Anita Ekberg made this film in the late 1970s, just when her career was in dire need of a boost. Well I've got some bad news for Ekberg fans, this isn't the star vehicle that any of you were looking for. In fact, it's pretty weak. There was a plot, but it wasn't that great. The directing was alright, but most of the production value on the film was merely mediocre.

Ekberg plays a middle aged nun who works for a Catholic hospital somewhere in Europe. She has recently had a brain tumor removed and was told that she made a complete recovery. Ekberg has her doubts because she finds herself acting in bizarre ways. There are several murders at the hospital that Ekberg believes she was responsible due to her changing mental condition. The only person who seems to know about her problems is her roommate/lesbian lover.

The plot isn't very difficult, and the twist is predictable. Look for Joe Dallesandro of "Flesh for Frankenstein" fame (his voice is dubbed, so we don't get to hear the Jersey accent), and some mild lesbian action. Other than that, it's really not worth bothering with.


The film opens with the on screen paragraph 'this film is based on actual events that took place in a Central European country not many years ago'. Yeah, course it is. During the credits we see a yet unknown nun in confession. Then we are introduced to Sister Gertrude (Anita Ekberg) who works in a hospital with a Dr. Poirett (Massimo Serato) and her roommate and friend Sister Mathieu (Paola Morra), other people work there obviously but these are the only ones you need concern yourself with at this point. Sister Gertrude has recently undergone surgery to remove a brain tumour and has been experiencing headaches, black outs and a loss of control. Dr. Poirett says that he thinks she is suffering from post operative shock and the symptoms that she describes are purely psychosomatic. In actual fact Sister Gertrude has become addicted to morphine. Sister Gertrude receives no support from her Mother Suerior (Alida Valli) as she tells Sister Gertrude that "it's a nun's vocation to suffer". After Dr. Poirett refuses to prescribe her anymore morphine, Sister Gertrude steals a ring from a dead patient and pawns it in the city buying the drug with the proceeds. Sister Mathieu steals morphine for her as well from the hospital. The patients and Dr. Poirett begin to notice that Sister Gertrude's personality has begun to change, for the worse. One night Sister Gertrude notices that a patient named Josephine (Nerina Montagnani) has put her false teeth into her glass of water on the dining room table during dinner. Angry Sister Gertrude throws them on the floor and stamps on them. Later that night Josephine has a heart attack in her room and dies, this is when Sister Gertrude steals the ring. Soon after this incident Sister Gertrude senses Dr. Poirett is becoming suspicious and talks to the director (Daniele Dublino) of the hospital and convinces him to fire Dr. Poirett. Things become worse for Sister Gertrude as Father Janot is bludgeoned to death and thrown out of a high window to make it look like suicide. More deaths occur as the new Doctor, Patrick Roland (Joe Dallesandro) can't quite believe what is happening at the hospital and he too also starts to have his suspicions about Sister Gertrude. Is Sister Gertrude a drug-addicted killer? Since the hospital doesn't want a scandal they try and cover up the deaths as accidents but eventually the truth is revealed............ Co-written and directed by Giulio Berruti I really didn't think too much of this European exploitation film. The script by Berruti and Alberto Tarallo is quite slow at times and surprisingly shy's away from the stronger sleaze and exploitation elements you may expect from a Euro film from this period and of this type. A bit of nudity, a sequence where a female patient gives a man in a wheelchair a blow-job and has sex with him and a scene where a woman has needles stuck into her face is about it. The film is set almost entirely in the hospital and the fact that Ekberg plays a nun is totally irrelevant and not really used to it's full potential. There are not enough suspects on show either, I always felt that it was going to be one of only two potential killers and I was proved right. And the films title 'Killer Nun' tells you just about everything you need to know as well. The killers motives are never really made that clear and the way they are revealed at the end is one of the poorest and most unimaginative I've ever seen, the killers unmasking is better in an average Murder, She Wrote (1984-1996) episode! I just didn't care about anyone or anything in this film, and that's never a good thing. Quite well made on a certain level but there are so many more better films out there in this genre. Dull, unexciting and somewhat uninteresting. Not worth spending good money on that's for sure.


I have seen plenty of nunsploitation flicks and "Killer Nun" is among the worst of them all.This Giulio Berruti's extremely boring horror film casts Swedish former sex symbol Anita Ekberg as Sister Gertrude,a nun working in a mental institution.Gertrude is clearly insane,and takes a great deal of morphine for her self-diagnosed cancer.She goes to town and picks up men,seduces a younger nun Sister Mathieu(Paola Morra of "Behind the Convent Walls" fame)who was abused by her grandfather,and supposedly murders patients."Killer Nun" is a disappointing Italian nunsploitation film that offers only a little bit of sleaze and nudity.Another serious flaw in the film is the relationship between Sister Gertrude and Sister Mathieu which only hints at lesbianism.During these scenes Ekberg appears frigid while Paola Morra feels more relaxed doing these moments."Killer Nun" is too tame for my liking and the pace is incredibly slow.If you want to see some good nunsploitation flicks check out "Flavia the Heretic","Visions in a Convent","Convent of Sinners" or even Bruno Mattei's "The Other Hell".Avoid this one like the plague.4 out of 10 and that's being generous.


After being raped and/or beaten up by men, high school grads Kate (Debi Thibeault), Michelle (Lisa Schmidt), Dianne (Simone) and Kathy (Karen Nielsen) turn vigilante and aspire to wipe out "scum-sucking @SSholes!" Slobs, bikers, barflies, wannabe rapists, anyone who hits on them with a bad come-on line and, in one case a guy who's just harmlessly walking down the street, are all wasted.

Each time violence or nudity is shown, the warning gimmicks "gore gong" and "hooter honk" (a horn) are sounded. It's fun at first, but runs itself into the ground pretty quickly. The girls tell each other it's time to get naked, whine when they get blood on their shoes and fight over who gets to kill who. The mock documentary approach (also used in Bechard's PSYCHOS IN LOVE), where characters talk directly to the camera, is fun and used well.

OK, this is desperate, stupid, senseless film-making and the cheap comic gags are often irritating, but it did make me laugh out loud several times.


I detest this film.

Long story short: it was originally called "Assault of the Killer Bimbos." It was a black comedy. We filmed it as written. Charlie Band, who ran Empire, called me the day after we wrapped and said he just read the script and it was too dark for his liking. He was taking away the title (because I had gotten such great publicity, including PEOPLE magazine), and keeping only half of what I shot. He was having his staff write some back story.

Thus my story about girl who offed scum bags just because they knew they could...now became a story about girls who were abused, etc and so on. But it was the film that was ultimately abused (and I'm using a nice word) by Band.

I talk about this at length on the commentary of the new PSYCHOS IN LOVE DVD release. (Of course, if I had seen what they did to Galactic Gigolo in post prior to filming this, I would have never made a second film for Band.)

Rent PSYCHOS. Avoid this piece of crap.

And if you're a filmmaker, and an idiot with money tries to tell you what to do with your film...I don't care how badly you want it...WALK AWAY.


Cemetery High is part of a trio within the Full Moon catalogue. Director Gorman Bechard and much of the crew and cast worked on this and before it both 'Psychos in Love' and 'Galactic Gigolo' for Full Moon. Basically a group of average looking young women decide to eliminate all the perverted and criminal men in town including naughty corrupt town mayor. Fortunetly for the bullet manufacturers pretty much all the man are very bad. Though most are vulgar there are moments when the vigilantes seem to be coercing men in order to find them guilty and deserving of death. The death scenes are pretty amusing and as mentioned in a spoken introduction there will be different noises for nudity (a bike horn) and violence and so on. The cast regularly refer to the fact that they are in a film and that it needs to be entertaining for the viewers. Of course by these women's 'all men must die' standards the viewing audience would probably be a victim of the very gang they are watching. Relative fun.


Absolutely horrid. Barely any T&A and maybe a hair more Gore than T&A. It wouldn't have been so bad (or noticeable) if it wasn't for that awful Gong and Horn which made it seem like something it wasn't. Much more T&A (as well as comedy) in other flicks such as The Invisible Maniac.


Geez, even the "American Pie" movies are better than this. "Cemetery High" is just a pile of garbage that comes at the end of the barrell of 80's trash.

The humor is dated, boring, some times cheesy, and I can't remember any particular scene where I chuckled or even frowned a smile.

The gore is just okay for a cheesy movie like this. It's uncalled for but it's still decent.

The acting is putrid! and the clichèd characters are stupid enough to be soon forgotten.

The direction looks pathetic and makes you wonder if the production would have a budget superior to 1000 dollars.

I don't recommend it for anything! there aren't memorable scenes. Watch this only if you are in the mood to bash a horrible, boring, misleading movie with a decent title.

Think about stupid rock tunes, horrible humor from the 80's, pathetic f/x, and horrible dialogs.

Ugh. Avoid it all costs.

I watched this movie years ago only because it aired on USA's "Up All Night". Good memories!


According to the director this movie was taken from him and butchered into the incomprehensible mess that is Cemetery High. He apparently has washed his hands of both this and Galactic Gigolo.

Now Galactic Gigolo isn't great, but it has its moments and can be enjoyed when you are desperate for more from the people who brought you Psychos in Love. Cemetery High on the other hand is a nearly joyless affair.

Perhaps one day this movie will be reassembled by the director and a result all the children of the Earth will live in peace and harmony. Holding one's breath while waiting for this day to come is not advisable. It is double plus inadvisable that one watch this movie under any circumstances.

It's a gosh darn shame that things turned out the way they did between Gorman Bechard and Wizard, Cult Epics, Full Moon or whatever Charles Band is calling his company these days. We'll never know what the Psychos in Love gang might have given us had they not been so thoroughly screwed.


I only half-watched this, it was pretty bad. A group of four high school girls who've been raped by men team up to kill men, including the movie's narrator. Throughout the movie, a gong appears and is gonged whenever there is going to be a violent scene: the "gore gong." There is also a "hooter honker," which is a pair of bulb-type bicycle horns. This is really stupid, and about the level of humor in the movie.

As in Gorman Bechard's other movies, this is set in Waterbury, Connecticut, has Carmine Capobianco in it, has characters talking to the camera, and has at least one scene set in a video store. I don't know if his more recent movies have these features; I'm hoping he's gotten better.

The title "Cemetery High" and the video box cover of women in scanty clothing in a graveyard, one holding a bloody chainsaw, is misleading. I don't recall a scene in a graveyard. I guess it refers more to the fact that high schoolers are killing lots of people.

A bumbling mayor, policeman, and coroner try to figure out who the "scumbusters" are, although two of them destroy some evidence. Maybe if I was paying more attention I would have known why, if it was incompetence, or if they were covering for the women for some reason.

Mainly, it's just boring with lame humor.


Don't expect Disney out of this 1987 live-action version of the Grimm Brothers' vintage fairy tale. Diana Rigg of the television show "The Avengers" delivers the only worthwhile performance and nobody else stands out in this lackluster but more accurate rendition of the classic yarn. The action starts with the Prince discovering the glass coffin with Snow White in it. Afterward, we learn that the mother of our heroine died after she gave birth and the dad married the Evil Queen. The Evil Queen wants to destroy Snow White because her mirror reminds her that she is the fairest of the fair and the Queen refuses to be upstaged. She orders a huntsman to take the young beauty into the woods and kill her. The Evil Queen demands that the Huntsman brings back the heart of the heroine so she can keep it in a box. Alas, the poor fellow does not have the nerve to do such a dastardly deed. Anyway, Snow White flees and winds up at the house of the seven dwarfs and becomes their housekeeper. She cooks their meals and keeps their home clean. Years pass and the Evil Queen learns from her mirror that the damsel has survived so she sets out to kill her by herself. Initially, she laces a bodice on Snow White and our heroine passes out and the Queen leaves. The dwarfs cut the bodice off and Snow White recovers. The Queen masquerades the second time as an Asian woman and gives Snow White a deadly comb. Again, the dwarfs saw the day. By now the dwarfs have warned the witless Snow White to not open the door and let anybody into their house. Finally, the Queen tries again and gives Snow White a poison apple. No, Snow White does not open the door but the Queen manages to get the apple to her and our heroine winds up unconscious on the floor again. Sarah Patterson of "The Company of Wolves" is pretty but she doesn't do much other than look pretty. Billy Barty, who parlayed his short stature into a film career, plays one of the dwarfs. Eventually, the Queen learns that Snow White survived the apple and is about to be married to a prince in an adjacent kingdom. The Queen shatters her own mirror and sets off to attend the wedding, not knowing that as each shard of the mirror falls to the ground that she grows even older and more ugly. Again, Diana Rigg is the only reason to watch writer& director Michael Berz's version of this story


Oh myI can't believe they actually made a film out of this silly theme! I was really wondering whether it would as foolish as the title leads you to suspect. Apparently, you don't need any writing skills if you're working with Albert Band. I know, respect the dead and stuff (Albert Band recently passed away, in 2002) but he and his son Charles made, wrote and produced an awful lot of bad horror and sci-fi films in their lifetimes. Visualize the cheesiest and silliest image that pops up in your head, and you've got an idea what The Hound of Dracula is about! There really is a DOG buried in a coffin with a wooden stick through his heart and he comes to life! He's controlled by a half-ling  a vampire who can stand daylight  and together, they search for the last ascendant of Count Dracula since they need a new master. In short, Veidt Smith is some sort of `Renfield' and he lets his dog do all the dirty work. Hold your breathit becomes even better! They raise a whole army of Vampire dogshow about that?! The Hound of Dracula is filled with bad acting, uninspired twists and lame scenery. Even the killing scenes aren't bloody enough to bother. Most of the time, it just looks like a hilarious comedy or a sadistic spoof but the only problem isthey didn't intend it to be funny! My only respect in this pile of rbage goes out to dogs themselves and to the people who trained them! They did a good job and surely deserved a better screenplay to work with.


Cheaply made horror film from the 70's that is surprisingly better than you might initially expect. The film opens in Romania as soldiers uncover the underground tomb of the Dracula family. A soldier pulls the stake out of a puffy sheet in an opened casket and is soon bit to death by a giant of a hound(A Great Dane I believe). This is Zoltan and he soon pulls the stake out of his master - not Dracula but his servant - and the two begin a trek to the United States to turn the last surviving family member into their undead master. On the heels of these two is Inspector Branco who is well-versed in vampirism and folklore. Anyway, the two follow the Drake family to the woods where they camp and soon all hell breaks out as Zoltan begins to infect all the canines around. The plot sounds ridiculous - and it is, but it strangely works as reasonable entertainment. The actors are all decent with Jose Ferrer lending cachet and clout as Branco. He does a fine job bringing some much needed credibility, though I must confess seeing him drive in a convertible in black slacks, a black turtleneck, and a black beret is something not to be missed. The odd servant is played by none other than Reggie Nalder who just looks evil and up to no good. Throughout the movie he commands Zoltan telepathically. The rest of the cast is serviceable as well. Michael Pataki is believable as the last member of Castle Dracula and even plays the count in a flashback sequence. The dogs do a good job and the director Albert Band, despite a lack of any sizable budget and some real poor lighting, creates just enough suspense and tension to keep this dubious project somewhat afloat. Don't expect any real scares, but there are a few scenes that are well-shot: the dogs attacking the small rented cottage and the dogs attacking the car are just a couple to mention. I saw the denouement coming early in the picture, but is was pretty neat any way. The special effects are nothing really more than the eyes of the vampiric dogs glowing. A fun, bad film from the only decade where something like this could and would have been made.


I am sitting at my computer in a daze. I have just finished watching a film called "Dracula's Dog". This is not the kind of film that you could watch and not discuss with someone, IMDb readers, you are my shoulder to cry on for the next few minutes.

The plot goes like this: soldiers in Russia are blasting with dynamite and accidentally uncover a tomb. This is no ordinary tomb, readers, it is a "Dracula" tomb, although the foolish soldiers who leave one of their own behind to "guard" the tomb all night do not realize this. Surely they would have known what tragedy might befall this man had they realized it was a "Dracula" tomb they have opened (although the tombs are clearly marked, and they see that among others, Count "Igor" Dracula was laid to rest (?) here.) But no matter...in no time at all, a diabolical dog is unleashed, as well as one Veidt Smith, a man that we later learn is a sort of non-vampire: apparently immortal, but without the craving for blood that marks your typical vampire, or the restrictions to avoid sunlight under penalty of death. This alone raises an interesting concept. I mean, why would vampires continue to make other vampires, doomed to live in darkness and drink blood, when the Veidt Smiths of the world get to roam around carefree AND get to live forever? Seems like a bum deal to me.

But don't think about that. Veidt and the dog, after dispatching the unlucky tomb guard, leave the crypt just as it conveniently collapses. See, they are servants of the Dracula family, enslaved by one of the clan many years ago. They need a new Dracula to serve or they will die (a detail that was obviously overlooked by Veidt in the fine print of his immortality contract). Funny, instead of just plucking a stake from any number of skeletons in the tomb (which this movie proves is a surefire way to revive a staked vampire), instead they decide to take the long way around and seek out the last living Dracula descendant, plotting to vampirize him so that they will have a new master to serve. Why this man is not already a vampire anyway, being a Dracula and all, is never made clear.

The dog's name is Zoltan, and Veidt can apparently communicate with him via telepathy (he talks a lot without opening his mouth, so either they are telepathic or Veidt is also a talented ventriloquist). Veidt's cover is blown by two nosy officials, Major Hessel and Inspector Branco. They, along with the superstitious locals (who still like to dress as if they are movie extras) live with the everyday reality of vampires. After efficiently burning the bodies of the Dracula clan from the collapsed tomb, they pinpoint Veidt's empty coffin and second-guess his fiendish intentions, but Gad...did they have to discuss the exact address of Michael Drake, the last living Dracula, while Veidt was lurking in the shadows???

Veidt and Zoltan, with Branco close behind, are soon off to America, where Michael Drake is about to leave with his family for a nice camping trip. They have two German Shepherds who have just had a cute little puppy (the litter was apparently the smallest ever), and they cart the kids and the dogs off to a part of the wilderness that is sufficiently isolated enough for just the right amount of threat to occur. Veidt and Zoltan follow them to their vacation spot, driving an understated black hearse no less, and they are just waiting for the right moment for the canine cadaver Zoltan to sink his over-sized canines into Michael's neck.

What follows is a number of vampire clichés with a canine twist. Zoltan's eyes glow white almost all the time, except when they are uniformly black, that is. The insidious plot to undo Michael and his family involves the rallying of several other formerly friendly dogs who have been vampirized by Zoltan (the "puppy-rises-from-the-grave" sequence is NOT to be missed). Dragged into the plot are a hapless wanderer who stumbles upon the dreaded hearse of Veidt Smith, and two amiable fishermen who are so laid-back that they don't even feel threatened when their dog goes ballistic and takes off into the woods suddenly in the middle of the night.

The plot's contrivances come crashing down like fallen trees about every ten minutes or so, with the characters reciting expository dialogue that assumes we are too stupid to predict the plot ourselves (we aren't). The film's intent is to get Branco and Drake together in an even more isolated cabin (no, nothing indecent is going on) so that they can be threatened by the pack of vampire dogs by moonlight (a full moon that never shrinks, even after about four nights!).

Will Michael give in to his bloodsucking family tradition? Will Veidt finally get the facelift he so desperately needs? Will Zoltan finally get that trip to PetSmart he's been dreaming about (thank God they're open 24 hours)? "Dracula's Dog" dares to ask these questions and others that none of us ever thought we would be faced with.


This is one of those film's that you just have to laugh at. The filmmakers' intentions are in the right place. They really do try to make the proceedings terrifying. It's just that there's not a lot to work with here. The dogs are supposed to be scary and while the scenes where they are on the attack have an urgency to them, its just hard picturing these pups as anything but cute and cuddly. Throw in some glowing eyes and really bad fangs and you have the recipe for disaster. The story revolves around some soldiers who accidentally uncover the tomb of Dracula and unleash his servant and dog upon the world. The pair travel to America to find his last living descendant and serve him. Unlike Salem's Lot, Reggie Nalder plays the servant this time instead of the master. All in all this is just one dog of a film.