How the hell did Darren Day get any acting part - when I realised he was in it I was totally put off (if you are English you will know all that he has ever done or is famous for is poor seaside style singing and dumping girlfriends at the altar), but I still gave it a chance... And it was abysmal.. French Poirot style detective in England? Not checking up on person at murder scene on the spot and going for a drink with them instead etc... It's abysmal.. AVOID. AVOID. AVOID.. Avoid this film or anything Darren Day has attached to!! Bad, rubbish, worst British film ever.. I paid £3.30 for it which was £3.29 too much. If you have to watch this film (for example as a punishment in a prison or something) shut your eyes and close your ears!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!


A woman must put her life back together while chasing after a homicidal killer clown murders her son in this excruciatingly bad exercise in tedium masquerading as a horror film.

Those of you who hoping for a nice 'killer clown' horror flick will be sadly disappointed as the writing/directing team of James Eaves and Johannes Roberts have vastly different plans for those foolish enough to dare watch this film. Plans that involve artsy camera shots, an undeserved aura of pretentiousness, incomprehensible story-line, and other 'art school film project'-type pitfalls. No suspense, no scares, characters that are hard to give a toss about, & a soundtrack that rips-off Halloween (and does so badly) are just a few more reasons to skip this film. I saw this on Instant Netflix and i STILL feel ripped off.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Lyndie Uphill gets topless, but it's NOT enough to suffer through this travesty.


AMAZING that anyone thought 70's crooner Darren Day would make a scary bad guy by slapping a bit of clown make up on him and forcing him to say the F word.

AMAZING that out of all the lead actresses they could have picked for the part, they chose one that can't act for toffee, and doesn't even look good with her clothes off (with or without the big, fake chest scar which incidentally, brings me to...)

AMAZING that the make-up effects can actually be worse than every cheapo 50's horror I've seen, and considering how many late nights I've had in front of my old VCR, that's some achievement.

AMAZING that the financiers didn't take one look at the script for this ridiculous thing (I dare not denigrate the word film) and didn't run for the hills.

And AMAZING that anyone can give it more than 1 out of 10. Unless you IMDb voters are practical jokers. VERY FUNNY, DUDES!

About the only use for it is as a tool in the government drive against teens taking LSD. You show this in a school campaign, I guarantee 95% of the audience will never touch the stuff. The other 5% will probably take the DVD home, and watch it repeatedly as a way of getting their fix without going to the nightclub. At least it's cheaper. But it could be infinitely more damaging to their health... 0/10


Unwatchable t*rd, unbearable, actually irritating, hateful crud, painfully dull, painfully feeble, had me hitting fast-forward, the director should be shot, but not before I get my £1.99 refund, Darren Day is the worst person alive - you have to see his retarded scene where he is covered in dirt getting sucked off in the back of a van, it is a atrocious, the whole thing is atrocious - Day even pulls out a script towards the end and starts flicking through it... my God - spooky clowns and dead kids, who gives a damn, give me a break, I'm taking the hammers to this, if I ever see the director(s) (it took two people to sh*t this out?) down a dark street, I'm going to set the dogs on them


I bought this DVD for $2.00 at the local variety warehouse. The creepy clown cover and quote "he's not clowning around"took my eye with a hope of either a Horror/slasher or possibly a b grade movie that might have some laughs.

Man was i mistaken. This movie might be OK to see if you had smoked some wicked herb or taken some acid, though because i hadnt it just made me angry.

The story/plot was not original and the constant use of similar sounding riffs to the john carpenter halloween theme and the ëxcorcist theme quickly became annoying.

Alice witnessed the death of her son or did she? Was it the good clown,bad clown an evil serial killer or herself? I don't know if this film was SUPPOSED to be open for interpretation if this was the writer/directors master plan... i don't think it was.

maybe i am not really here typing this review and i am secretly in some mental hospital thinking about writing this review?.

Overall this film blows.

1/10


The lead female's (Alice) son had at some point in the past been horribly murdered whilst on the way home. Alice's family blamed her for the entire tragedy and Alice had gone mad with guilt because she blamed herself.

As she couldn't believe anyone could such a horrible crime to a child she invented an inhuman monster (a clown) as the perpetrator. Most of the film is a strange fantasy as I think she's never supposed to leave the mental institution where she's locked up. Also Darren Day wanders around symbolising Alice's alter ego, A strong version of herself who can do what she could not and fight off the monster that murdered her son.

This may or may not be the plot of the film, to be quite honest within 5 minutes of the film starting you will desperately want to turn it off. I guarantee you will not care one bit.

This is an art horror film with very little script and it's clear the actors are struggling with the few awful lines they do have. The film instead relies on symbolism to push the story forward. This doesn't work at all and leaves the audience very very confused. The film itself has all the hallmarks of a film that has been heavily altered and scenes/characters removed, I cannot believe that anyone would fund a 90 minute film on 10 pages of dire dialogue. I also refuse to believe anyone would knowingly make anything so bad.

The only good point about the entire thing is that the lead actress is quite attractive. But that in itself is no reason to watch.


How the hell does this kind of movie end up getting distribution? The script is terrible, the story makes no sense - (rumour has it that Darren Day disappeared two-thirds of the way through realising what a stinker he'd involved himself with). This at least explains his character vanishing without any plot resolution whatsoever. The music is a sort of irritating Michael Nymanesque minimalism seemingly written by a man with no ears. If this was made by a first year student filmmaker it would still be a result of the grossest incompetence.

There is no other way of describing this other than an absolute steaming pile of festering dog turd, resting on a catastrophic car pile-up. Avoid.


Here's the scenario: You walk into the local video store and you see the B-Horror section. You think to yourself, "Maybe I'll get a bad horror film tonight and enjoy some pathetic film making." You walk down the isles of movies and one catches your eye. A movie known as Hellbreeder. You think to yourself, "This looks interesting." Well trust me you couldn't be more wrong. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I can say this because I have seen the worst of the worst B-Horror films, from Ed Wood's Plan 9 From Outer Space, to the early 80's Scalps. The plot will remind you of Stephen King's IT; a scary clown that kills little kids. This plot is good for the basis of a horror film, yes. But what it lacks is any kind of acting, dialog, camera stability, good special effects, and really there is no way to tell what is happening. There are actually scenes in this movie that made me very sick because of the camera movements. I really do not know what else to say to express my disgust in this movie. So I'll put it really simply.

DO NOT!!! - AND I REPEAT - DO NOT PURCHASE THIS MOVIE!!! Anyone who tells you otherwise should be committed.


If you've seen/read Stephen King's "It," don't bother with this movie. Let's see....killer clown who has been around for well over a hundred years who kills little children. No one seems to be able to solve the mysterious murders, and, what a surprise, only kids are able to see the clown. The clown is all clownish until he goes in for the kill, where his face turns evil and his teeth go razor sharp. There's a scene where he kills a little girl in her yard amongst sheets hanging on a clothes line. There's a street named Dairy. Am I talking about Hellbreeder or "It"? The clue is "Dairy." In "It," it's the name of a town, not a street. If only the clown's name in Hellbreeder had've been Pennywizard...


This awful film fell into the hands of my friend recently and I was unfortunate enough to be there that night as he watched it. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge horror movie fan. I love both A and B horror but this was the first film in years that actually had me screaming in agony in my head. "God let it end!! Let it end now!!!" kept echoing through my skull as I shifted uncomfortably while cringing. I could think of no other movie that had made me feel so anxious for the ending. The plot was disjointed and shoddy and some of the FX was shady. I normally can overlook those while watching B-movie horror but in this case it all worked for the worse. Steer clear of Hellbreeder.


Before anyone starts thinking Dario Argento, no. This film was extremely disappointing for a variety of reasons and instead of typing a summary (which you can read on the back of the box) I will do my best to address some of the issues I had with this movie.

1.)Stephen King Did it Better- The movie version of "It" is not as good as the novel, or even that great of film, in that the editing and re-imagining weren't that good. I do think, however, that the story idea was very original and scary. While watching "Hellbreeder", I was totally put off by the fact that the screenplay had several "coincidences" that have nothing to do with coincidence. Centuries old thing masking itself as a clown to kill children in their backyards with sheets blowing-would be one of these coincidences.

2.)Leave the Surrealism to Argento, Boys- The filming techniques in this movie were interesting but too distracting. It seems like they were so busy looking for new angles, lighting and cells that the story gets pushed aside in the whole "look how awesome it looks" game. Watching the actress walk and stalk for ten minutes is not even suspenseful, let alone thrilling. Plus the repetition becomes almost comedic instead of horrifying.

3.)When Good Special Effects Happen to Bad Films- The blood effects are pretty damn good, as is the scar on the actress' body, which does lead to a pretty chilling scene. Once more, it was wasted on a film where you're trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

4.)Actors are NOT Bodily Functions- The detectives in this film are truly pointless in the end and are used like vehicles or bodily functions: something to get something done automatically. I hate when filmmakers can only make a plot move by adding someone for no real reason and then not even fleshing out the character.

-Overall, this movie is a poor attempt at artsy-fartsy horror.


I have seen lots of movies, good and bad, but this was the worst movie ever, the only horror movie i've seen where the most horrible thing was the movie itself!!!! I mean i LOVE camp movies, cheesy movies etc but not stinkers and this was this biggest gas bomb ever!!! It reminded me of a home movie gummed together by my aunt Flo after a drunken and diurretic trip to Mexico. Only without any of the fun, only the vomit!!! Please don't waste your time or money on this dog, give some blood instead, you won't see any in this movie and when you do you won't care because you're ready to scream from boredom!!!! Don't watch unless you're just currious how bad a movie can be and still make into your local video shop, the most horrible horror movie ever!!!


For lack of better things to watch, we stumbled on this movie the other night on cable. Wow! If action is your thing, this film will be for you. There must be killings every five minutes. In fact, we are worried when there are no shootings in the background!

Charles T. Kanganis wrote and directed this movie that has a woman detective at the center of the story. Vickie, is a tough cookie (no pun intended). She might look blonde and vulnerable, but just don't mess around with her. The fact that Vickie is basically standing up as the film ends is a testament to Tracy Lords' masochism.

The bad guys come and go, yet, Vickie is able to avoid being shot, or have her hair messed during the worst of the action. The action is too intense at times as the Latin gangsters show to be ruthless in the way they settle disputes.

Watch this film for the pure fun of watching the action. Otherwise, don't bother.


Story line - very poor

Acting - mediocre to poor

Character Development - very little

Violence - heavy

Sex & Nudity - NONE

Tough cop Traci takes on a very bad drug dude, and in the end, she's the last cop still standing, mostly because it's her arrogance and stupidity that got the others killed. The best comedy moment (not intended to be funny) is when she seriously wonders what it was that she did wrong.

I expected the overall quality of the flick to be poor, and so wasn't disappointed in that regard. However, I was expecting a certain amount of eye candy, and the best this movie provided was a girl on a bicycle wearing a thong bikini. Doesn't Traci realize that nudity is the only reason her fans put up with the other inadequacies?

Traci is actually not a bad actress, but if she really wants to go mainstream and keep her clothes on, she needs to start hanging out with a better class of writers and directors. Continuing to be in forgettable flicks like this is what she's doing wrong.


Traci Lords fits pretty well into the action genre - her pouting expression shows believable contempt for her enemies - but she is better suited to "bad girl" rather than heroine parts, IMO. In two mid-90s PM Entertainment productions, she played a cop in "Intent To Kill" and a professional thief in "Ice", and "Ice" was the better vehicle for her. But not only because of her role - she also got to kick much more ass in that one, while the script of "Intent To Kill" is poorly written. It has all sorts of separate threads that never really come together, and although the film opens with a bang (car chase, shootout, multiple explosions), then it slows to a crawl as we spent too much time with Traci's relationship problems with her unfaithful long-time (also cop) boyfriend. The result is a film that doesn't seem sure of itself and of the story it wants to tell. Another problem is the mediocre supporting cast, with the obvious exception of Yaphet Kotto as Traci's boss. *1/2 out of 4.


Despite the endless violence, I nearly fell asleep.

Traci does her best playing a feminist hero here. And to be fair, the whole cast gave their all. But the director REALLY goofed.

Piling car chase after fistfight after senseless killing on top of each other will not guarantee a thriller. It seemed that they just decided to kill several cops when they couldn't think of anything better to film.

Angelo Tiffe made a great villain here. You did want to see him die. But early, so you wouldn't have to watch this heap of celluloid.

And whose idea was it to put classical music on the sound track? It did not help.

Violent and boring. Bad combo people.


What I see is someone who is trying to buildup a reputation in the industry as legit, after coming from an industry where the mainstream population is going shun you. You have to start somewhere and I'm sure it's not going to be at the top, so for starters I'd expect to see some of the "low budget" type films. I'd say she is still young enough to make the jump to mainstream files but I'd also have to say give her 15 to 20 years to make that jump without the stigma of the past hanging on. Take a look at her biography and see the time frame where she was in the porn industry and when she got out, adding that 20 years to that date brings us pretty close to the current time. So I really think she's got a chance at this and if she makes it, it will indeed be a rarity. Who knows she could be in the next blockbuster, these days you never know. But then that's just me, I'm one of those kooks that hang around to read the credits.


I've seen the film AND read the play, which I think makes me unique. It also makes me queasy. The word `queasy' is not a staple of my vocabulary, for some reason, but it leapt readily to mind as a precise description of how this miserable, grotty-looking, dull, funny-as-chloroform movie made me feel, and will make you feel, too, if you're not careful. The play was little more than a foray into a now extinct breed of artiness. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it has never been produced anywhere in the world since 1970 - and hopefully, the sun will grow cold before it is produced anywhere ever again. The film is a botched version of the play, AND a foray into extinct artiness in its own right. Moreover I think something was wrong with the film stock. The very colours upset my stomach.

Here is what remains of the plot synopsis, excluding that which has been so wittily summed up by the title: a widow has had her dead husband stuffed; she lugs his preserved corpse around wherever she travels; she has an idiot son who is sort of undergoing a sexual awakening (DON'T expect anything salacious); and that's about it. Every so often the dead father will appear in a little bubble in the top right-hand corner of the screen and comment on what, if anything, is going on. Sometimes he'll talk to his son. Sometimes he'll address the audience, with lines like, `Not much will happen in the next few minutes.' If he'd been honest, he would have added, `And not much will happen after that, either, so if you're thinking of walking out, cut your losses and do so NOW.'

Don't get me wrong - the 1960s was the tail end of Hollywood's golden age, producing delightful throw-backs like **** and stunning new masterpieces like ****. (I'm sorry - I simply couldn't bear to see the names of two of my favourite films associated in any way with this one.) But it was also the Decade of Floundering. If you want to see just how badly Hollywood was floundering in the 'sixties, by all means watch this movie - but you'll probably decide that you didn't really want to know, after all.


In fact, I saw first the play in the 70's, in my city, Barcelona, in a very good performance, and the public was very delightful. As a curiosity: the role of the Mother was played... by a man! That gave a satirical and extravagant turn to the show. Unfortunately, the film of Quine is, sadly, a disaster: a comedy without grace, very boring and it is a pity that such a talented director fall so low in this movie: it is very difficult to complete the vision of this film. The impression of the play was that it is a experimental comedy. But the impression of the film is that it is a very nonsense history with characters very ridiculous.


More banality not worth wasting many words on.

The same inspiration for this show must have been the same inspiration which caused Ms. Grey to transform herself with surgery from a very attractive woman with looks of character to a commonplace "Plain Jane".

Just like Jennifer Grey's appearance has become commonplace and plain, so is this show. Not bad, but just another show, and another face, in the crowd. Nothing special.


The location was a poor choice, and this ruins the movie right off the bat. I live near the area where Roger's Rangers once roamed. Fidor should have done a little research. Most of the trees are deciduous...maple, birch, oak, beech, alder...with some evergreens mixed in. Nice views in the movie, but there are no snow-capped peaks in Vermont during the summer(the retreat depicted in the movie took place in Vermont). For that matter, the historical retreat did not take place in summer, but in fall (October). The part that made me laugh the hardest was the pile of lizards for the wilderness stew. There aren't any lizards in the Vermont woods...lots of snakes, but no lizards. Major Rogers would not have let an unbalanced comrade in arms run off into the woods to die. He was fiercely protective of his men, and this nonsensical scene is not historical and does Major Rogers a disservice. Perhaps Fidor meant to convey the harshness of the life, but this scene reveals his complete misunderstanding of who Rogers was and of the brotherhood that characterized the Rangers.


When I watched this movie, I couldn't but shake my head and smile at the lacks,insufficiencies and oddities of this movie. The costumes, save those of the British troops, are highly anachronistic. The Indians, all with braided wigs,do not at all resemble eastern woodland natives at that period, and the rangers hardly wore green identical fringed leathers suits with matching hats. Costumes aside, the Rangers all look like bearded and jolly mentally challenged men, their sleeves tearing loose from their arms as a symbol of their increasing fatigue, contributing to the involuntary entertainment of this period piece. I realize that the old way of making movies is not the same as today, and god bless for that! I must be honest and state that this doesn't hold water today, save its aforementioned involuntary entertainment.


Fine actors in the service of a sad movie. Frontier warfare as imagined by an 8-year-old. Where to start? Colonial troops who carefully refrain from butchering women and children? A colonial America that had no Africans, even in Indian settlements where many lived as free men? Swamps that run for 150 miles along Lake Champlain? Hundreds of natives who run for it whenever confronted by ten Englishmen? Spencer Tracy's girdle?

There is one small, mitigating incident that keeps this from being "1 Star" flick: the young, English woman who despises her rescuer. It never occurs to Rogers that this woman might actually prefer to live in a society that grants women real political and personal power.

War has become much more real since "Northwest Passage", both on the screen and off. The movies have grown up and I'm glad they did.


I'm having trouble even putting in to words what it was that is wrong with this movie, so bear with me while I try my hardest... This is a would-be Troma movie, so awful and cheap that even they refused to put their name on the box or credits. It's loaded with Troma posters and logos, and they even convinced Lloyd Kaufman to say his stupid little piece, direct from his office in Tromaville... Blegh... This I guess is either hit or miss, and it sure as heck missed with me. I liked most of the actors, EXCEPT for Mulva. She is so disgusting and unpleasant to look at that I swear my stomach actually began to churn! And that is not a compliment. I did like her morbidly obese sidekick (gee, where have we heard this before?)Cassie. And Debbie Rochon and Trent Haaga's performances were, as always, fantastic and highly entertaining. But it wasn't enough to make me ever watch this again. I DO however like the 2nd movie on the disc, "Filthy McNasty", which is the same director, and approximately the same running time. Both movies feature Debbie Rochon in great roles, and both movies rip off (in an amusing way) music from Meet the Feebles, Children of the Corn, and probably others too I didn't catch.


I'd read the reviews here and most of them do mention that this has low production values but saying this really doesn't capture the atrocity of Mulva.

This has obviously been filmed on video with some scenes even showing what looks like magnetic interference on the tape. The sound is mostly location recorded and is usually unintelligible... this isn't helped by the fact the main character speaks with a terrible lisp throughout. Everyone else shouts to try and be picked up by the camcorder mic and sound distorted. There is little to no lighting work and the camera appears to be hand held most of the time.

Now I realise this is low budget ($2000 I read somewhere) and the production company even call themselves low budget productions but as they are obviously aware that this looks like the cheapest trash ever I'd have hoped they'd try to use skill and talent to counter some of their limitations. Instead they frequently lampoon the state of their production values, lack of actor talent and ludicrous script. I'm sure the people making it thought this was hilarious and indeed this is exactly the sort of film Id make if I had a bunch of mates with loads of free time and a camcorder. However I'd never subject others to it, let alone distribute it on dvd.

I can only assume that the other reviewers here are connoisseurs of extremely low budget film and knew what to expect in terms of production values and took the film purely on content value. I'll admit I did find myself laughing at some of the genre humor but it mostly felt forced with purposely overlong dialogue("I'm going to go as Egon Spengler from the 1984 film ghost busters as portrayed brilliantly by actor and writer Harold Ramis"). If delivered faultlessly this could be funny but as it was next to unintelligible due to bad sound, a lisp and an actress tripping over her lines, I felt more like crying than laughing.

In the end I felt ultimately cheated and I think anyone who expects even the most basic elements of filmmaking skill will do to.


Yes, this is really a line from this extreme "no budget" movie. And actually one of the better ones. I do like independent films and I don't mind low budget films IF they have something to offer. This one, well, it may have something to offer to someone, but I can't imagine who.

I think this film is less than 60 minutes. I found myself pushing the button on the remote a few times to see how long was left. I was determined that I would watch all of this. That is, until I saw there was still 21 minutes left, and decided that no, I could not possibly subject myself to the rest of this.

The story is that of Mulva, an extremely challenged young woman, who is a chocolate addict (I guess, otherwise why would she brush with Hershey's Syrup?). She is delighted because it's Halloween and she's going trick or treating with her overweight friend. And then zombies come to town.

Supposedly this story takes place in Tromaville. I'm surprised that Troma allowed the makers of this "film" to use that as it gives Tromaville a very bad image.

This whole thing looks like it's made with a video camera and a bunch of people that may have had fun making this but who display absolutely no talent whatsoever. This is billed as a horror comedy, and it's not funny or scary. Mulva speaks with such a speech impediment that it's usually hard to understand anything she says, and she made my eyes hurt.

I picked this up in a bargain bin at a local specialty rental store. Maybe I should be more careful at what they offer in the future. I suppose I can trade this in next time I go to Half Price Books, but should I really subject anyone else to this? I should probably snap it in half and toss it in the garbage where it belongs.

1 out of 10 and don't even consider seeing this one.


My son, who ought to know better, rented this from Netflix and convinced me to watch it with him. Now, I'm not going to complain about the bait-and-switch marketing (the chick on the box cover and on the DVD menu never appears on this disk), which other reviewers describe here, although it is true.

For anyone considering watching this, just remember that it isn't really a movie. It's a 75 minute prank pretending to be a bad, campy zombie movie.

The prank is that it pretends to be clever in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way, when it's actually moronic in a so-bad-it's-painful-to-sit-through kind of way that I believe violates the Geneva Conventions.

Chris Seaver strikes me as a kind of juvenile troll who thinks his low budget antics give homage to Ed Wood's ineptness, but I believe he's so bereft of talent yet has such a swollen ego that he can't distinguish the difference.

When the movie was over, it felt like Chris was having a laugh at my expense because he knows what it a piece of crap it is and he intentionally wasted my time, and it was damned hilarious to him. Good one, Chris. It's on the same level as giving someone a turd as a Christmas gift just to see the look on their face.

I've read the apologists for Chris Seaver and no one is going to convince me this is a good movie. Save your money, folks, and watch YouTube clips instead. You will see the same level of amateurishness, mugging for the camera, fanboy humor, ham-handed acting and directing, and no-budget production values, but YouTube is free.

If I could give this a negative score to counteract the improbable rating this movie has (currently at 3.2, but it should be zero), I would do so.


Flashback! Flashback! I remember when I bought License to Kill with Denzel on the DVD cover. He made a very brief appearance in the movie. That was nothing compared to seeing Mulva on the cover of this DVD and thinking it couldn't be too bad if she's in it. Well, the Mulva in the Movie is not the girl on the DVD cover. She is butt-ugly and jonesing for chocolate, which is always on her face. What a ripoff! Now, that I am finished ranting, I will tell you what I really thought of this homemade production. Maybe Chris Seaver was hoping for an Oscar in some category, as he writes, directs, edits, shoots, and does the makeup. Maybe, he even brings the donuts.

I endured this to see Debbie Rochon as Lady McPouchsweat. As usual, she acts way above whatever she is in, and she does that again here. As for the rest of the cast: let's just say it was stranger than anything I have ever seen.


Pros: *It's only one hour long *Teen Ape is a very likable character *Lots of angular goofiness *Lead actress Missy Donatuti could probably be pretty good with some competent direction

Cons: *Many of the referential jokes fall flat. REAlly flat. *BoneJack is a collection of terrifically embarrassing racial stereotypes *Mulva is like the most insipid SNL character you can imagine run amok *Many people consider the saving grace of the film to be the 4 minute cameo by the star of "Bikini Bloodbath." What does that tell you?

On the whole, the movie is likable in that the folks involved seem to have given it their all - that same sort of pathetic earnestness that make Ed Wood films impossible to hate. But please guys, rent some decent equipment and lighting next time, OK?


...or if you got the tickets free. I'm not sure if it is worthwhile even then. The first half is such a drag that I thought 2 hours has passed whereas in reality it was just an hour. There were really unnecessary sentiment building scenes where these 3 jokers try to almost kill the kid and then turn in a new life just like that. And after that they all behave like a bunch of teenage girls who're all gaga about the kid. There is some tasteless so called "humor" scenes to introduce a kid into a bachelor household. There are stupid songs slipped in between for no reason at all. There is nothing new to look forward to from this movie. The story as everyone knows is a horrible variation of the original Trois hommes et un couffin which was hollywooded into 3 men and a baby.

The second half has some good scenes by Akshay kumar but not worthy enough to be called as "Saving grace". The kid is cute no doubt.

It's been quite sometime since I've been to a movie and felt the need to advice people to stay away if possible.


If you thought LITTLE MAN from the Wayans Brothers was a stinker, well this Bollywood musical made in Sydney Australia is dire-rear. And it is astonishingly offensive. Based or stolen from THREE MEN AND A BABY this awful rip off with wobble head disco tracks actually manages to turn already idiotic oafs into hateful cretinous characters in the appalling cruelty shown to this baby in this dumb film. Supposedly these three selfish stooges find a baby on the doorstep and then bicker relentlessly about having to look after the child... whining and slapping each other in-between pathetic songs.... and spitting hateful remarks at this tiny kid. Then after they have reduced you to gasping in disbelief the script calls for them to abandon the kid in a storm, where the director then chooses to show us the horrifying sight of a baby wet and blue lying in a sodden basket. So idiotic are the on screen antics and boorish enough, these utterly distressing and disgusting scenes remove any non existent interest and attempts at reviving attention in the rest of the film. These three idiots then decide they love this near dead wet baby and get her revived... so they can skip and romp around the landmarks of Sydney to our further head shaking bewilderment. HEYY BABYY is a travesty and an insult to the beautiful city of Sydney as much as it would surely be to any paddy worker in a mud cinema in India. Awful in every way. Made of course with support from our misled City tourism board.


I don't think I've ever felt more demoralised and disgusted watching a Bollywood flick. The AWFUL Akshay Kumar and those two other idiots make for a stomach churning viewing experience. Even the apparent comedy isn't funny. The very talented Vidya Balan was wasted on this one too. The soundtrack terrible on the whole.

Worst aspect was seeing the three buffoons as camp father figures. I was hoping the movie would end when Angel's mother took the baby away from them.

And I'm fed up of Bollywood movies becoming so westernised. Do a movie which actually reflects something about India!


Please Sajid Khan, stick to what you do better (which is a tough question to answer). This movie started out with vulgar humor and continued throughout. Vulgarity that Sajid Khan is always full of. He tried to follow the typical 'masala film' guidelines. Thus, squeezing in an 'all-star cast' song and guest-appearances by the other left over actors in the film industry. But, this movie needed a lot more than just this masala and a xerox copy of a well known Hollywood movie.

Akshay Kumar was natural as usual and he brought some humor to the movie but that was forced as well. Maybe the next time around Sajid, you should put some real efforts into making a movie and stop PLAGIARIZING!!


The moment i got to know that "Sajid Khan" was directing the film, i had already lost any hopes of the movie being any good anyways because he already has a very idiotic, blunt and stunted sense of humor and such a guy making a whole comedy movie.....Still i took my chances! What more of a disaster can one expect!...the guy didn't disappoint, he not only created a stupid piece of cinema, made look the actors foolish, screwed up the screenplay, senseless direction & not only this but ruined even the script which was clearly like almost every Bollywood Movie nowadays lifted form a Hollywood original....well in this case it was "Three Men and A Baby"... There's hardly anything that can be said more about it, i just wish i could abuse the director on his face and for making me suffer!


As if one were needed, "Heyy Babyy" is a two-hour-plus remake of the1987 hit "Three Men and a Baby" (which was itself an adaptation of a French film from 1985). This Bollywood production features three swinging bachelors from India who share a swanky apartment in a high class quarter of Sydney, Australia. One day they find an abandoned baby on their doorstep, along with a note declaring that one of the men - it's not stated which - is the girl's father. Naturally, this leads to all kinds of predictable slapstick hijinks as the three inept and bumbling playboys take on the new and challenging role of "fathers" to this adorable tyke.

It's hard to convey just how grueling - nay, excruciating - an experience sitting through "Heyy Babyy" turns out to be. What with all the pratfalling and mugging and fast-motion photography, "Heyy Babyy" makes even the most inane Three Stooges short look like a Noel Coward play in comparison. Suffice it to say the script is unbelievably banal, the comic ideas antiquated and poorly executed, and the acting so cheesy and over-the-top that, after only a few minutes' exposure to this drivel, you'll be agreeing with the French as to the comic genius of Jerry Lewis.

Yet, the only thing more insufferable than "Heyy Babyy" when it's in a playful mood is "Heyy Babyy" when it's being all high-minded and sanctimonious, cranking up the goo to almost unimaginable proportions, as this "angel sent from God" turns three self-indulgent and immature womanizers into hyper-sensitive and morally responsible young men - and the audience into a bunch of oohing and aahing sentimental slobs.

So if your idea of a good time is religious symbolism mixed with poop jokes (and padded out to an unendurable length with endless musical numbers), by all means feel free to indulge yourself in all that "Heyy Babyy" has to offer in that regard. Otherwise, run for your life as far and as fast as you can the moment "Heyy Babyy" appears on a screen near you.


Hey Babyy was a huge box office success and further established Akshay Kumar as a dependable actor(Namastey London, Bhagam Bhag, Bhool Bulainya were all massive hits). I only managed to catch this movie on TV a couple of months and it would be suffice to say I was very disappointed. I think most of the blame should fall on Sajid Khan, don't get me wrong I think he is hilarious in five minutes sketches but he can't make people laugh for three hours. The main problem is that Sajid Khan couldn't make up his mind whether he wanted to make Hey Babyy a comedy or a drama, which results in an uneasy mix of both. As a result of that the film fails on both counts, it doesn't make you laugh and it didn't me cry. Now onto the best aspect of Hey Babyy, the songs are tremendous, my favourites being Jaane bhi de and Mast Kalandar(which has a guest appearance by Shah Rukh Khan). Hey Babyy is an unfunny fare from an otherwise hilarious Sajid Khan.


The film started of quite good with the title song and had cameos of 14 actresses including Malaika Arora, Amrita Arora, Sophie Chaudhary, Neha Dhupia, Celina Jaitly, Ryiya Sen, Dia Mirza, Koena Mitra, Shamita Shetty, Minnisha Lamba and so on. When the baby arrived then got really funny although you didn't need any brains just sit back & laugh. The baby was so precious, wonderful, adorable, and lovable. First half was good it really made me laugh & cry but in the second half when Vidia Balan came then got quite boring for some reason maybe because she spoiled it even Shah Rukh Khan's special appearance couldn't save it.

There is nothing new it's just the same old comedy and makes no difference whether you watch it or not. Inspired from Three men and a baby I can't remember when I saw it because it was a very forgettable film as well as this one. Music is OK the only good songs are the title song, Hey Baby by the Girl Band and Jaane Bhi De. 2007 is not a good year for Bollywood movies as 2006 e.g. Kabhi Alvida Naa Kehna, Don, Krrish, Dhoom 2. I've seen a lot of movies of 2007 and I only liked a few.


This film may have earned a couple of extra stars if it was not for some distasteful content in the film. The manner that this film dealt with the specific key turning point in the lives of the 3 main male characters at which point they change their feelings towards the baby girl is alien to me as a UK westerner.

What starts out as a mild comedy, turns in to horror and disgust, when these 'so called' lovable guys shouted "bitch" at a crying baby girl after which they dump her outside a church where she almost drowns and dies! It's not that I am not used to seeing shocking scenes, but these 2 scenes were completely out of context from the flow of the rest of this film, and left you with nothing but disdain for the 3 main characters and their transformation in to lovable caring father figures.

Totally tactless on the part of the director.


I don't watch much bollywood movies, only a select few which my friends tell me are very good. This one was getting very good reviews and people said it was funny so I thought I'll see it. The comedy part essentially lasts for the first half an hour or 45 minutes of the movie and is okay, not anything new or hilarious, after that, it's all the same old typical bollywood story with emotions and sad sobs thrown in. The acting is good in the comedy scenes where it is needed. But if I get a choice, I wouldn't watch a 2 hour and 20 minute movie just for the thirty minutes of rinse-and-repeat jokes. The opening song with the plethora of actresses is excellent eye candy and Shahrukh Khan is a superstar whether you like it or not and his cameo is exciting. You can easily skip this one if you're not one of those people who just have to watch every low or hi budget movie bollywood churns out.


Akshay Kumar and Ritesh Deshmukh sounds a good combination for a comedy movie and that is the reason I went for the movie (promos also looked promising). But it turned out to be a great disaster in all departments be it acting, direction (extremely idiotic) or screenplay.

The way characters of 3 stars in the movie was developed was bad. The director had really no script in mind and comedy was really forced. I think Sajid Khan needs to see Bheja Fry to understand that by doing stupid actions and creating childish situation, you cannot make someone laugh (though there will be people who will enjoy it). Vidya Balan, Bomman Irani were a complete waste in the movie.

This proves a point that if you are a star kid or from the industry it is easy to make a movie, get number of actors/actresses to do friendly appearances (which again was a waste) and boast on TV as if you are making the best movie ever seen. But Mr. director, please grow up and try to make a sensible comedy. Yes, we can still leave our mind at home to watch a movie but there should be some sense and element in your work.

Overall this movie deserves 1 out of 10 star (some points deducted because of hyped expectation which it fails to meet).

Thanks, Saurabh


This movie is definitely not a family film. It has several jokes which are uncomplimentary and sexually explicit. Many dialogs and scenes are not worth watching with your family especially with kids under 12! The dialogs are not only explicit, they are vulgar, of low standards and do not add to the story.

The use of explicit material is becoming more common on the Indian cinema nowadays and so many people may not find this a big deal but I think this movie went a little past that too. I mean Akshay points at a mother's breasts. Moreover, the mother is half naked. Besides, there's a conversation about mother's nipples. I mean come one, this is gross, not funny.

So, this movie is for those who like slapstick and don't care about acting or poor jokes. For those who do, I recommend you not watch this movie.


Amount of disappointment I am getting these days seeing movies like Partner, Jhoom Barabar and now, Heyy Babyy is gonna end my habit of seeing first day shows.

The movie is an utter disappointment because it had the potential to become a laugh riot only if the débutant director, Sajid Khan hadn't tried too many things. Only saving grace in the movie were the last thirty minutes, which were seriously funny elsewhere the movie fails miserably. First half was desperately been tried to look funny but wasn't. Next 45 minutes were emotional and looked totally artificial and illogical.

OK, when you are out for a movie like this you don't expect much logic but all the flaws tend to appear when you don't enjoy the movie and thats the case with Heyy Babyy. Acting is good but thats not enough to keep one interested.

For the positives, you can take hot actresses, last 30 minutes, some comic scenes, good acting by the lead cast and the baby. Only problem is that these things do not come together properly to make a good movie.

Anyways, I read somewhere that It isn't a copy of Three men and a baby but I think it would have been better if it was.


An odd little film which anticipates "E.T." with its story of a friendly alien who is hunted by the local law enforcers but befriended by two children who help him repair his flying saucer. This slight story is bolstered by plenty of shots of people driving around on snowmobiles and shots of the snowy landscape which means the film often resembles a tourist travelogue. Still it is one of the only SF films made in the French Canadian region which gives it a slight curiosity value.

The alien resembles a circus clown whose make up was devised by Andy Warhol. He indulges in some lame slapstick and low key alien behaviour which confuses the local adults and delights their children. This film has a warm fuzzy feel to it which stops me being particularly vitriolic about it, but I can't seriously recommend it to anyone either due to the rather slow pace and predictability of the whole affair.


While I was watchng this movie I couldn't help but think that while Peter Scolari was filming this "Friday the 13th meets Arachnaphobia" low budget horror, his "Bosom Buddies" co-star, Tom Hanks, was off earning an oscar for Forrest Gump. Don't get me wrong...I like Peter Scolari; he just seems so out of place in this movie. That aside, if you're a fan of this genre, especially of the straight-to-video variety, you won't want to miss this one. It has everything for you: two-dimensional characters, gore, bad dialogue, gore, cheesy special effects, no plot or storyline what-so-ever, and, oh yeah, I almost forgot...gore. My only real complaint is that there is little to no camp. It's those moments of overdone camera work and melodramatic line delivery that make these "B-movie" romps real gems to have in one's video collection. The closest we get to any kind of decent camp is in the characters of Sir and his sidekick henchman, Jerry. Only these two offer us that overly theatrical style of acting that has the viewer thinking, "they've got to be geniuses!"

You will also want to check this one out if you're a fan of Seth Green. Much of the action centers around him as he has quite a bit of screen time. A very talented actor, Seth is the only cast member that actually attempts to flesh out his character and add some dimension to the role. Unforunately, this venue won't allow him to do that. It is also fun to watch Seth not take the whole thing too seriously. Watch him carefully in the vet's office during the autopsy scenehe's actually trying to hold back some laughter! All of this put together does make Ticks a worth while 85 minutes to spend watching it.


One thing is for sure: Ron Howard must be ashamed of his brother after watching this film. Clint has a memorable role as a forrest bum that meets his demise from the Ticks.

Peter Scolari must have needed the money to make a car note or something. And yes, the kid from "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" is in this one as a supposed tough kid from the Bronx or something, but comes across as a throwback from the mid-eighties breakdancing films.

If you decide to watch this film, do it in the form of the "MST3K" guys and enjoy yourself!


This was like watching a 1950s horror/sci-fi film. Not that I'm dogging the 1950s sci-fi classics, but this came out in 1993. So, it should have been a much better acted film (or should have been released by Troma). Don't watch unless you've seen every other horror/sci-fi film in existence!


The English video cover makes this look like some 'Alien' clone, but instead it turns out to one of those irritating man-tampers-with-nature half-baked horror films.

A group of inner-city delinquents are taken out to the woods on a survival holiday. They find themselves attacked by blood-thirsty ticks which have grown to the size of large spiders as a result of steroids used on the local marijuana crop. Needless to say the film is derivative garbage, with no attempt to haul itself onto the lowest rung of the ladder.

 The cast seem to have a degree of ability but the script and storyline give them absolutely nothing to work with, and things stumble along to the inevitable conclusion as most of them escape BUT what is clinging to the underside of their van ??

This may have worked better with some 'Tremors'-like humour - the horror elements are too weak because of the one-dimensional characters; this is a film where you really do not care about anyone and the whole experience is like watching a cartoon. As such it is watchable to a degree, but leaves not the slightest lasting impression.

If the horror genre continues churning out this kind of formulaic drivel for the empty-headed teenager heaven help us. I was rooting for the Ticks all the way.


Ticks is another entry in what seems to be an ongoing competition between B-grade film-makers to produce movies featuring the most harmless and innocuous of creatures turned into monsters- frequently made gigantic or at least larger than they normally are. Killer Ticks aren't the most ridiculous menace ever created in one of these movies as anyone has seen Night of the Lepus (killer bunny rabbits) or various 50's B-movies will attest but they certainly aren't convincingly threatening enough to be the monster in any movie. That is the main problems with Ticks, which is basically a serviceable B-movie. The Ticks are certainly icky little creatures which have gross-out value which is used to good effect here and the prospect of having one of them attached to you and sucking your blood is not a pleasant thought. The SFX used to portray the Ticks are actually pretty good and they are suitably gross little critters, a case of practical special effect doing a better job than CGI ever could and the gory scenes of them burrowing into the flesh of their victims are quite well rendered. My favourite scene was that of a Tick with a syringe stuck into it skittering across the floor, complete with the silly movie skittering sound. However, the Ticks could only be seen as a real threat in the most contrived of circumstances, which the movie does it's best to provide, via an area selective forest fire toward the end of the movie and are certainly not enough of a threat to pad out a 90 minute movie.

It is clear the makers realised this and added in other elements such as the some human bad guys, in this case some gun wielding dope growers to generate some more conflict and danger (Not to mention running time) into the proceedings. None of this is particularly interesting nor is the clichéd character interaction between our group of main characters, some troubled teens from LA out in the woods with their counsellors on some kind of bonding. get back to nature program (The details are never made clear). The characters are barely sketched in and their interactions and conflicts are painfully hackneyed e.g. the teenage daughter of the lead counsellor who resents her father for dragging her along on these excursions and hates her step-mother. We don't even get a lot of detail about what the problems of these trouble teens are, in some cases none at all. The acting is pretty average and you get the impression that nobody is trying too hard.

Despite this there is some fun to be had. The Ticks are actually pretty cool little creatures even if they aren't a believable threat and there is enough blood and goo around to liven things up between the bad character stuff. There are some really bizarre plot twists which succeed in making the movie more entertaining, such as the contrived circumstances in which the forest fire is started and the uber-ridiculous way in which an even bigger monster tick is created in the movies climax. I didn't know steroids could do that. I also liked the fact that the ticks became the way they were not because of government experiments or evil big companies dumping waste but because of weird growth agents being used by the Marihuana growers. It doesn't make much more sense but it is at least one lame cliché avoided. Then again it still has time for the lame clichéd kicker ending. I also got some entrainment from seeing a young Seth Green on screen, before he developed much personality and Alfonso Ribiero AKA Carlton Banks from the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. Anyone familiar with the character he is on the show will find his performance as the tough guy from the streets here most amusing.


Being an outdoor instructor I have had my fair share of ticks. The thing is, I have been constantly amazed by the number of people who don't even know what they are. So if you don't know, here it is. They are little insects, about 2mm in size. As you walk through the hills or woods of Britain, they jump on to you from passing foliage and crawl up your leg / body. Then they try to find the darkest, warmest and juiciest part of your body (hmm..yep, somewhere around THERE), bury there heads inside you and drink your blood for a few days, before dropping off and finding another food source. If you ask anyone who spends a lot of time in the outdoors, it won't be long before you find someone who has a tick story about a disturbing place they have found one (or more ..). I have mine, but that's another story.

So anyway, the movie. Well, for starters, I feel that this show is somewhat stolen by the rather entertaining character 'Panic' (because he never panics apparently). He seems to be trying to be a bad-ass Gangster come eighties break-dancer throwback. Now this guy swears, threatens to kill geeky kids, plays basket ball on wasteland, has violent outbursts, throw axes and wears a trench coat and shades (some of the time). All in all, he sounds like a bit of a hard nut. that is until he spends half the movie wearing pyjamas, and no matter how much effort (and believe me, he puts in too much effort) he puts into his role, he will always be Carlton from the 'Fresh Price of Bel Air'. hmm.

The ticks themselves actually look like ticks. Except for the fact they are the size of your hand. But a movie about 2mm insects that suck blood out of your genitals wouldn't be that great a plot, and probably quite hard to sell to the movie companies. For a crap movie, though, the effects are pretty good. In fact, this movie is a little bit too good to be considered a real bad movie. But it's just too bad to be considered a good movie. Its one of those movies that float in the zone of watchable trash. Which is a shame. It had so much potential to be terrible.

In Conclusion

Worth a watch just to see Carlton in the final scene, and for the quote "I'm infested!!"


Not going to waste a lot of time on this one. Stay away. There is not one good thing I can say about this bad piece of work. The acting sucked, the effects sucked, and the ticks sucked (no pun intended). I keep asking myself, why they keep making movies this horrible. Why? What a tremendous waste of money and people's time. For God's sake, they could use their time more wisely by putting on orange vests and picking up trash along the I-10. PLEASE!!!!!


Not yuk for the ticks--yuk for the movie. It's just about as lousy as you would expect a movie about killer ticks to be. Pretty much everything in this picture is 12th-rate, except for two things: the photography (which looks very good) and Rosalind Allen (who looks even better). Allen is just so stunningly beautiful, and is a good enough actress, that you wonder why she keeps getting herself trapped in low-budget junk like this when she can do, and has done, much better. She has the class, attitude and bearing of a Grace Kelly, which makes this cheap movie look even cheaper. If you're a Rosalind Allen fan, check it out. If you're not, then there is no reason on earth why you should come anywhere near this movie.


If it wasn't for Seth Green this movie wouldn't have been worth the space it took to advertise it in the paper. It was one of those USA Network Bad Days at the Movies and I can see why, only Critter's was worse than this movie. I will be willing to bet that Seth will not list this film on his resume.


If the movie had just been about a man and a woman having an affair after their partners first had an affair, this might have been a good movie. The first unfaithful pair consisted of a guy who was a serial adulterer who should have needed a case of Viagra just to keep up with his many affairs and the lady was a self-involved neurotic. SO, when THEIR spouses get together and build a friendship and then eventually sleep together, you have some sympathy for them. BUT, what about the children? They both have kids (and one of them is pretty young), but all they are concerned about is their infatuation and getting back at their unfaithful spouses. While this might have been accepted by audiences when the film was released, I just felt this was ugly and selfish. They could have divorced their slimy spouses, but neither showed any regard for the innocent kids. The film is well-made but way too self-centered to have any positive lasting message.


As soft porn erotica for soft porn erotica sake goes, this isn't a bad production. Obligatory hunks prancing around a remote seaside Roman political refugee camp in their diapers and assorted battle garb, these boys have too much time on their hands, so Roman sexual behavior being what it was in those days, there's a fair amount of male-male hanky panky going on plus the main story of the task master guard in(unrequited)love with the Christian pretty boy movie namesake: Sebastiane.

Well after much nothing but fondling and slo-mo body contact the story progresses to the grand finale which is obviously a play on our hero's name in relationship to biblical characters. Don't wanna have too many spoilers here, but if you have some time to kill and nothing better to do, might as well see what 30+ year old gay films passed off as historical drah-mah is all about.


DO NOT watch this movie. First, it is historically and hagiographically empty. It's image of Sebastian dates from perhaps the Renaissance and has little resemblance to the actual story of the title character. Just because a painting has become a gay icon does not mean that one should make a movie about a real individual who was NOT a gay icon. Second, it displays the very problem with most movies about homosexuality: namely, that they all have to contain a lot of gay sex. This is quite ridiculous. We watched this movie in our "Latin in Modern Mass Media" class for College. The Latin itself was hardly impressive, and seemed far too influenced by British grammars and barely qualified script-writers. It didn't even seem to be using the colloquial form of Latin common to that time period.


Since I used to know some of the people involved with this film, I decided not to review it professionally. After finally seeing it, I can hardly resist the urge to comment on it as a private moviegoer/renter - especially in the light of the dubious raves being published here. Yes, "Venus and Mars" is THAT bad! Not only that it's a bad film, it's also a waste of money, time and talent: Lynn Redgrave was delightfully funny - let's make this peculiar -in "Gods and Monsters". Ryan Hurst was great in "Remember the Titans". I just love "Dark Angel" - and not just because the spunky charm and great looks of Jessica Alba, but also because of Michael Weatherly, whose brilliant, low-key performance single-handedly provides a counter-balance to the series' outrageously futuristic plot. Why all these great actors (and some others in the cast) didn't chose to act, would even puzzle Melville's Bartleby. Let Variety proclaim that the announced Actors Strike was narrowly avoided - I'd say that it did happen indeed: and it happened during the shooting of this film. But then again, why should they have put any effort into this cheesy train wreck of a romantic comedy: the plot is somewhat appealing in its naiveté - four girlfriends return to their German hometown to mourn the death of their soccer-coach - but it's the kind of 'nice' idea that needs great dialogue, perfect execution, charming ambiance and romantic spirit to come to fruition. Needless to say, all of this is lacking in "Venus and Mars". The dialogues don't just border on the ridiculous - it's fair to say that it's miles south of the border, let alone the equator. The pacing is uneven. Continuity in the case of this film only means that the celluloid does not tear. And when all girls find their perfect guy in the end (no spoiler, that's what we expect from a romantic comedy), the audience does not swoon, but is bound to groan loudly. There is the name of a director in the credits - but somehow I doubt he exists. If he does, I would not even let him direct cart-traffic on a golf-course, because of the legal ramifications, let alone the bloodshed. He might have said "action" and "cut" during the filming, but so does a parrot. As for the leading lady Daniela Lunkewitz, I do have to surmise that she is no Meg Ryan - or Jeri Ryan, for that matter. "Venus and Mars" is the kind of romantic-comedy nobody needs - and I'll have to take my hat off to the investors and the unsuspecting patrons who bought a ticket. Charity is rare these days - but I'd like to suggest that there are causes out there far more worthy of your 8 bucks or the few millions that were pumped into this little endeavor.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** I had already heard that this film was supposedly the most unfunny comedy ever to be filmed on German soil, but for some perverse reason I decided to see it anyway to find out if it could really be as bad as my friends said.

It is: the story is right out of a daytime-soap. Kay, a German girl who's given up on love goes back to her home town to help bury her soccer-coach and meets up with her three girlfriends from high school - two married, one not.

Soon after her arrival, she's told by her wacky mother that love is in the stars for her when Venus and Mars align - and before you can say "Seen that before" an American hunk named Cody appears (have you ever noticed that these guys are always named Cody or Ken? If they go by Ken, they are made out of plastic; Cody acts like he's made out of wood).

The rest is easily told: after some unfunny interludes, all girls fall in love and live happily ever after. Kay gets Cody, who turns out to be the heir to a fortune. The one who's married to an old-millionaire gets the hunky trash man - sorry, waste-removal-technician. The other married one simply gets laid with her husband and falls for him all over again. And the cute one who was after a gay guy suddenly decides for the shy cab-driver, who has helped her stalk Mr. Right-But-Not-Straight.

According to the credits, this film is directed by a Harry Mastrogeorge - who has directed it right into the remainder-bin at your local video-store. The acting is universally bad, with the possible exception of the guy playing the soccer-coach, but only because he's supposed be dead throughout the film - the other thespians don't have that excuse.

Some of the characters in this film are supposed to be American, some are German, but since the director did not choose to staple the character's passports to their foreheads and the screenplay only offers vague clues, international confusion rules. I guess the filmmakers were aiming for the US-market as well as the German.

Guess what guys: you missed the mark by a mile as well as a kilometer.


Doesn't really contain any spoliers, but read at your own risk:

This movie is an exercise in futility. It had a wonderful premise: Wife needs transplant, Husband will do anything to make sure she gets it.

However, the execution of the script was poor. There are numerous unneeded scenes of sex with A LOT of flesh (but no nudity -- go figure). The dialog was trite and not believable. There are characters that appear briefly to move the story along with no explanation of who they are.

And the ending. No spoiler, but you could see it coming RIGHT at you -- and unfortunately it couldn't be dodged. The last 2 minutes of the film are painfully inane and hard to watch.


Daniel Bernhardt stars as Alex Cardo, a thief who learns how to fight after he is sent to prison, seems he is in prison due to him trying to steal a sacred sword, however now trained in the arts of martial, he sets up to redeem himself in the kumite. Donald Gibb shows up to reprise his role, even though he's play a different character. Bloodsport II opens like an Indianna Jones movie with Bernhardt whipping some asses and trying to make off with the sword, however it isn't until the prison sequence where we get the endless training and ponderous Asian philosophy, to then we get the endless stream of fight sequences. These fight sequences are pretty good but due to the lack of any interest in the characters, the fancy footwork is the only saving grace of this exhausted sequel. Still it's an alright movie for martial arts fan though.

* * out of 4-(Fair)


STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Street fighter and expert thief Alex Cardo (Daniel Bernhardt) is imprisoned for stealing an ancient ceremonial sword from wealthy businessman David Leung (Mr Myagi himself Pat Morita.)Whilst inside,he is taught the way of the 'Iron Fist' by lifer Sun (James Hong.)When he finds himself unexpectedly released,he is able to compete in the renowned fighting contest the Kumite,to honestly earn the Katana sword and settle an old score with Demon (Ong Soo Han) a sadistic guard at the prison he was placed in.

The Jean Claude Van Damme original was a symbol of the masculine late 80s action flick.I enjoyed it,but times were different when I saw it.The sequel is moreorless a repeat of that film,a carbon copy in fact,with Hong in the role of Shidoshi and Han in the role of Chong Li.Even the theme of Alex being a thief stealing a sword and then becoming a fighter who earns it honestly is taken from the original movie.There's even (near the end of the film!) an appearance by Donald Gibb as the unforgettable Ray Jackson from the original film.That's not to mention the fact than Bernhardt does bear a startling resemblance to Van Damme in both looks and accent (although whether that was just put on I don't know!)His acting ability is on pretty much the same level too...

The plot is lame.It's not very well paced and it's contrived with glaring errors (not least of which being why Hong is teaching Bernhardt martial arts in the first place seeing as how he was so proficient in them to start with.)What really keeps the movie alive and (forgive the pun) kicking (unsurprisingly,I suppose) is the neatly choreographed martial arts sequences.Much like the original,I suppose.**


I have seen this movie because I have heard this is "the new Swedish wave", "this is the hope for Swedish cinema". Well, if this is supposed to be hope for the Swedish cinema, then Swedish cinema is pretty hopeless. The movie is about problems of actors, lots of extremely boring dialogs about art, blah, blah, blah - a really depressing "commedy" movie that is supposed to be enjoyable or even funny. I have not found anything funny at all. Nothing much happens and absolutely nothing matters. 100% boring movie in is purest form. It probably requires some northern Europe genome in your blood to be enjoyed, I really do not understand how anyone be amused by something like this. Avoid it at any cost to save 2 hours in your life for something that really matters...


A Night To Dismember makes any Ed Wood movie look like a Michael Bay production. Even Doris Wishman, God bless her, knew this film was a stinky disaster. According to the commentary on the DVD I unfortunately bought, Wishman says half of her rushes where lost by the lab, so she had to compensate by adding a voice-over that 'explained' the 'story'. Uh-oh. Her cameraman on the film, C. Davis Smith, is also featured on the commentary and asks Wishman if the lab lost the best parts or the worst parts. After actually sitting through the entire 67 grueling minutes of this film, I can only pray they lost the best parts.

The worst/best part of this film is that the voice-over itself sounds like it was written by Gertrude Stein. It features a lot of run-on sentences and repetition. "It was the darkest night Vicki had ever seen. Why was it so dark? Vicki wondered in the darkness. Darkness was all around Vicki.. etc... etc..." and so on and so on for an hour. The commentary never stops. It makes you wish you rented Derek Jarman's Blue or better, The Beast Of Yucca Flats! The DVD commentary for this disc is priceless. Basically, it's Wishman and Smith arguing about who should be blamed for the outcome of the film. They finally decide to blame each other. Convenient, no? As I mentioned, this film is around 70 minutes long but it feels like the longest movie you've ever seen. It makes Tarkovsky's Andrey Rublyov seem like a John Woo film. If you make it to the end, you are a true Z-film freak and should be mailed a badge.

To be fair, this isn't Wishman's worst film; that remarkable honour would go to her next film, a remake of her earlier flick Satan Was A Lady (And they say Van Sant's Psycho was unnecessary)! If you want to see a good Wishman film watch "Nude On The Moon" or "Bad Girls Go To Hell" and leave this one alone, especially if you haven't seen a Wishman film before. It's not the one to start with, that's for sure.


It might very well be a rare find - and the video copy I tracked down was of pretty poor quality - it is first and foremost dreadfully boring. Since apparently there was no money for a set sound recordist the whole film is 'explained' in voice-over...and still it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Literally everything about it is bad, and not even funny-bad or entertaining-bad, just plain boring bad. A complete waste of time.


This incomprehensible slasher movie was the last-known feature directed by cult filmmaker Doris Wishman. Making heavy use of voiceover narration, the film stars legend Samantha Fox, in a rare non-hardcore role, and deals with a cursed family and an escaped mental patient.

Gory and violent, the film is filled with bloody decapitations and eviscerations, as well as peculiar use of negative and solarization effects. The results are unbelievably bad, and it is hard to imagine that this 70-minute mess took five years to make.

My Rating:3/10


Famed lame-film maker Ed Wood doesn't have anything on DORIS WISHMAN! This celluloid train wreck is apt proof too.

Girl returns home from the loony-bin and someone begins to butcher the people around her. Who is the killer.... and will we care?

Hilariously awful slasher is a doozy from beginning to end. All the characters are dubbed (by about two people), the editing is completely chaotic, the gore FX extremely cheap, and the plot is nearly incoherent. Word has it that half of Wishman's shot footage for the film was destroyed and she had to go back and re-edit and re-write the film with the remaining footage. The film is just sloppy enough for it to be true.

The only good thing about A Night to Dismember is its memorable title and an amusing DVD commentary by director Wishman and her camera man. The bickering conversations between those two are worth more than a few laughs! The movie itself though is so terrible it's amazing that it was ever released.

BOMB out of ****


I must have some kind of death wish to sit through Doris Wishman's "A Night To Dismember"...very rarely have I used the term "unwatchable" and meant it, but in this case it's absolutely true.

Where to begin? Wishman seems to have wanted to cook up some convoluted slasher-horror movie about insane girl released back into the care of her family only for mysterious killings to begin again. But what she ended up presenting was a muddled mess of catastrophic proportions, even by her standards. Apparently much of the footage shot was lost in a fire, so when the film was edited, large chunks were missing and lots of out-takes had to be substituted. Well, it sure does show.

Watching the movie proves to be a fractured, almost hallucinatory experience. Not a single shot has any location-sourced or ambient sound, all the soundtrack is made up of music, over-dubbed dialogue/narration, and slapped on sound effects. It's like watching a silent movie that has been given a hasty "make-do" soundtrack by someone else. In fact it's like watching a film with the sound off, in a room full of improv actors who are making up the lines as they go along, and bashing pots together to try and make matching sounds to go with the on-screen action. Then again, very few of the lines are actually spoken by the characters. A narration goes on for the entire length of the movie, explaining everything that is happening  however due to the incoherent nature of the film it's the ONLY way of understanding what's happening! And the music! Oh dear...Every type of stock music is laid on with a trowel, from lounge jazz to rock to Gothic chimes, and none of it EVER matches the mood of the on screen action. Maybe Wishman just threw whatever she had handy onto the turntable. And if this wasn't bad enough, the film jumps, cuts, jumps ,and jumps again, in fact every few minutes there is an abrupt change of music or lines of dialogue are abruptly cut off. And I do mean EVERY few minutes. Actually there are a few scenes when the music switches styles every 2 or 3 seconds.

There's all the usual Wishman madness such as shots of feet, hideous interior décor, backs of people's heads, someone moving position and the camera not realising they aren't even in shot any more, etc, etc. In a new level of excitement, we get close ups of people lifting slices of cheese off a dinner plate. Some scenes look as though they were shot twice or even three times  and all the shots are included in the film, so its like some horrible demonic rewind button that forces you to see everything multiple times. Oh and before I forget to mention it, about 30-40 percent of the movie is out of focus.

OK OK, I know there are some Doris Wishman fans out there who find this all part of her peculiar charm. The only other movies I have seen by her are the two Chesty Morgan films, and both of these are hilarious and highly recommended to any bad cinema junkie. So I do see the appeal of her unique style. But watching "A Night To Dismember" was nothing more than a trial. By the time I had reached the 15 minute mark I had had more than I could stand, but by some sheer force of will I managed to sit through the whole thing. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT try this at home. Utterly, utterly, mind-blowingly bad.


A Night To Dismember is probably one of the worst slasher flicks in existence. I've seen loads, but this one really takes the crown. Perhaps it was the editing problems that made it so unwatchable, but as far as I'm concerned it would have been awful even without these. There is no passion whatsoever, from the director or the actors, which ultimately leads to a dull film. Most low-budget slasher flicks are entertaining in some way or another because the director was a fan of horror films. Not so in this case. The only remotely "decent" scene is when the girl gets stabbed to death in her dreams, and she moans erotically as if she's enjoying it. I didn't keep watching for much longer than this because the film was frying my brain.

All self-respecting horror fans should avoid this as it's not good on any level. This and another awful film called Blood Shack are at the top of my list of worst horror films.


As I suspect is the case with most people who have seen this film, it was the title that attracted me to it. However, I actually wish that a less witty one had been selected, because then I might not have bothered with this silly little slasher flick. In fairness, the film has suffered a lot in production; but somehow I suspect that A Night to Dismember was never going to be a masterpiece. The film differs from the majority of slashers as much of it is told from the point of view of a detective in the form of voice-over. However, this idea is squandered immediately because of the fact that his voice sounds ridiculous, thus giving the whole piece a jokey sort of feel, and it's squandered further because most of what he's saying is delivered in a very patronising manner. The 'plot' follows a young woman and her release from a mental hospital. I'm sure you can guess where that idea is going, and we follow the guy from the voice over as he pieces the clues together and tries to get to the bottom of the brutal murder spree.

To be honest, I'm glad that a lot of footage for this film was lost; because I really don't think I could stomach much more of this film. Despite being just over an hour long, A Night to Dismember is really boring; I had a headache before watching it, and it only got worse as A Night to Dismember droned on. And on. The disjointed approach to the plotting ensures that it's extremely difficult to get into the film, and this is made worse by the fact that the plot is extremely derivative, like most slashers. The violence is fairly extreme, but it's so inept that it generates more laughs than scares. There's a scene that sees someone put their hand through someone's chest and squeeze their heart...and it looks like it was put together by a below average team of five year olds. The final twist really puts the tin hat on the piece, as it's thrown in at the last minute without any build up, thus making it impossible to care or be shocked by it. Of course, I'd heard this film was bad going into it, but for some reason I didn't want to believe it. I believe it now and wish I hadn't bothered; A Night to Dismember is not recommended.


Some may think of her as the first lady of exploitica, I don't.

Oh my God... I must have been mad for handing out my cash for this ultimate crap-movie. Now I'm desperately trying to get rid of it.

Avoid this film at all costs! But die-hard fans may still enjoy the commentary track.

This film was totally horrid to watch, it's like clips here and there from some other crappy Doris Wishman films. You can forget about logic and quality. Doris Wishman is the most untalented filmmaker of all time. Acting is awful,soundtrack and the picture quality are utterly poor. There's nothing scary about it and the gore is like ketchup and very badly made. Parts of the film were filmed in Wishman's own house and friend's garage.The so called plot is about a female mental-case, who butchers her family and a few others.

The commentary track on the DVD release was almost funny at first but soon it made me want to strangle Mrs.Wishman, irritating and selfish b***h! She actually made three new films after "A Night To Dismember" was released on DVD. She died in 2002, may she rest in piece(s).

No stars for Doris Wisman's horrible mistake for a movie. One star for me, for watching this torture.


Doris Wishman's "A Night to Dismember" is an ultra-cheap and sleazy slasher flick that simply has to be seen to believed.Wishman was an innovative low budget filmmaker.Her directing,editing and marketing of her films was all self-taught and almost all of her films were self-produced."A Night to Dismember" is her only full fledged horror film.It is also a big mess.The editing is beyond awful,the use of same location in several scenes is painfully obvious,the acting is amateurish and the story is illogical and confusing.Still the film is never boring and there are some fairly nasty scenes of gory carnage including ripped out hearts and chopped off fingers.Basically "A Night to Dismember" is about psychotic woman who gets out of an insane asylum and promptly starts butchering people around her.Give this low budget trash a look.4 out of 10.


This movie's only missing two elements; good acting and good writing. It obviously had a liberal budget for a made-for-TV feature but it serves as an excellent illustration of the difference that those two missing elements really make in a movie.

For a good lesson watch this thing and then, the same evening, watch "Fail Safe" with Henry Fonda, a movie with a tiny budget but enormous acting and writing talents. The difference between the two will be breathtaking, even to a novice.

The shame of Dawn is that it actually featured some fine actors such as James Earl Jones (whose presence is limited to reciting some 11th grade dialog) and Martin Landau (whose character is unconscious for much of the film).


This film was recommended to me by a friend or (ex-friend as he has become to be known after this movie,)and I had high hopes for it, with stars such as rip torn and James Earl Jones.

But this was truly awful, with truly awful acting and scriptwriting. The story could and should of been so much better, but it was soo bad, i actually signed up to IMDb, just to comment on it.

Dropping nuclear bombs just to kill fighter jets? come on..... and classic lines like...."bogey's my are, them's bandits"......all the guy needed was the cowboy act and well it would be fantastic......

I got 45mins & 36 seconds into this movie and then decided i really didn't care, fast forwarded to the last 5 mins, and pleased for the credit to come.

However this was released onto DVD, ill never know......

All i can summarise is, a truly awful movie, and one which makes you wish that a nuclear bomb had been dropped, just to save everyone from this movie.


Hey, can't I give this stinker a zero. I really hated to give it a one. Typical hollyweird ultra-left, lunatic fringe liberal crap. Production values seem good, cinematography okay....it's the story that's awful. My gosh, I hope and pray that our military is better trained and will carry out their orders better than depicted in this bilge. I've never been so disappointed in a movie in all my life. James Earl Jones, Rip Torn, Powers Boothe, Rebecca DeMornay, and the late Darren McGavin, the cast reads like a who's who of actors/actresses I've always liked and admired. I just downgraded them to my "B" list from now on. For me, the most ironic scene in the movie was when Rebecca De Mornay asked Powers Boothe "Did we do anything right?" My answer is NO!


As a former nuclear submariner, I'm frequently annoyed when the producers of military movies just make stuff up in the name of dramatic expediency. I can also overcome this annoyance when the dramatic aspect of the film is worth expediting. Shoving in authentic military lingo can get in the way on occasion. This film was poorly researched, poorly acted, poorly written and poorly directed. It was a pure bruckheimer-esquire hack job whose only redeeming quality is its short running time. Everyone associated with this film should be ashamed. Their families should be ashamed. I can't believe this film got a higher rating than 'The Day After'. At least 'The Day After' was well researched, even if the acting was spotty.

How you can take a dramatic theme like an ongoing nuclear standoff, great actors like James Earl Jones and still end up with a giant piece of garbage so lame that calling it hackneyed melodramatic drivel is far too generous a complement. If I ever meet Mr. Sholder, the director of this film, I will simply turn away and mutter to my doting family 'that man is dead to me.'


The 2 rating provided IS generous - this has to be one of the worst movies ever- POOR acting, POOR storyline, POOR production....disjointed, unrealistic and filled with inane script and scenes alike. A few VERY feeble attempts to mimic FAIL SAFE (a classic!!!) - .... probably the most pathetic acting by James Earl Jones (gotta laugh at the stupid cigarette sequence) - what the hell was that all about? The two lead actors (pilot and co-pilot) gave the most out of character and grossly idiotic performances ever seen on film. Even Martin Landau disappoints, and as for Gavin Mcleod , duh... Right from the laughable intro motel scene to the final idiotic comment by deMornay this film will either immensely aggravate you or have you rolling in laughter as you watch scene after scene of idiocy and pure unadulterated garbage. Geez WAS this BAD!!!!


Okay first of all this is just like Dr. Strangelove and even more like Fail Safe. Both better than By Dawns Early Light. Several things would have never really happened. If space command ever detected missiles they would launch the bombers for survivability so they would have never been caught on the ground. The president would not have been allowed to stay at the white house for a minute. The Russian president would not have used the old teletype comunications system. They have a new computerized version. That's all I have to say. It was the worst movie I have ever seen.


This would make a great midnight movie where everyone could throw popcorn at the screen and yell at the idiots in the movie. The U.S. is under nuclear attack, most of the military bases wiped out, radiation clouds spreading across the country. A helicopter is blasted out of the sky between Washington D.C. and New Jersey by a thermo-nuclear blast, and the survivors are discovered by a little boy strolling through blast zone with a stick like Huck Finn in the wee hours of the morning? Who then goes home and gets his mother to come back and save the men? Hello! Nuclear war! Bad time to let your children out to play in the radiation!


Based on the previous reviews I read, here, I have to conclude that P.T. Barnum WAS right: "There IS a sucker born, every minute!" I served four years in SAC (Strategic Air Command), including a year-and-a-half at Offutt Air Force Base (Headquarters SAC, Omaha, Nebraska), and if ANYONE disobeyed orders, and behaved irrationally (like some of the "professionals" depicted in this awful, awful, awful movie did), they'd have been shot on the spot. Or, at least, we'd HOPE they would! MY GOD, the BAD acting in this movie, plus the BAD writing, the BAD production values (can you believe one reviewer on this board said, "top notch production values"? Yeah, based on WHAT, "Plan 9 From Outer Space"?!), the BAD special effects (on a level with the 60's TV series, "Batman," actually!) and the BAD direction, had me CRINGING in my seat! I quite literally HAD to watch this turkey to its unlikely conclusion, JUST TO SEE HOW BAD IT COULD GET! The ABSOLUTE WORST "acting" was perpetrated by the pilot, and co-pilot, of the B-52 crew (Powers Boothe and Rebecca De Mornay); DO you think the writer of this schlock could've had them on the same page, for at least two minutes??? I mean, one minute he (Boothe) is at her throat, and the very next minute he wants to "canoodle" with her! He calls her the BEST co-pilot he's EVER had, and a heartbeat later, he's giving her cyanide, and ordering her OUT of the cockpit! He (Boothe) engages in fisticuffs with another crew member, and later, THAT crew member ejects himself from the aircraft! JEEZE, at least Slim Pickens DIDN'T have THESE kinds of problems in the FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR superior, "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb." In that classic, the B-52 commander (Pickens) ONLY had to contend with a malfunctioning A-bomb. Speaking of "Dr. Strangelove," one of the crew members from that earlier movie returns in this one: James Earl Jones. Man, HIS character is SUPPOSED to be a SAC-trained professional? He waffled, so much, I wanted to call him "Aunt Jemima!" You want to take MY advice, and the advice of a few other sane, rational and intelligent posters on this thread? SKIP this crud, and watch the vastly superior "Dr. Strangelove," and "Fail-Safe." Even "On The Beach," with Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner and Fred Astaire, for end-of-the-world scenarios. BOTTOM LINE: Even the spoof, "Airplane," with Leslie Nielsen (!!!), made more sense than this bottom-feeder did.


i don't get this s**t. You have cameos from all these funny, interesting actors, and you cast the leads as there community theater rejects? what gives? what are you trying to covey? The content become contrived and predictable after a while. The dialog COULD have been striking, but s**t, you got Jack Black playing a mental defect, and Laura Kitelinger on screen for like a second and a half, and you cast the movie with these forced dialog suckers? I don't get it, Bob, i don't' get it. This film had a lot of potently but failed. I DE-Recommend this film. Don't bother, It's not worth it. It's too simple, but could have been good.


I have never walked out of a movie in my life. Had I seen this in the theater I would have.

The characters in this movie are very true to life, unfortunately they are all pseudo-intellectual hipsters who think every mundane thing in their lives is absolutely fascinating. Perhaps for his next movie Bob Odenkirk can make a feature about a group of alarm clocks. The buzzing of the alarm clocks would be no less annoying than the characters in "Melvin Goes to Dinner" and the film would be just as entertaining.

"Melvin Goes to Dinner" may be the worst movie ever made avoid it at all costs.


Witless, trendy twaddle and psycho-babble of the most annoying variety. This may well be the worst film ever made. It is difficult to believe that anyone has ever made it through this movie in one sitting. It is hard to decide which element of this film is the worst: the acting, which is stiff, yet glistening with the desperation of young, hungry actors trying to find meaning in this piece of dreck; the writing, in which the aching banality is broken up only by the sense of irritation that is the inevitable outcome of listening to the ill-considered opinions of dullards; or the cinematography, which is flat, insipid and unattractive.

There are a few people involved with this film, such as David Cross and Maura Tierney, who have shown real talent in the past. One imagines they intensely regret their association with this piece of tripe.


"Melvin Goes to Dinner" is an amateur film of adolescent love. It is done in a rapid fire sequence of TV quality cinema. The acting is real only in the fact that it gives the appearance of a running camera. some of the comedy is cute. However, there are very few moments that can save this movie and make it worth ones time. Believability is lacking. Stunning cinematography is lacking. A real coherent story is lacking. There must be a reason to have made this film, but it is close to the bottom of the barrel. It is not as weak as "Killer Tomatoes", but it is in a close race. If one has nothing better to do, worse DVD's could be rented. However, a purchase of this film is a serious error.


The majority of "10"'s this film recieved makes me now believe that every person that contributed to its making went online to vote. Or maybe whoever the producer is just registered 38 seperate times. Either way, there's no way anyone who's actually watched this film could feel it deserved such merit.

I thought it might be a thought provoking comedy. Instead it was just a group of people whining around a table for what felt like two hours (i'm sure it's shorter, but God, it didn't feel like it). It might be helpful if there was even one character that I could care about. But no. I can be around people like this for free anytime i want, considering i live in this town. And I think that's the main problem.

I'm sure the producer and the director and the writer all find themself very very interesting and fascinating and yada yada yada. And if they're the regular Hollywood type, they A) Assume you will too, and B) are almost always mistaken. I'm sure they thought everyone would love a movie about people like them. But if you prefer your films to be entertaining, thought provoking, humorous (not pretentious), well-written, and well made, then let Melvin go to dinner by himself, and rent a decent flick instead!


I rented this movie because I love Bob Odenkirk's comic genius in the Mr. Show, but this movie is a complete waste of time, an excruciating exercise in bad breath.

If watching 4 pretentious L.A. hipsters talk on their cell phones and blab incessantly at a restaurant is your thing, than you'll love this. If not, stay the heck away! Having lived in Hollywood for years, the scary thing about "Melvin Goes to Dinner" is that people like this truly do exist, in droves! Having said that, I'm sure this film will find an adoring audience of pseudo intellectual blab-meisters and self important hackensteins.


I was rummaging in my old things a while back and pulled out a bunch of old movies. This was one of them. This movie is VERY enjoyable for anyone to watch as a child. I remember my brother and I laughing at it as children, but seeing it as a teenager or an adult probably wouldn't be a good idea. The story is alright, but the animation is not very good. If anything shined in this movie it was the females dwarfs (i forgot what they are called ^_^). Their characters were all lovable and even a bit memorable. Snow White and the Prince, as always, were lifeless and cardboard. Another thing that sticks out in this movie was one song titled "Thunderella's Song". The melody is pretty and it's definitely a cute and catchy tune. So cute and catchy that I remembered it through the years as I would Aladdin or the Lion King. This movie is alright for one watch. I'd give it a 4/ 10.


When I first found this film existed on Wikipedia by chance, I read that Filmation, the company behind this movie, was planning on making a series. Unfortunately, their first two films Happily Ever After and Pinocchio and the Emperor of Night were so disliked by critics that Filmation lost its reputation and eventually went bankrupt. Being naturally curious, I decided to investigate the former and see why this happened. True to form, the resulting movie was not so good...in fact, it was downright terrible.

The year in which this movie was produced is almost as unbelievable as the fact that it was able to enlist such names as Ed Asner, Zsa Zsa Gabor, and Phyllis Diller into its maelstrom. 1993? Wasn't that about the same time Disney was producing such masterpieces as The Lion King, Aladdin, and Beauty and the Beast? By watching this show you would never guess it was made in 1993 because of the grainy, outdated 70's animation. The way the characters move ranges from glitchy (the way some parts of a character are missing) to beyond ridiculous (when Snow White is walking or running). This is way below par if you're familiar with better movies.

Even worse than the chintzy animation though is the writing. The story is more full of plot holes than a slice of swiss cheese. To be exact, my biggest beef with the plot comes from the whole "Shadow Man" aspect of the story. It was at the very end when I found out the Shadow Man was really the Prince under a curse that I lost any remaining respect for Malice, the villain. If Malice was such a great villain, why didn't he just imprison or kill the Prince instead of turning him into a creepy little man? At least then the Prince wouldn't be running about saving Snow White. Didn't the writers think of that? And the little "romance" between Snow White and the Shadow Man was bizarre and creepy. She knew this little weirdo for what, two minutes, and yet the writers felt the need to make a pitiful little montage of their "precious moments" at the very end. The fact that none of the main characters are terribly memorable or endearing also doesn't help matters any. For example, when we meet the 7 Dwarfelles, the only 3 that actually really speak are Muddy, Sunburn, and Thunderella (who by the way has a terrible and pointless song). That's not like in the original Snow White where the viewer is acquainted to all of the Dwarfs, who actually have personalities beyond a few "snappy" lines.

After watching this wretched thing, I would fully recommend avoiding this at all costs, if you want to get a nice video for the kids, get Disney instead. As for my 2/10 rating, I did find this very humorous, although not in the way Filmation intended.


Filmation animation is not Disney, so why were they trying to be? Why make a sequel to one of the most beloved stories of all time? If it was to make money, it's pretty obvious this didn't make anything, and if it was to tell a new fantastic story, then this is an even bigger failure. The story is just too out there, and the animation is way too loose to make a good animated feature.

We start this story after the end of the first Snow White. Snow White and the Prince are happily married and Queen free. Too bad the Queen's brother Lord Miser (Malcom McDowall) shows up to avenge his sister's death. He steals the Prince, and Snow White goes to the Dwarfs' cottage for refuge, only to find their not there. The dwarfs are busy, but taking their place are the seven dwarf elves, who all have stupid powers given to them by Mother Nature (Phyllis Diller). Snow White and the Dwarf Elves must venture into evil, dark places to find the Prince. Meanwhile, Scowl the Owl (Ed Asner) and his bat buddy, Batso (Frank Welker) try to stop Snow White with silly, unfunny results.

Everything about this film is just bad. The animation is ugly, and hurt my eyes. The music and songs sound like they were played on a Cassio and sung by lounge singers. At one point, Scowl the Owl raps about how bad he is, and though I agree about the bad part, this song is torture to listen to. The characters are bad too. Why did they get rid of the Seven Dwarfs and replace them with less interesting characters? What a dumb idea. Why do the trees and flowers talk in the forest in this movie? This isn't Alice in Wonderland, it's Snow White.

In the trailer for this movie, the announcer claims this is the biggest, most famous vocal ensemble ever in an animated picture. What a lie! Any famous person here is a washed up actor aged 50 or more, excluding Irene Carro, who isn't known for acting on screen anyways. Nonetheless, the voice work isn't terrible. Irene Cara doesn't sound how you would expect Snow White to sound, but she's okay. Ed Asner, Malcom McDowall and Frank Welker voice the "bad guys", and they all have pleasant voices. Possibly it wasn't the best idea to have Carol Channing and Phyllis Diller doing voices in the same movie. One of them is enough to make your ear drums bleed, both of them is next to intolerable.

Overall, this is a sad attempt at an animated movie. It's just bad! My rating: * out of ****. 80 mins. G


This movie is the most terrible, dark, and frightening children's movie ever. I watched it when I was young, and it traumatized me! I recently watched it again (I'm now 15) and I can still see why I was so afraid. It is so creepy and dark. It's like Nightmare Before Christmas minus the humor. The villain is beyond scary, and the the little limping man who follows Snow White is extremely creepy. Maliss can turn into a dragon, which makes a frightening screech, and brings bad memories flooding back. Every time you think there's going to be a moment of happiness, someone gets turned into stone, or a dragon picks Snow White up and carries her away. Even at the end, the sky is still dark, and you see odd creatures made of stone surrounding them. The highlight of the movie is Thunderella's song. It's the only cute thing in the movie, even though it is all about her unsuccessful attempts at controlling the weather. If you get anything out of this comment, DO NOT let your children watch this.