I wanted to watch this movie, since I saw the categorization "Genre: Thriller / Mystery / Sci-Fi", and a decent 5.8 rating and thought it might be good. However that categorization and rating is very misleading it turned out.

I started to watch this movie, and sat through the first 48 minutes of it, hoping it would eventually get interesting. Sadly it never did, so I stopped right there.

The main flaw of the movie is that the pace is extremely slow, and the lack of any interesting plot. It definitely do not deserve to be in the "Thriller" category, there is nothing thrilling about it at all(the first 48 minutes anyway, doubt the second half gets any better..).

If I had to give this movie any sort of label, it would have to be "Genre: slow-paced wannabe pseudo-intellectual sci-fi", and would recommend you avoid it at all cost, unless you need something to doze off to.


I've seen all that's in this movie once before. Matrix-hitech, Sliver-watching, BladeRunner-lighteffects, Seven-atmosphere. But few effects and clearly 0.0 CGI included. Weird characters that don't interest or appeal to me. The why/who/when/where part stays unclear. It's an art-house kind of movie with a few familiar faces.

Not easy to follow, and no block-buster-kind of movie that everyone will (or can) enjoy. Was there a plot anyway, one should ask himself after watching. The box-plot sounds interesting, but never becomes interesting. Any suspense? Yeah, in the soundtrack. Keep your skip-button within reach. * out of *****


So A1 dreams of the sexy dark-haired plod who arrests him just before he wakes up chained to the lav with D'abo. Ah, happy days. Back then he could hack into computers just like in mission impossible but cheaper and with sandwiches on them. Ah.

But back to the present. They cunningly fool the hostile lag by using a snog to teleport their hands from the bog.

Then they do various stuff and win the day, hooray.

It's all poor stuff except (as one expects in this sort of trash) some junky fun. D'abo's co-pilot has an amazing plan to make them split up, lost, alone, in a hostile prison asteroid full of rampaging murderers. She complies, happily, of course.

The baddies' arbitrary slaying of everyone is to my approval, plus it keeps the cast numbers down.

Jeffrey Meek is watchable. I find there are not enough openly gay southern belle drama queen mass murderers on the screen and I'm pleased Meek goes for it with gusto. He really is the most entertaining queer sociopath I've seen for some time.

The ending is excellent. D'abo and A1 do the nasty (in an old hotel it appears) and they have a laugh about it, probably because they were rubbish and then luckily room service arrives and it's Meek. Nobody knows why, there is no reason, nobody cares, the credits roll, we make a cup of tea.


Incredibly bad Future Prison movie in which sweaty leather-clad Vin Deisel wannabees run around a former mining asteroid turned penal institution shooting 20th century handguns at each other (as it was set in the 23rd Century, this is the equivalent of having James Bond run around with a muzzle loading flintlock) and generally being sweatily homo-erotically sadistic to everyone in sight. Pure crap. Not particularly enjoyable crap either. Zero imagination / WTF? points included the ship our villains planned to escape on needing a 3.5 floppy to get it to fly (I can't even start to think of an equivalent for today's transport - needing a quill and parchment to start the Space Shuttle?) and the side-kick baddie managing to smuggle not one, but _two_ katanas (with scabbards) into the ultimate maximum security prison in the universe. Mindless bilge.


Well, I went in to this film knowing full well it was no "Star wars" but this was extra cheesy. I love sci-fi movies and hoped this would at lest entertain me for a while. I was wrong. As for the sci-fi part, it was missing. First of all there was no time travail, time warping...nothing to do with time but wasting it. This was not even a B-movie. Saddly, the acting and FX were not so great ether. They stunk. It looks like they filmed it in an old wear house. I don't even remember if I made it to the end of this bomb. This had o be a tax right-off for someone. If you like bombs, or hate your self, then this for you, if not stay away...far away. Run if you have to.


In a movie with all these phenomenal stars, the audience should be able to expect a riot of comedy and charm. Unfortunately, the talents of Howard Keel and Kathryn Grayson tend to burn rather than smolder as the plot develops. Some scenes between the two main characters become absolutely tedious. That aside, Marge and Gower Champion are superb in this film, and Red Skelton with some help from Zsa Zsa Gabor adds several funny sketches to the overall production.


Other than the Gower's occasional dances in this film, this movie just falls flat. True, there are some great songs, but Red Skelton is purely annoying, Zsa Zsa Gabor is wasted in a thankless role, and Ann Miller has all the personality of a sponge. I just watched it for the first time today. Now I understand why so many younger people think the old movie musicals are hokey. Occasionally they work - but not in this case...steer clear...the plot and acting are generally sub-par! Compared to the films of Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell, and even Judy Garland, this film seems amateurish. Watch "In The Good Old Summertime" or "Carmen Jones" instead.


This is a very loose remake of The wonderful "Roberta", one of Jerome Kern's finest Broadway shows. The original movie starred Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, and Irene Dunne (in one of her finest singing roles on screen, the other being the original "Showboat"). There is absolutely no comparison between these movies. The original is really a fabulous Art Deco wonder, and includes a fashion show near the end, during which an extremely young, very blond Lucille Ball can be seen as a model. Skip this horrible movie and see the original in all of its splendor. As much as I love Ann Miller and Kathryn Grayson, this is far from their best work, and I simply cannot stand Red Skelton.


The studios were churning out musical comedies in grosses in the 50's and this is a great example of why the genre eventually died. Red Skelton had NO chemistry with the Grayson-Keel pairing. The comedy does not mesh with the singing which is out of balance with the dancing, and there's no plot to speak of anyway. Try Kiss Me Kate instead. My score: 4/10.


The last thing you expect from a low-budget 80's horror film with the word 'demon' in its title is complexity and confusion, and yet all you get from "Dream Demon" is complexity and confusion. This British production tries to be more intelligent than the classic it obviously imitates (Nightmare on Elm Street) with a very intricate "what's-a-dream-and-what's-reality"-structure. The highly ambitious script (co-written by director Cokeliss) intertwines the premarital nightmares of young virgin Diana with the blurry childhood traumas of punk-girl Jenny and, most of the time, you haven't got a clue what's really going on. Diana's dreams, revolving on dark secrets inside the mirrors of her house, connect her to Jenny, who lived there as a kid and returned to Britain to find out who her real parents were. In the meantime, Diana's dreams cause the violent deaths of some persistent journalists that are interested in her upcoming marriage with a local army-hero. Maybe if he had a little more budget (or talent...), director Cokeliss might had worked out the interesting ideas more carefully. The story really does have potential and there are obvious moments of ingeniousness, but the wholesome is shaky and unappealing. Too bad, because "Dream Demon" definitely has style! The atmosphere is often uncanny and the camera-work is very inventive. The acting performances are far above average and the gruesome make-up effects (although nearly not enough in my opinion) look very convincing. All in one...not recommended.


Because this was British and starred Jemma Redgrave, I expected it to be classier. It's another of those dream horror movies where things happen according to no logical sequence but whenever the director feels like it. Yet it does have one great idea, which I know I've seen used in a story somewhere: the existence of a real house and its dream counterpart, connected in some occult way. In one scene of this movie the heroine's friend and partner becomes lost in the dream house, looking for a way to get out, while the heroine searches for her in the real one, looking for a way to get through. To me this is quite scary and evocative. But the idea only works if the two houses stay separate throughout; these dream horror movies rely on the shock of the dreams breaking through into the real world, or their mock-up of the real world. Some day a filmmaker with more restraint should take the idea and do it right.


"Dream Demon" features some imaginative visuals and clever camera shots, but is doomed by its terribly confusing, almost indecipherable plot. When it's all over, few answers have been given to the viewer and the rules of the dream-vs-reality game are never explained. This picture remains a blurry enigma from beginning to end. (*1/2)


Is it terrible? Errr, yeah. Do they really have such things as Cheerleader Camps? The plot is remarkable for a teen slasher movie: not only do the slashing at a summer camp, but it is a summer camp for CHEERLEADERS!

Just the fact that cheerleaders are getting slashed at a summer camp is enough to bring a smile to the face of anyone who loves terrible 80's teen movies, but it is the CASTING that elevates this one to the top of the heap. They have dragged out some of the most bedraggled early 80's teen icons for roles in this. Under what rock did they find Leif Garrett? He doesn't even have a chance to sing. In case you're not up on your trivia, Leif was Brooke Shield's first boyfriend when she was a 13-year old sex symbol (although it was Dean Cain that got to break her in at Princeton). Leif was a Tiger Beat and 16 Magazine staple of the late 70's, battling it out for column space with the Bay City Rollers and even released an album that was a hit, including some of the least inspired Beach Boys covers ever. Then he completely disappeared to the C. Thomas Howell nether regions, only much deeper than C. Thomas has delved. In the Brooke Shields role we have Betsy Russell, who was kind to Phoebe Cates what Phoebe Cates was to Brooke Shields in the early 80's. Rounding out the casting coup are two Playboy Playmates, which is always good for the trivia buff, especially when one of them is Terry Weigel, the only playmate I know of who went on to make hardcore porn. I don't have anything bad to say about Lucinda Dickey, except the idea that the MASCOT also goes to cheerleader camp was just too inspired for words. It simply can't be expressed the joy I get knowing that this film exists. It is a pinnacle of its sort.


For once, this stereotypical 80's horror movie is not just set in a sport-crazy American high school or at a summertime camp but in.... a combination of both!! An actual cheerleader camp! Do these really exist? Anyway, this setting means there's a double portion of clichés, dumb teenager jokes and naked breasts guaranteed, so it can't be all bad, right? The opening sequence, which seems to come straight from a "Nightmare on Elm Street" sequel, gives us the false impression that "Cheerleader Camp" might be more ambitious than the usual 80's slasher, but it rapidly turns into a silly and by-the-numbers horror comedy. A group of competitive high school girls and two incredibly dumb males attend a camp where the best group (including their mascot) can win tickets for the national cheer leading contest...or something. Of course, their main concern quickly becomes surviving, as there's a vicious killer around as well. The best thing you can say about this film probably is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. The murders only occur halfway through the film because the opening is too busy playing out the fat guy pranks! Travis McKenna (who truly has a gigantic bottom) is more than just a comic relief; he "fills up" the first 40 minutes of this film with vulgar fat-guy behavior, like videotaping the girls sun bathing topless and "mooning" the entire camp through the windows of his van. There's absolutely no attempt to build up tension and the murders are delightfully cheesy. Quite gory, but certainly not unsettling and only diverting your attention from the lousy storyline. The killer's identity is so easily predictable and even the typecasting of Buck Flower as the eerie old janitor couldn't possibly make you doubt.


First off, to answer L. Lion's comment, yes they do have actual cheerleader camps and, believe it or not, the mascots DO actually accompany the team. Now, as for the movie, this was a surprisingly good slasher film, especially seeing as it came out in the late 80's when they were all becoming parodies of themselves. Just watch "Friday the 13th Part 6: Jason Lives" for proof of that. It also stars many noticeable by face but not by name actors/actresses, such as Lorie Griffin, whose character would make it seem that she actually accomplished boning her brains out in "Teen Wolf", and now can't tell sarcasm or an insult if you slap her in the face with it. Apparently werewolf spooge causes brain cancer. Anyways, add a Phoebe Cates and Tobin Bell-less Betsy Russell whose character has seizures (probably from starring in "Tomboy"), Leif Garrett trying to relive his glory days by trying screw every girl in sight. He doesn't sing, but raps.... yeah, I'll leave that at that. Throw in 2 playboy playmates (only 1 of which shows her "qualifications" for that position), an annoying fat guy who was adopted in real life by the camp handyman Buck Flower (probably the only reason 1 or the other is even in this film), a silent but creepy cook, an over eccentric counselor, a horny cop, and the film's choreographer (who plays the mascot of all characters), and you have a decent last gasp for breath in the by then dying slasher genre. The acting is rather good for a film of its type, the deaths rather gory for an R-rated film, and enough T&A to keep the peanut gallery interested. The ending has a good twist that will surprise most viewers, but die hard film fans like myself will probably guess the killer's identity 1/4 the way into the movie (once you know it, is becomes rather obvious). The killers motivation is a good twist though. I recommend it. Only thing I still don't get from this film: How the Hell does the hottest member of the team get placed as the mascot? Yeah, you fight for the right to keep your alligator head off honey. Make the fat guy wear it. Or Leif Garrett. Maybe he'll find his career in there....


Well, this is BAD. Truly bad.

Let's do a quick rundown: Suspense: NONE. Creepy atmosphere: Don't think so. Funny: Well, it tries to be but it fails miserably. Gore: Not really, but one star for trying (the scissors bit was admirably done). Nudity: One star in that department.

Maybe we're not expecting first rate acting but a little competence would be nice. All involved are simply horrible and some seem to be in another movie altogether.

On the trivia section for the flick you can see the film was shot in just 24 days. While that is indeed quite an accomplishment and all technical aspects are admirably handled the fact remains that this film is a complete and utter dud.


Simple-minded teen sex humor is punctuated with graphic slasher murders in this mediocre genre effort. Also known as Bloody Pom Poms, the film takes advantage of its central character's frequent nightmares to clog up the narrative with disturbing dream sequences. Further confusing matters is the fact that all these pretty young cheerleaders look about the same, so once the bodies start dropping it's easy to stop caring who gets it and when. Cheerleader Camp tries hard to win us over, offering goofy set pieces like horny old men spraying themselves in the face with hoses, a football-themed sex fantasy, and the most horrible "mooning" sequence ever filmed.

Cheerleader Camp won't hold pleasure for any except the most dedicated Z-level celebrity watchers. Exploitation vet George "Buck" Flower mumbles and scowls his way through his role as a crusty red herring, and future hardcore-porn star Teri Weigel gets some practice from a garden tool. Ex-teenager Leif Garrett is bloodless as a philandering boyfriend, and his performance is distinguished only by an awful gelled-up hairdo and his weak, white rap duet with morbidly obese sidekick Travis McKenna. Betsy Russell had a healthy career in low-budget, low-impact exploitation films during the '80s, playing the title characters in Tomboy and Avenging Angel along with starring here. There are two Playboy Playmates and one Penthouse Pet among the toothsome cast members, and director John Quinn went on to helm an assortment of softcore sex films like Fast Lane to Vegas and Sex Court: The Movie.


Pretty uneventful slasher film about a cheer-leader try-out competition at Camp Hurrah becoming a tad sour when someone starts knocking of the cheerleaders. It's kind of obvious who the killer is, and mostly, the film is full of all the horror cliches you've ever seen. McKenna's disembowelment is rather fun, but most of the splatter FX are the everyday `garden shears through the back of the head' type of thing. The end is a bit of a let down and a bit unlikely


Alison (Betsy Russell from "Private School" and "Avenging Angel") goes to cheerleading camp despite suffering terror daydreams and nightmare. When the girls start get murdered one by one, she suspects herself. More of a summer camp teen comedy than an out and out horror movie. And what would a teen summer camp comedy be without an obnoxious obese guy, yup he's here. This being an '80's film you know you'll see some fat guy ass sometime and what do ya know, it happens within the first 10 minutes. Man is that thing huge. Anyway back to the movie proper, I got distracted for a second there. It's just a cheesy dumb flick, nothing more nothing less.

Eye Candy: Vickie Benson as Dee Dee, Krista Pflanzer as Suzy, Teri Weigel as Pamela Bently all get topless

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: Commentary with Producer Jeff Prettyman and Director John Quinn; an ultra lame Alternate title sequence; 2 stills galleries; 3 Theatrical Trailers

Easter Egg: Highlight the word "Trailers" in the trailers menu for a really crappy trailer for the film


I believe the writers of this film started off knowing that they wanted some boob shots and a "sex scene" at a cheerleader camp and then wrote a "horror" plot around it.

We rented it just because we saw that Leif Garrett was one of the stars -- and he's just as believable as a horny high schooler as the fact that you will never guess who the killer is! The cheerleaders spend more time swimming and laying out in the sun than practicing their cheers (although Garrett's rap was bad enough that I only needed to hear him practice it once) and the main character Alison wonders around into creepy shacks in the woods looking for soda.

Of course, like most horror films, the characters are stupid, but the sheer idiocy these "cheerleaders" display will make you laugh out loud. The gore is silly unless getting your wrists slashed by pom-poms frightens you. Finally, undoubtedly, the hysterical pep-rally-like "sex scene" is what makes this movie worth seeing. If you're looking for a scare, pass this one up, but check it out if you and your friends are looking for a funny slasher flick that is nothing but pure cheese.


A slasher stalks kids at a....well, at a cheerleader camp, slaughtering them in the macabre ways introduced in the FRIDAY THE 13TH series.

Some good gore scenes, some great gratuitous female nudity, some lame one-liners, adds up to a delight for slasher fans. Other need not bother.

MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, sexuality, and some language.


Getting it out right now, this film is completely lame..and basks in it's absurdity. The film follows the same line of many "Friday The 13th" type of psychos picking off scantily clad teens, but it just wallows gleefully in it's cheesiness the film is hard not to enjoy a little bit. You have the prototypical heavy kid who is ripe for exploiting himself{aren't fat people supposed to always be the butt of jokes in the Anti-PC 80's?}with getting his butt stuck in a window as he is flashing people(I couldn't help it..I giggled uncontrollably), dresses as a woman while spying on chicks showing their tits, and gets his stomach ripped open with guts splattering out. Betsy Russell plays a young teen with hideously, tiresomely goofy nightmares whose boyfriend is Leif Garrett{in the "how far my life has sunk" role often welcomed by once "prominent" stars}. Lucinda Dickey plays Betsy's "pal" and Lorie Griffen{the babe in "Teen Wolf" who is the stuck up snob we all know and love}plays a goofy, but lovable ditz. The film embellishes silly characterizations, but has an "I don't care" attitude that one might admire. There are some violent deaths, but most of the gore is shown not seen in the actual moment. It is not a good film, but it could probably fill the craving for a cheesy 80's horror item if one is looking for it.


I hold the makers of this film personally responsible for the permanent psychological scars this film left on me. First off, let me just say, Lief Garret, should not act in films...EVER! Pornos, travel or cell phone commercials, voice overs on radio, nothing that requires the slightest inkling of talent. Secondly, hiring a man who defies the term "obese", and showing said man, shoving his bare fat ass out of a car window, is a crime against humanity and God. Not just a passing glance either, but a long hard studious, eye-gouging, long shot. Then seeing the sheriff, an aging hairy beast of a man, in nothing but his boxers, nailing the head cheerleader of the camp, for a "touch-down". I ask you...what have I done to these film makers. I've always tried to be good, and live my life accordingly. This movie cannot be described in words. Suffice is nothing compared to the masterpiece that is, "Sorority House Massacre II".


Horrible. That's all I can say. The killings are dumb. For a waste of your money, please do not rent this one. I rented this movie and stopped the movie at the middle. Also, It used to be scary for me when I was young. But, now it's stupid, rotten and dirty. This movie appeared on Slashers. Poor death stages to boot too. Not to mention a rotten script. It also has laughable lines. Skip this one and rent "Friday The 13th" or "Sleepaway Camp". I want my money back on how wasted all this time on this piece of garbage. This movie should be burnt, Fried and Destroyed. Now that's all I can say. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS!!!!!!

Rated R.


I hated this flick.

Rodney Dangerfield makes me laugh often, but not in this film. Even in the few lines he had that were actually funny, for reasons relating to the obviously poor directing, those lines sort of fell flat.

And that's the story of this film--poor directing. This film comes off as the work of an amateur. And it is no wonder--this was James Signorelli's first major film-directing project. And, except for the unfortunate Elvira: Mistress of the Dark, it was also his last.

Joe Pesci seems very out of place--probably a casting error. He just seemed to be playing the wrong character altogether. Maybe this is just a part of the poor directing, but he seemed like he wasn't at all interested in putting in a good performance.

The film has an overall tone that is way way way too serious for a comedy--a clear indication of an amateur comedy-director. I would classify it as a drama, actually, if I were forced to classify it. Yet the plot is very hard to believe in, and it would've been so even if this had been filmed more as a really over-the-top comedy--just completely ridiculous.

Of course, my first viewing comes in 2006. Obviously, I may have given it a 2 instead of a 1 had I seen it in the 80's.

You can safely skip this one, even if you are a big Rodney Dangerfield fan. If you need to see a movie with Dangerfield in it, I'd recommend Caddyshack and Back to School, or just any of them other than this one.


Not even the Miklos Rozsa Oscar nominated score (a mediocre one at that) can save this boring, Grade B western. Despite Mr. Maltin's high opinion and despite Claire Trevor's desperate attempts to act, this is pretty poor stuff. Albert Dekker is a boring Bat Masterson and Barry Sullivan is his befuddled rival. The girlfriend they share - Trevor - tries to get Bat to give up his guns and take up journalism. This is not a very exciting plot premise. Avoid this one unless you have insomnia.


Delta Force 2 (1990) was a sequel that was a little too late. With Cannon all but a memory, the crew decided to make one more Delta Force movie starring an aging Chuck Norris. This time the story deals with drug running and the cocaine king-pins of Central America. Alas, this one is nowhere in the league of part one. It doesn't work, period. I mean why would the U.S. Government care about apprehending drug lords in some tiny country in Latin America? The movie is by the numbers, late 80's/ early 90's Chuck Norris action vehicle.

I don't know why the called it Delta Force 2. The movie is unworthy of this title. Maybe they thought they could get a few more rentals by tying this movie in with the original Delta Force. All of the elements that made part one enjoyable are missing. Don't waste your time on such video tripe. Because it's not worth it.

Not recommended, best to avoid!


Aside from its propagandistic aspects (it seems to argue that America has the right to invade any foreign country in the name of "law and justice"), this is a standard, brainless actioner, with lots of explosions and large-scale stunts, but not much excitement. Billy Drago, as the slimy villain, is the film's only redeeming factor. (*1/2)


This one was on AMC one night, so I resolved to watch it. My brother already said it was bad, but I still wanted to see it for myself.

Sadly, my brother was right.

Personally, I am very interested in the 1st SFOD-D (First Specialforces Operational Detachment-Delta.) or Delta Force. I know my facts pretty well. This movie, however, had none of its facts right. Here is a list of movie flaws.

1. Why are all the Delta Force soldiers or D-Boys dressed entirely in black, rather than in fatigues. I know what D-boys look like and the gear they use in this does not make sense.

2. Why are they using French weapons? I mean, these are American soldiers, not French men! They should be using their own weapons.

3. Aside from all that, the acting was terrible, the script awful and the cast is bad too.

In conclusion, DO NOT SEE THIS!


Chuck Norris returns as Maj Scott McCoy the delta force commando who this time takes on a sadistic drug dealer named Ramon Cota(Billy Drago)who is holding a group of DEA agents hostage in this cold blooded and pointless sequel which is a total bomb until it's final 20 minutes of cool sky diving stunts.


This movie has very little in common with the first movie, the only real connection between the two is Chuck Norris is in both of them. That and the movie does involve the Delta Force once again. It is also a very unmemorable movie as there are very few scenes in this one that I can recall. While I remember the older movie Delta Force almost entirely and I did not exactly watch that one a whole lot more. One of the few scenes that I even remember is the scene involving the Delta Force doing a sky jump with the drug lord and the fact this film had a bit of a similar plot to the James Bond film "License to Kill", however that film is superior to this one as I can remember a lot about that one too. I do not remember this one being particularly horrible or anything, I just remember it not being as good as the original and that I got a bit bored during this film, another thing that did not occur during the first film. In the end I think it is just one of those sequels that uses the success of the first film to try and market an almost unrelated film. Like this one was supposed to have Chuck in some sort of drug task force, but they thought they could get some more bucks by making it a sequel to the Delta Force movie.


Delta Force was really funny movie. It brought all the possible stupid elements of film-making into life. It was so funny that I haven't ever laughed as much as when I saw it for the first time. Only Bad taste has ever made me laugh louder, harder and longer. I gave it 3/10 and the points came from the comedic parts of it.

Delta Force 2 (as DFII: The Columbian Connection) isn't funny at all. This movie really has no pros. Watching explosion has never been this boring. If I want to see explosions, I watch Winter War or Windtalkers. Watching U.S. special forces in action has never been this boring. If I want to see them, I watch news or play Delta Force series. This picture deserves a pure 1/10. Could movie get any worse?


Oh my God....this movie so terrible. I love movie violence and all that, but this movie was too bad to describe. I registered just to say how much I HATE this movie. I watched it last night and I almost put my head through the T.V. It was on Superstation and it ran 3 hours long. GRRRRR. I can't believe I watched the whole thing. What the hell was with that South American drug lord guy??? His eyes were as big pool balls and he looked so damn relaxed through-out the whole movie I thought he was going to turn into a liquid. The start was bad....the ending was bad and overall it was a huge kick in the nuts. I got so angry and stressed over watching the movie that would'nt end that I am scarred for life. I WILL NEVER watch another Delta Force movie again as long as I LIVE!!!!!!! I'm getting angry just thinking about it.

P.S Is it just me...or did that drug lord guy..whatever his name is play a drug lord in every Norris film ever made. I also noticed that all Norris does is fight South American drug lords. I wonder how many drugs this guy was on at the time?? GOD!!! I hated the 80's...still do and always will!!!!! ahhh...that felt better.

Worst lines ever in the movie: (whispers in a stupid voice) lesson one (hits the guy) lesson two (hits him again) ...Schools out....

AHHHHHHH....SOOOOOOO BAD!!!!!!!!


My Take: Ridiculous and blood-thirsty. It's bloodily bad.

Even if it was pure camp material, the original DELTA FORCE with Chuck Norris, Lee Marvin and a supporting all-star cast didn't take itself too seriously as it might have. The movie is pure B-movie, and it rarely took itself seriously. Same cannot be said about its sequel DELTA FORCE 2 in 1990 (also known as the COLUMBIAN CONNECTION). What the first film does with so much fun with itself was taken to darker and bloodier heights in this solid but joyless and too bloody sequel. Some stunt work (especially the skydiving scene and helicopters) are pretty good, but the overall film is too bloody serious to even be fun, hence it's often tedious.

Chuck Norris looks bored replaying his role in the first film (Col. McCoy) for vengeance when his pal's wife was killed by a merciless drug dealer named Ramon Cotta (played with surprising menace by THE UNTOUCHABLES' Billy Drago), who has been freed numerous times after being captured. Although this villain is pretty mean as it should have, he's too bloody serious and cold-hearted, you'll hate him rather than like him for being mean. The rest of the film is as well, there's no fun to have here.

If the film could have taken itself less serious, like the tone of its predecessor, it could have had more fun with its stunts and all. There are some neat stunts sequences as said, but like I said, it's not much fun. The seriousness could have been turned down and replaced with a lighter one, it could have warrant a passable rating (and perhaps, still keep its R rating). Production values aren't very high and some of the dubbing is weak, and the screenplay even given to the English-speaking actors aren't that good. Some fine helicopters but that's just about what this cheap "say no to drugs" B-movie from the Cannon Group Inc.

Rating: * out of 5.


What a disappointment after the first one. I guess when they put part 2 on a movie it usually is bad. Well, this one is choppy, and by the end of the film one can not believe they sat through this. I argued with my friend Fred about this one, but he could not change my mind. I found the Karate, which is trade mark for his films, not that great. Well, I guess we can see why he's on TV now, the steam started to run out in his film career. Good luck Chuck, I hate seeing you in Turkeys like this one.


This movie is definitely not what the previous summary made it out to be. Trust me. And if you don't just see the movie and than I know you will trust for the rest of your life. I know Anil Kapoor's acting is far better than most in Bollyhood but this movie was purely made on the fact that the title of the movie would appeal to the mainstream Indian movie goers. But I am sorry to say, actually, why should I be sorry, I did nothing wrong. This movie's plot is not original at all. And when Ms Sen puts her relationship with her soon to be husband on the line and tells lies to the police to save her boss, Anil Kapoor, who would think something like this can actually occur in real life. But anyway this movie was poorly done and put together. This goes to the director and the editing crew but the person to blame is probably the producers who wanted to sell the title, My Wife's Murder, that they put out garbage like this for the whole world to see. Well, can't really blame these producers when the rest of the bollywood producers are also doing the same except a few who I will list later. My whole reason for writing this response was because i read the previous one and I completely disagreed with it and I wanted to warn people it would probably be a mistake seeing the movie. And the list of producers and Directors that are on my A list are as Follows: Mani Ratnam, in many different languages has proved that he is what Stanly Kubrick was for the Hollywood cinema. try to get a hold of his old stuff like Mouna Ragam with Ravethy. It also deals with husband and wife issues (1985) also get Dilse if you have not yet. Best movie ever. Nothing is more realistic than that. and the music A R rhaman provides are like tunes from haven that has been sent by god as a gift to all music lovers. This years movies of the year: Sarkar Kya Kool Hai Hum Menai Pyar Kyu Kya No Entry Salam Nameste


The problem with this movie wasn't in the story. This was, I felt, a very touching story about a man who chooses to stay with his wife even after a miscarriage (when the whole reason for the marriage was the pregnancy). A sappy testament to the power of love, the director (John Laing) had a perfect story for the Lifetime channel, especially since it was based on a true story. The acting was good enough, and being shot in New Zealand, the scenery was beautiful. The film failed, I believe, on the fact that the way in which the story was told would have made a great TV show, perhaps done over two weeks, or, if all at once, with some commercials to break it up. It was, unfortunately, a feature length film, and I think there needs to be a difference, and in this there was none. Rating: 18/40


Swamp Zombies starts as a FBI inspection of his Hospital forces misguided scientist Dr. Phillips (Shannon Solo) to call in his shady contacts to quickly dispose of his unethical experiments into the re-animation of the dead. Unfortunately they dump the cadavers into the nearest swamp (looks like a lake to me) & think the job is done, however these corpses were injected with Phillips re-animation serum &, surprise surprise, come back to life as rotting flesh eating zombies! A student field expedition will provide plenty of fresh meat, can the local kick boxing Ranger Jack (writer, producer, director & coward Len Kabasinski hiding from embarrassment under the pseudonym of Leon South) save the day & can Dr. Phillips bizarre experiments be stopped?

Starring, written, produced & directed by the aforementioned Len Kabasinski there are films which are so bad it's untrue, then there's the celluloid abomination that is Swamp Zombies. This is quite possibly the worst film I've seen since the last worst film I saw, seriously though Swamp Zombies has made it into my prestigious worst ever films list & boy have I seen some stinkers in my time, to gain a place on this list a film has to have certain qualities, a certain type of badness, it has to be a so mind-numbingly bad film as to make me want to me poke my eyes out & Swamp Zombies has those unique, hard to achieve qualities. For a start the character's are awful, to call them one-dimensional & bland would be too kind, the dialogue is terrible as for some reason these people can't seem to string a proper sentence together, it's an absolute bore to sit through with a predictable & clichéd 'plot' although I use the term plot very loosely, all the zombie attacks are virtually the same & end up with the human character's having a karate fight with them, however on the plus side Swamp Zombies might just be the best horror/zombie/martial arts film ever made, not that I can think of any others mind you. Then there's the fact that Swamp Zombies lasts for more than two hours! Jesus Christ almighty, how the hell did I make it through two hours of this cinematic turd? I could go on all day about how bad this is but that would be silly so I'll just say I hate Swamp Zombies & I hate every single aspect of it, it's as simple & straight forward as that.

This is one of the worst directed films I've ever seen, there's virtually no direction at all. No-one puts any effort into anything & they just sort of either stand there or jog depending on the scene, the scene when the old man is first attacked by the zombies & runs through the wood waving his arms in the air letting out a little wailing noise is hilarious & the bit when a fat redneck guy comes face-to-face with a zombie & he says 'oh my god' like he was asking someone to change the channel on the TV. There's also another fight scene set atop a car park where it starts out during the day & after a few punches have been thrown it's pitch black. There's absolutely no scares, there's no tension or atmosphere & most of it is shot during the day with lame scenes of people practising kick boxing on the zombies. There's no real gore either, there's the usual blood splattering but no proper graphic gore effects & the zombies themselves look awful.

With an ultra low $12,000 budget it shows, I don't wish to be unkind but Swamp Zombies is nothing more than a glorified home film & has the production values to match. This is just terrible in every respect including the acting which is awful.

Swamp Zombies is possibly the worst film I've ever seen, I'm sure no-one sets out to make a bad film but when it's this bad & we have to spend our hard earned money & time watching it it's difficult to cut it any slack or have any sympathy for the filmmakers. I hated it, plain & simple.


I definitely think this kind of projects are the best ways for an aspiring filmmaker to learn the trick...actually I would like to see this type of films made in my own country. I'm also a fan of B-horror like Braindead or Killer Klowns from Outer Space. I rented Swamp Zombies!!! with the intend to just have a fun time and not expecting a masterpiece.

But even those expectations were too high. I don't say I could do this better, but this was one of the most boring films I've seen in quite a while. I really can appreciate the idea of a zombieflick with lots of gore, kung-fu and nudity in it. But except for the fun the director took on the nudity, 'Swamp Zombies!!!' just didn't work.

Let's be honest: two hours is just too long for a zombiemovie. Kungfu-scenes were overlong, lack of continuity and terrible acting made this film quite a boring ride, instead of the fun roller-coaster-ride I had hoped to see.


Words cannot really describe how bad swamp zombies is. You have to see it to believe it, but i don't wish that punishment on anybody.

Swamp Zombies by director and star Len Fabianksi is the story of a doctor who is trying to bring the dead back to life, but when federal agents come to inspect the hospital he is working in he must ditch the cadavers quick. So basically the bodies get dumped in the lake and there are a bunch of kids near the swamp and after a storm the bodies come back to life and try feasting on the living.

The acting is THE worst i have ever seen, i've seen school plays with better acting. The direction is also terrible, has this guy never heard of 'Take 2' the actors and even he himself fluff their lines on camera and did they never think of re doing that take? The make up effects are the best thing in the film, but again nothing to brag about considering the rest of the film is garbage. The zombies look ridiculous and the blood looks like red syrup. Also you never really see any decent shots of the zombies taking chunks out of people, you just see them sucking on their arms and blood coming out.

Some shots linger on for too long and are completely unnecessary, for instance a 1 or 2 minutes long shot of old whore Jasmine st Claire in the shower, it brings nothing to the film and doesn't join on to another scene, my guess is the male crew told Len it would make a good addition to the film and also that they should all watch.

On the IMDb boards director Len has faced the criticism with rants about how this movie is meant to be a campy horror film with some shots made for laughs.

Well Len, in short, it isn't a fun campy horror film. Its boring, dull and painful to watch.

You mention that the scene where the old man runs screaming through the trees is supposed to be funny, well i didn't know that when watching because that guys acting skills made me believe that was his best attempt at being terrified. Even if it was played for laughs, it isn't funny nor is anything else in the film.

As the film neared its end i was expecting to see a very basic credits list maybe a crew of 3 or 4 people doing numerous jobs. So i was shocked to see their is a quite large crew. Why any of them agreed to doing this project after they read the scripts is beyond me.

I honestly thought that this was a film made by a kid fresh out of film school with a couple of hundred bucks.

I know the budget of $12,000 is small but they could have at least used a decent camera.

I didn't pay to watch this film, which i am glad i didn't and when i can get the directors second film 'curse of the wolf' for free i will watch that too, out of pure curiosity as the director mentions that it is a much better film which shows that he has advanced as a film maker. After seeing the trailer i doubt that.

Maybe you should hang up your film makers hat Mr Fabinaksi, your first two ideas for films have been zombies and werewolves, so your hardly original, you have 0 talent when deciding what angles to use and you cant write a script.

The editing is appalling, in one scene two people are fighting in broad daylight one second and the next its pitch black. After nearly every shot the actors will be standing still and in the wrong positions from the last shot.

The sound was THE worst I've ever heard in a film that is listed on IMDb, in some scenes you can barely hear the actors and in others their voices nearly broke my speakers. Its blatantly obvious from one shot to another as the background noise changes completely. Just to sum up how bad and amateur it is, in once scene where the blue meanie and a woman in a bikini are supposed to be in a cabin/hut in the middle of a swamp you can clearly hear a car whizzing by in the background.

Ther fight scenes are again terrible, no one actually gets hit, just one person will kick near another persons face and a 'wham' sound effect will be used. Seeing as most of the cast are trained in martial arts i would have expected better. Also the moves used in the fight scenes become very repetitive and the fight choreographer makes no attempt to change any of the moves used.

1/10

By the way this film has inspired me though, if this junk can get distributed then surely i could get a film released too.


Bad acting, bad camera work, bad set-up, bad story.

There isn't much good about this movie, besides that they actually persuaded someone to get in on a DVD and even -export- it abroad.

Now, I can take bad acting, camera work, set-up and stories, but what irked me most as a horror-fan, is that For Heaven Sakes; is you are going to use zombies in a film, at least make it believable.

My reason for saying that is; how on earth can you kill a zombie by breaking its neck? Have the people making these movies -ever- before watched a horror film before making this atrocity? If you know nothing about a genre, at least try to find out -before- making something. That's one of the basics you learn when you are being taught how to create/design something. If you don't know what it's like, then how on earth can you describe it? I support the movie industry by spending money on movies, instead of downloading them. But in this case; I should have just downloaded it.


The best thing about this movie is the title, which I'd guess is the main reason why it got distribution; it's also the only reason why I watched it, and fortunately the DVD was in our library for some reason so I didn't have to pay. In fact, it's hard to believe that a movie called 'Swamp Zombies' could be so bad.. I mean, take a swamp, add some zombies, throw in some gore and boobs and you should be at 5/10 already.

Unfortunately, there's very little in this 'Swamp Zombies' movie which rises even to the level of competence, let alone good.

Script: it's hard to believe they had one. The movie jumps around between groups of characters seemingly at random, and half of them just seem to appear in order to be killed off by some very unconvincing zombies; there are so many characters that at times they'd cut back to other characters after twenty minutes and I'd have forgotten that those other characters even existed.

Acting: there really isn't any of that either. Occasionally a cast member does something believable, but more often they deliver their poorly-written lines with a complete lack of feeling. They also fluff their lines on a number of occasions, and it's still included in the movie.

Editing: awful. Really, really awful. Cuts are made at random and often jump. Even though some of the actors do appear to be competent at martial arts, the editing in the fight scenes is so bad that it makes them look like a couple of kids messing around.

Camera: well, things are kind of visible most of the time. It's clearly shot on video and, often, badly so. However, it's probably the most competent element of the movie, though that's really not saying much.

Sound: poorly recorded, poorly mixed, often inaudible, background noise jumps across cuts with no attempt to disguise it; even lines of dialog are often cut short at cuts. The poor sound is probably what most makes this look like a home movie, I'm continually amazed that people will spend a few thousand dollars on making a movie but skimp on hiring a decent mike.

Boobs: yeah, a few. Two very fake ones on our 'legendary porn star', and a handful (so to speak) elsewhere. Definitely not enough to make watching the movie worthwhile.

Sets: a fair chunk of the movie is shot in probably the most unconvincing hospital I've ever seen. Obviously filming in a real hospital on this kind of budget is pretty much impossible, but a smart producer would have set the movie somewhere else instead.

Now, I would add that there were a handful of places in the movie that were actually funny, but I can't even remember what they were, which isn't a good sign. And I did think it does deserve some credit for the number of roles it gives to fat people.

Otherwise it stays resolutely somewhere between inept and just plain bad. OK, so this is a movie made for a few thousand dollars by inexperienced cast and crew, but it sure isn't a 'Bad Taste' or 'El Mariachi'.


When the FBI comes to investigate the shady dealings of a physician in a remote hospital who is attempting to resurrect the recently dead, he dumps his test subjects in a swamp. Unfortunately, his experiments have been successful and the subjects rise as zombies and attack a group of science students.

Swamp Zombies is a fun, fast moving "B" horror movie with lots of (fast moving) zombies, some decent martial arts fighting scenes, a fair amount of female partial nudity and an entertaining enough story.

The acting isn't particularly good and the dialog is a bit cheesy at times, but this is still a fun movie for those who like these low budget horrors. It's not a classy, high production values art film, but it is entertaining enough for a watch...or maybe even two.


It is not often that you find a grand movie with all the super stars plain unwatchable but K3G is one such movie. The reason is plain and simple: almost everything about this movie is fake.

The movie talks about loving your parents but throughout it is impossible not to feel that all emotions have been manufactured. There is a complete lack of realism and people seem to cry at every available opportunity.

The scene where all children at school (including British) sing the Indian national anthem is one of the worst scenes in a very long time. It was so cheap and you feel like asking what is going on?

The movie is just all gloss. There is no substance or soul.


This film can only be enjoyed by those people who can easily suspend their disbelief and without question lap up the talent-free films served up by Bollywood directors and actors. The likes of Shahrukh Khan and Kajol are worshipped by millions, yet I honestly cannot detect any signs of acting prowess or versatility.

So the main family lives in a huge mansion, gets around by private helicopter and have a fleet of Jaguar convertibles and Ferarris at their disposal. Hmmm, I can really identify with these guys. Even though in the story, this mansion is supposed to be in India, it is clearly in the UK. Amitabh Bachchan's "Indian" office is clearly Canary Wharf in London! The helicopters in India have British registrations! I mean, the directors must assume all viewers are in a vegetative state not to notice! As usual, the acting, especially from Shahrukh Khan, is way over the top and unrealistic. The way that these people behave just seems so divorced from real life, you soon start wondering whether they are aliens from the planet Jupiter.

I know that people argue that Bollywood films are a means of escapism for the many millions in India. But if other countries like China, Iran, South Korea and Argentina can make films that have a realistic message and which many more people can relate to, why cannot the Indian film industry?


Don't give in to the peer pressure to support Inferno on this board from people who claim to have a great understanding of the film and that those who don't like it just don't get it. If you read those reviews closely, many are written with poor grammar and not any real support. Take that with a grain of salt. They're just afraid that claiming to not like it will make them seem out of touch. There's nothing to get.

The reality is that Argento has done much better work. The story is a completely un-involving snoozer, the characters are bland and emotionless (as their loved ones get murdered left and right), the unintentional comedy level is high (house-cat and rat attacks, random midnight hot dog vendor killers) and the ending is one of the lamest I've ever seen. It's worth watching only if you're an Argento aficionado. Otherwise, don't waste your time.


This film is very entertaining but simply never makes any sense--like the studio hired monkeys to write much of the film. The story begins with Mae Clark and her accomplice conning some department stores out of money. However, when Clark is eventually caught (and rightfully so--she is after all a thief), she vows to destroy a man who worked for a department store that insisted she be prosecuted (Ralph Bellamy). So, as she sits in jail she spends all her energy thinking about how to hurt this one particular man--which makes no sense since they never even met in the film. Why she should hate this particular man and not the judge or prosecuting attorney or her accomplice (who pushed her into a life of crime)? And, what makes even less sense is that her plot is then so complicated! This just didn't make sense and made me a bit annoyed. After all, there were some good story elements and good actors but the plot just seemed 100% contrived.

Here is the crazy plot. Once Clark gets out of jail, she meets Bellamy and gets him drunk. Then, she produces a fake marriage certificate the next morning--which complicates his life, as he already is married--to a lady that Clark met while in prison!!! Wow, the odds of this are 68 bazillion to one! So, to avoid being arrested for bigamy, he agrees to let her lead him around by the nose and make him 100% miserable. Why didn't he immediately go to the police and report the blackmail? This is especially true since being drunk is a legitimate reason to nullify the wedding--at which point they would have found out that the new wedding was a hoax. I just hate films where people do things that no logical or reasonable person would have done. Again and again, both Clark and Bellamy react in the least logical manner imaginable. The worst is a bit later when Clark is caught committing another crime and Bellamy could have just let the police take her away--yet he vouches for her and prevents her arrest!! And, sadly, although she is evil, you KNOW that by the end of the film everything will work out perfectly--making it predictable and very formulaic. How such a cretin like Clark could become a good and decent lady by the end of the film makes no sense--especially since she worked so long and so hard to destroy Bellamy!! This all is a shame. As I said, the actors were good and with a Pre-Code title like "Parole Girl" you'd expect a lot more pizazz and fireworks--not a contrived and limp story like this one.

Despite disliking much of the film, I did like the character played by Bellamy's boss. He was a great character--well acted and fascinatingly different. He was a wonderful addition to the film and perhaps this represents a portion of the film NOT written by the monkeys!!


Non Ho Sonno, or Sleepless as it's commonly known to English speaking audiences, starts in 'Turin, 1983' where a young boy named Giacomo (Daniele Angius) has just witnessed his mother (Francesca Vettori) being brutally murdered by an unseen assailant, Chief Inspector Ulisse Moretti (Max von Sydow) promises Giacomo that he will find his mother's killer even if it takes him the rest of his life. It's now' Turin, Today' & a prostitute named Angela (Barbara Lerici) refuses to comply with her clients disgusting demands & in her hurry to leave their apartment knocks over a table out of which falls some large dangerous looking knives & a blue folder which she accidentally puts into her bag in her rush. On the train home Angela looks inside the folder & finds evidence that her client is a murder & somehow connected to the 'dwarf murders' back in '83. Angela phones her friend Amanda (Conchita Puglisi) to pick her up at the train station but Angela is brutally murdered before the train arrives, outside the station Amanda is also murdered. The current Chief Inspector, Manni (Paolo Maria Scalondro) is on the case, he talks with the now retired Moretti about the dwarf murders but finds out little except that the man thought responsible Vincenzo De Fabritiis (Luca Faglioli) committed suicide. A dancer at the 'Zoo' club named Mel (Elena Marchesini) is the next to be murdered. Giacomo (Stefano Dionisi) now lives in Rome but receives a phone call from an old friend named Lorenzo (Roberto Zibetti) who tells him that the dwarf murders may have started again. With the possibility of his mother's killer striking again Giacomo travels back to Turin where he teams up with Moretti & a friend named Gloria (Chiara Caselli) to try & solve the dwarf murders once & for all...

This Italian production was co-written, produced & directed by Dario Argento I must admit in my humble opinion this is his worst film to date that I've seen. Many hailed it as a return to form, well I'm not having any of that as this can't compare to Argento's best. The script by Argento & Franco Ferrini while Carlo Lucarelli has a 'collaboration' credit has all the classic Argento ingredients like the black gloved killer, the ultra shiny selection of knives & blades, a ridiculous plot & a few glimpses of his unique style. Unfortunately Non Ho Sonno came in a lull in Argento's career coming after his widely panned Phantom of the Opera (1998) remake. Non Ho Sonno feels like a commercial attempt at making a film that utilises what Argento is best known for but at the same time he was under pressure to make it a success, while this is undeniably a Giallo I felt that it tried to incorporate elements from American teen horror that was proving very successful at the time like Scream (1996), I know What You Did Last Summer (1997), Urban Legend (1998), Final Destination (2000) & their various sequels & imitators. The largely teenage cast that populate the film, would Tenebre (1982) been as good if it featured a cast of teens? The hip locations including a rave & local pub where one of the teens even drinks non alcoholic drink. The good looking teen hero & his girlfriend who becomes the damsel in distress & who both manage to solve the murders even though the combined efforts of the Italian police can't & check out the 'crowd pleasing' comedy scene with the dwarfs in the police station. The eventual & obligatory twist ending is flat & had little impact as far as I was concerned. Non Ho Sonno is far too slow at almost 2 hours, there are few murders & none really stay in the memory. There are brief glimpses of Argento's class, the nicely lit blue tones as Mel is killed, or the sequence when Argento's camera pans across the floor for what seems like an eternity with lots of people walking past to come to rest on the killers & their victims feet by which a few seconds later her decapitated head lands but these scenes are few & far between as although technically Non Ho Sonno is good it's all pretty bland & forgettable for most of it's duration. I even found the gore disappointing, a few cut off fingers, a graphic bullet through someones head, someone being gorily killed with an English horn, a decapitation, a pen stuck in someones temple, someone has their face bashed in & a few quick stabbings. It all sounds better than it actually is, it's very spread out & isn't particularly graphic. There is some brief full frontal nudity but nothing to get too excited about. The acting is OK but the dubbing doesn't help, Max von Sydow adds a touch of elegance & class Non Ho Sonno definitely doesn't deserve. Overall a very disappointing effort from Argento, there is very little I can recommend in this film. Watch Tenebre, The Stendahl Syndrome (1996), Opera (1987), Suspiria (1977) or Deep Red (1975) again instead & remember the good times which don't look like they'll return anytime soon...


Sleepless is the most recent work I've seen from horror master Dario Argento (Deep Red, Suspiria). I'm ashamed to mention I haven't even seen his contributions to the Masters of Horror series but I heard it's good, especially Jennifer. Before watching Sleepless, I was told Argento was back in great shape. Still I had rather low expectations. And it seems I was right. Though its opening sequence is great and so is Max Von Sydow's character, most of the movie is nothing but a below average thriller. The death scenes are quite nasty, but there's no atmosphere. The soundtrack is good, but there's nothing creepy or dreamlike about the images. It's just pure B-movie looking without emotions, good or bad. Maybe I should get over my eternal nostalgia about 70s horror. Maybe I should get over the fact that an experience like Suspiria only happens once in a lifetime (unless you buy the DVD). Maybe I should just try to appreciate this movie for what it is. But I can't. A somehow interesting film, for fans of Italian thrillers or people who love Dario Argento, but don't expect a masterpiece.


One of the most hilariously dreadful films I have seen in a very long time. The acting is wooden beyond belief, but then - there is a very little for the actors (well, I call them actors ...) to work on. The dialogue is silly: when a conspirator tries to suck up to Sheba, he says "You and I have much more in common than you may realise; you are very beautiful". The plot is absurd, too. We get two royals riding huge distances in the desert (she is not even wearing a hat), with about half a dozen attendants each. Realistic or what? Sheba even gets to lead her own horse to water when they reach an oasis: I suppose the budget didn't stretch to servants and other such inessential items. Or maybe the research department fell down on the job. Be that as it may, I spilled my coffee laughing. But I can't pretend I tried to follow the storyline, as I kept missing bits when they spoke too softly while I was laughing. Berry in particular, needs to learn to enunciate and project her lines.


I lose concentration many times while watching this movie. It's very boring, I almost can't watch till it ends. On my first thought was film like this should be on TV instead. Ha ha, I just knew it is TV movie. (I saw it on VCR in my country) The plot is so dull, I can't find anything fun in it (this is the main reason why I can't keep an eye on it) and filmography not help this movie more interesting. (it's so so, nothing fascinating)


I've seen this movie in the ORIGINAL WIDESCREEN VERSION with audiences as diverse as art house theaters, US Navy ships on deployment, and home viewing with friends, and even in the midst of sailors on 8 month deployments there was a genuine enjoyment of the plot and characters. What a shame the excellence has been completely gutted from the film by a horrible Pan and Scan adaptation. It is for such criminal efforts that whipping posts should be retained in public squares.

The movie is a period piece that is more like a Gosford Park with humor than a Pretty Woman as a Victorian costume drama. Handmade Films were ALWAYS films that "teemed with quiet fun", and this one is no exception.

However, when HALF THE SCREEN IS MISSING IT'S HARD TO APPRECIATE THE HUMOR! There's the irony of two men of the cloth talking about the soul building merit of sport, as they pass a bloody-faced 'sport' being hammered into a boxing ring turnbuckle, BUT that's all lost when you don't see the bloody-faced 'sport'. There's the maid in the house forever hovering like some dark force of unrequited passion, together with the swish-swish of her dress, BUT that's all lost when you RARELY see the maid, and you certainly don't see the expressions on her face when the action is allegedly on the other characters in the scene.

There's also the scene at the end that's been 'edited out' of recent releases of this film where the butler, Michael Hordern, ends up getting into bed with the divorced husband of the heroine of the film, Maggie Smith.

Finally, there's the absolutely ROUSING Music Hall finale, where half the screen is devoted to an obvious 'offspring' of Fortesque turning over a scrapbook that details the life of the main characters after the film ends. It's such a great scene that I've had people request to see just IT as a sort of finale to a night's worth of movie viewing.

IT'S THAT GOOD! Without these scenes and half-scenes, what was an excellent plot, full of irony and modern sympathies, is butchered.

To paraphrase Roy Batty from Bladerunner, "All those moments are lost in time, like tears in the rain" by a transfer to Pan and Scan.

If you can find a letterbox transfer of this movie, BUY IT if you enjoy the Handmade Films genre; if you like Time Bandits even though it isn't Jurassic Park.

Otherwise, the only thing to do is hope that some day, some way the 'long tail' theory of online video rental will provide it to people who can appreciate clever and interesting cinema.


Oh dear. This is a film which, contrary to initial expectations, bombed at the Box Office. Most Python fans have never heard of it, and on TV it is quietly tucked away in the late night schedules;normally sandwiched between a documentary on walruses and a Czechoslovakian cartoon.

Supposedly a "parody" on Edwardian moral values, this film looks as if it was scripted and performed by sexually frustrated public school boys (and girls). The comedy is non existent and Michael Palin has a very haunted look about him - perhaps wishing, like the audience, that he was doing something slightly more rewarding.

If you're still curious to know why this movie is so incredibly bad. Keep an eye out for on the TV.Set the video, and tape for a rainy day - a very rainy day!


The Missionary is a film that tries to be far to clever for it's own good. It attemps to be funny but very rarely achieves it's aim. There are moments that you can see are Pythonesque , and that is more down to the fact that Michael Palin stars rather than the script but over all this film is just...well..Dull. It looks very dated ( even though it is set at the turn of the century ) it looks like it was filmed in the sixties instead of 1982. The story is un-inspiring and ends as it began, with a wimper. Even if you are a Palin or Python fan i suggest you give this a wide birth. I just dont have to much to say about this because it left me bored. 3 out of 10


ok, let's start with the premise. Twin body builders, baby-sitting twin spoiled brats. Still wanna see it? You might like to know that 3 others sets of twins join up with the body builders to fight a terrorist/business/oil giant/whatever. i counted 5 sets of twins in all, how many can you spot?

more seriously now, this is truly one of the worst films ever.1/2*


What a stupid,non-funny comedy! The twins are bad in their characters and the jokes are stupid and vulgar. When starting watching a near movie, you don't have great expectations. But at the end of the movie, you think you were dreaming during the whole time...about two losers who are the twin's bodyguards. That is the story...what about the actors...They are bad too. With only one child, it would be a bit less stupid, but for this one two times more bad jokes. I give it 0out of *****.


if you want to see a film that is really bad then see this now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nothing is funny, nothing is good.I don´t think that you could make a film that is worse than this one.

RATING: 5/5,just kidding:0/5


I don't think any of what I wrote qualifies as a "spoiler", but I don't want to get blacklisted, so I checked the "spoiler" box.

Watchers is my all-time favorite book. When I found out they had done a "blockbuster" movie based on the book, I went out and rented it. About 5 minutes into the movie I turned it off. Then I put it back on and watched it. The only plus about any and all of these movies is the dogs they use. They are very well trained animals (I wonder how many dogs they used in total!) and they are gorgeous. The outsider in every one of the movies is lame, nothing like the book (and I know, if they tried to make it like the book says they would have to spend a lot of money and it still wouldn't be up to par to Koontz's imagination) but at least make him like the 3rd movie, more reptilian looking with big claws (that don't dangle!).

Anyways, if I won the lottery I would hire a team to make a mini-series (maybe for the sci-fi channel?) based WORD BY WORD on the book. The way Einstein and Travis meet, all of the k-9 human interactions; the way they meet Nora, the entire book and how it flows compared to any of the movies is just.. sad and pathetic.

So, I wish I won the lottery....


Seriously... if you have "Mein Kampf" or the communist manifesto - sit down and go through them rather then wasting time on this movie!!! It's a shame that one of the world's best fiction author (Dean Koontz) will have one of his best books turned into a movie as awful as this one. The acting is terrible, the story is so predictable and stupid (not at all like the book), and it's just BORING. All the excitement is over after 5 min. and you'd wish you had never made it to the video store...


The first "Happy Hooker" movie was actually watchable. It kept your interest fairly evenly. As for this piece of trash, it was not all that interesting, and was very horribly acted. You can't even value it for the camp value, or write it off as "well it was made in 1977". Cheesy story, and as I said the acting was less than amateur. The scenes with "The Shiek" were embarrassing, and the perpetually tanned George Hamilton as Xaviera Hollander's lawyer was awful. Billy Barty as a vertically-challanged CIA agent was just wrong. Harold Sakata was billed as Harold "Odd Job" Sakata, and his character was just as the credit suggests. Joey Heatherton looked great, but that's about it. For a film with the words "Happy Hooker" in the title, one would expect to see more nudity. Minor titilation wrapped around one badly-made movie. 0 stars out of 5.


Happy Hooker Goes to Washington (1977) was the best of the "Happy Hooker" trilogy (but that's not saying much). This time around, "The Happy Hooker" is portrayed by Joey Heatherton (who's steaming hot in this picture and the best of the bunch). This time around the "World's famous Madame" takes her act to Washington D.C. There she meets one of Hollywood's top ten mack-daddies, Mr. George Hamilton who co-stars as a Washington insider.

The film tries not to be sexy or "adult" but more campy. Joey Heatherton looks good and makes a very welcomed screen presence. The movie is okay. It's not great by any means but it's a definite improvement over the first film. The film (like

many during this time period) is extremely dated and doesn't hold very well over the past twenty some odd years. Great film if you're in the mood for some campy fun. Other than that I wouldn't go out of my way looking for a copy. The final chapter to the Happy Hooker trilogy is "The Happy Hooker goes to Hollywood".

Recommended for fans of the genre or for Happy Hooker completists.

B


Who thought the world needed a sequel to the original "Happy Hooker" film? Was the first one really that popular? Guess you had to be there. History tells us this movie was made at the tail end of the sexual revolution, ground zero in the disco era, and it shows--I can't imagine anyone being shocked by this turkey. It's also a true bridge between the first film, which was sexless TV-movie camp, and the third one, which was mindlessly dull soft-core.

Xaviera Hollander, famous hooker and now magazine magnate (oh sure) gets summoned to Washington for a trial about indecency involving...well, does it really matter? I've seen this film about 20 times since I was a kid and it would play on cable and I still couldn't tell you what it's "about." The first half is best and I usually turn it off about the time Xaviera gets kidnapped by Billy Barty (don't ask). The draw of the first half makes it all worthwhile to me, it's just berserk: Rip Taylor screaming and throwing fake snow around while photographing a topless extra from "Jesus Christ Superstar." Joey Heatherton looking beautiful and probably stoned out of her gourd, trying to act sexy and free but appearing a tad confused as to what she's accomplishing by being in this film (doesn't look like it helped her career much). A host of has-been 50's and 60's TV stars with bloodshot eyes doing cameos (Ray Walston? George Hamilton??). Bad 70's costumes and set designs, strange editing/foleying choices and enough teen-age-humor sex puns to fill a blow-up sex doll. Which is not to say it isn't entertaining--it is, I still laugh at the commercial parodies and the ding-bat sexpot stenographer who has trouble spelling a certain very naughty word (by the way...DO you hyphenate it, I wonder?)

But it's not sexy, just fyi. Despite a preponderance of exposed breasts, it's very like the first film, all innocent fun, the sex is at the level of a geeky teenager, which I was when I saw this, so it suited me fine. The second half is dull and disjointed; Xaviera has to seduce a stereo-typed Middle Eastern character and everything falls apart--they either ran out of money or everyone was zonked on drugs by the time they wrapped shooting. It just literally runs out of steam and simply stops at about the 90 minute mark.

I will always have a fond place in my heart (or somewhere) for Xaviera and her filmed exploits and so I'm glad this dumb film exists, but if you want titillation or even good exploitation you'll have to keep looking. Oh, and the new DVD transfer is absolutely stunning--talk about polishing a...well, never-mind...


I'm not one to trash other people's movies, but I make an exception when they waste an hour and a quarter of my time and return NOTHING. I'll try to be nice and say that the actors are all good, because they are, but there's no story here! Angel's father kicked him out. That's it - no need to see the movie because not much else happens. The only thing that holds your attention through any given scene is trying to figure out what the hell is going on. I spent 5 to 8 minutes at the start of each too-long scene just trying to figure out who the characters were and why they were talking to each other. Right around the time I get a clue, the scene is over and we're on to some other bit of pointless confusion. With dozens of great independent films being made (and ignored) every year, how does garbage like THIS get on HBO?


WOW!

This was a waste of film i mean i look at the previews an d thought this movie was going 2 great! Boy was i wrong , the only thing good this movie did was pay attention to details, every tiny , obscure detail until u just loss focus. It had a hardly any character development and had plot at all , just a lot of random scenes put together to make an 87 minute film . my Advice if is for anyone suffering from insomnia , THIS MOVIE WILL PUT YOU 2 SLEEP! Also The acting was a little off but with a plot like this easy to fall out of character


I only write this review to help all who are confused by what to do with your life. You can do anything you want to... except make trash like this and call it a film. Yes it was recorded on film, but that does not give you the right to claim it is a film project. Sorry if you actors who played in it ever read this, but, it was worse than horrible. This so called "movie" took a story that should have taken 3 minutes to tell, and stretched it out into 1hr and a half off scenes that were way too long. As a matter of fact, it made me wonder if half way through the first scene of this piece of ****, if the editor got sick of watching it and quit his job. There is a rule about no spoilers in these comments.... something would have had to happen in the "movie" for me to spoil. In fact... the only thing that was spoiled was the food in my stomach. It literally made me sick watching this. I am not exaggerating!!! When it finally ended, I thought I was going to have to take a knife and stab myself in the stomach to make the pain stop. I was filled with disgust and hated the human race for allowing this to even be seen by human eyes. It was pure torture. The only reason to watch it is to see how bad it really is. There were only two good things about this movie.... 1) it shows real film makers what not to do ever... and 2) it ended. I read a comment earlier about this movie being great because it was realistic and did not make up some crazy fantastical ending. First of all, no one has a life that is this boring and pointless. If you do... watch this movie so you can slice your wrist open with butter knife. You will wish you have not had to watch the "movie" to do it. Sorry people. This movie had absolutely no artistic merit. Do not mistake this for a "movie". It is a time machine that will fast forward you to the point in your life where you will want to die for making the mistake of watching it. Even after you have read all of this... if you have not seen it.... the curiosity will get the better of some of you... and you will watch it to see how bad it really is. To those of you who watch it after this.... you might want to prepare yourself ahead of time. Get a puke bucket, and the sharpest butter knife in the kitchen. Thanx for letting me rant and rave. Don't watch it. It will save your life. Now thats a review. Whew!!!


Solitaire (Carla Green) goes to an all female prison. Too bad for her (and everyone else) that a notorious serial killer known as Shadow (Tony Todd) is about to come back-along with some zombies. Also, it seems that Solitaire and Shadow are somehow connected.

"Shadow: Dead Riot" is really three kinds of movies crammed into one as an tribute to old school exploitation: Gory Kung-Fu flicks ("Story of Ricky"), Women in Prison flicks ("The Big Bird Cage") and Italian zombie flicks ("Burial Ground.") While it looks great on paper, it sadly doesn't add up. This is partly due to the fact that none of these elements feel like they go far enough. Sure, there's decent gore gags, martial arts mayhem, and lesbian action, but it all feels somewhat restrained, as if the people behind it felt nervous about going too far.

Also problematic is the acting. Erin Brown actually does a pretty good job (I would have liked to see more of her character), and Tony Todd is decent enough (even though he looks too much like an evil version of Lee "Scratch" Perry-not exactly something that will strike fear into men's hearts), but everybody else seems unrehearsed or bored, spewing forth terrible dialog and bad one liners. Finally, some of the tributes and references to past European horror movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "Burial Ground" are too obvious (though it's nice to see a horror movie that doesn't reference "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Phantasm" for a change.)

"Shadow: Dead Riot" is a movie that could have been a really fun tribute to the Exploitation movies of old. Sadly, it's refusal to go that extra mile ends up giving off that "sizzle without the steak" feeling. If you want to see a great tribute to old school Grindhouse movies, you'd be better off watching "Grindhouse."


I saw a trailer for this film at the Horrorfind Convention in Baltimore this past year, and it looked like some ode to 70s WIP exploit films with some gore and sleaze. I guess they showed all the good parts in the trailer. SHADOW: DEAD RIOT is a disappointing pseudo-exploit mess that is really no better than any other STV crap that's out there nowdays...

Tony (CANDYMAN) Todd plays some fake dread-locked voodoo guy that is a death-row killer. His daughter ends up at the same jail 20 years later, and a bunch of dumb sh!t happens. Oh- and there's a flying mutated cannibal baby...

I really got nothing' to say about SHADOW: DEAD RIOT. I was hoping for a ton of sleazy nudity and a rack of gore, and I didn't get it. There is SOME nudity, and even a little full-frontal - but I guess I set my standards a bit too high on this one. Misty (Erin Brown) Mundae makes an appearance too, which was nice - but didn't save the film. The flying mutated cannibal baby (which only makes a brief appearance) is definitely the highlight of the film. Too "by-the-numbers", not enough gratuitous sex/nudity (though there were plenty of slutty, big-jugged hos in the film...), and there were a few OK gore scenes, but not enough. A total "pass", unless you're drunk on a Sunday afternoon with nothing' else to watch...4/10


Or even D-movie? I like me a really low-to-no budget movie from time to time. Because they don't take themselves serious. This is the case here too, but still I couldn't enjoy the movie. Yes I knew the budget was tight and that there would not be so much money at hand, but seeing they could hire a martial Arts expert, for the fight scenes, makes you wonder why they didn't also spend money on a funnier script (w/o every cliché in the book)!

Although the tone of the movie is not to be serious, the main actress does take her job a bit too seriously, which contradicts the whole thing and feels stupid. So while there is one or two original things here, the overall feeling, for me was "boring"!


Bad ass phychopath, Shadow (Candyman's Tony Todd) is executed, but not before starting a full scale riot resulting in many prisoner deaths. Twenty years later the prison is now a womens' penitentiary. Focusing on the new inmate, Solitaire (Carla Greene), a tough girl who Shadow was planning to sacrifice when she was a baby, it isn't long before the zombies of the prisoners led by Shadow himself are out to finish what he started. This cheesy b-grade horror flick might have had a little promise in the beginning and I like Tony Todd, but once the film gets to the women's prison and focuses on it's inhabitants, the film becomes simply dreadfully lame, not even the shower scene or other nudity could save it from sub-par mediocrity. The film does pick up in the last 30 minutes or so, but not enough to make it watchable.

my grade: D

Eye Candy: Toy, and Aggie Valdez show tits; Misty Mundae gives full frontal; Danielle Riley shows EVERYthing; and various extras show much skin as well


If you're looking for a halfway decent women-in-prison film, look elsewhere. This one isn't campy-fun, it's campy-boring. What really irritates me is that some of the casting is excellent, with Margaret Baker just right as a predatory lesbian guard looking to enjoy the bodies of pretty female inmates like Misty Mundae and Ruby Larocca. But aside from some brief conversation, nothing remotely kinky or erotic ever happens! It's a waste of perfectly good female talent! And if you're not going to have at least one good girl/girl moment then WHY bother with a women-in-prison setting in the first place? The silly zombie plot would have been far more palatable had more attention been paid to the pretty girls-with-other-girls behind bars!


After the disappointing King horror film about a weird cult who worship crops comes the sequel. This has all the makings of a lame duck in classic 1990's style.

The same cult that destroyed the lives of adults in the first film are "rescued" and adopted by a modern American housing estate town. What this means is, plenty of adults die and He Who Walks Behind The Rows is mentioned approximately once every one minute thirty seconds and frustration ensues. Surely any god is going to be embarrassed at such a crap name, but these Amish kids are not only stupid but ugly as well.

Finding laughs with this film is like shooting fish in a barrel, albeit unintentional. Surely finding death amusing shows an unhealthy mind, but the victims in this must surely deserve death for their stupidity. A prime example being an elderly woman who's house is somehow propelled by a lift, who just happened to be misfortunate enough to become crushed by her own house rescuing her moggy. Or how about the wheelchair-bound granny that conveniently crashes through the window of a bingo hall at the shout of full house. The drinks are on him! Oh, how this movie has something against the pensioners. There's also some great acting by the church vicar who manages to patronise even the cult who worship the thing named He Who Walks Behind The Rows.

So as you can guess COTC2 doesn't really require much intelligence to watch. It's basically a rehash of COTC, with elderly people being picked off in their dozens and lots of kids reciting Shakespeare incorrectly.

2/5


If you loved the original 1984 'COTC', you may take a while to realise how awful this futile sequel is.

Reporters begin to flood the town of Gatlin where the children murdered all of their parents some years ago. The bodies are discovered and the children of Gatlin are cared for by the adults of a neighbouring town. But the adults don't realise that the children are planning another massacre.

Rather than concentrating on their acting skills, the lead males in the film (Terence Knox and Paul Scherrer) seem to be trying their hardest not to move a single facial muscle in their head for the duration of filming. The completely random death sequences in the film are there to give you a giggle at the fun death methods these mentally-challenged children use, whereas they could have just shot them.

You can actually simulate watching this film at no expense by sitting in front of a blank TV screen and repeatedly poking a finger in each eye for an hour and a half.


Although I am a horror fan I didn't enjoy the first Children of the Corn film much, so my view might be a little biased. Although having said that the movie did have its good points, the children were good actors/actresses, the violence was realistic and in moments semi chilling. Unfortunately this sequel shares none of these traits.

*spoilers*

The first death scene is quite surprising, I mean the guys are killed by corn, well that is dodgy. In the Stephen King short story the corn was there to serve as the vector for the children's pagan blood lust. They were killing to make it grow, though it is fantasy/horror it makes more sense than killer corn leaves that can smash through glass by simply being blown in a gust of wind believe me. Not only that but this scene reminds me so much of The Omen it's unbelievable, and what's with the Friday the 13th sound effects and Predator visuals? Hell this monster in the corn even has Return of the Jedi force powers!

And what's with the old woman's demise, crushed to death by her own house? Now that is quite original, and when I was first told of this by my Cousin I pictured it vividly. Someone slowly being crushed under their own house, nobody finds the body, nobody even knows she's dead, until finally the smell of muddy hair, rotted flesh and mushed bones greet the next visitor on that hot summers morning.

Maybe I was putting too much thought into this segment because yet again this is a scene ruined by cheesy references to other films. The lady goes under her house after her precious cat. When she is directly in the centre the children surround it, take the cat out and release the device raising it from the ground. The house slowly starts to come down on her and she wiggles backwards trying to escape. The children just stand there trying to look creepy, she almost gets out, why aren't they kicking her to force her to crawl back under? In the original at least the kids were violent; in this they just try to be mysterious. Well luckily for them she is too old to escape certain death and the house reaches the ground level crushing her lifeless and leaving her legs poking out from underneath. But even that isn't enough for the cheesily poor script writers, who wrote in that her last words should be "oh what a world!"? seriously they need to be slapped. All realism is thrown out the window at this point, that is if you hadn't done so already what with the Journalist mentioning in a almost tribute manner "Jones Town" just to be controversial (or maybe its just that all American news reporters are inconsiderate slimeballs) and the "killer predator in the corn" bull.

And how many times is the word "corn" used in this film anyway? Every time uttered its like a needle being drilled into my brain. Just stop already we get it.

The Dr who was being nice to the children earlier on in the film gets the worst death ever, and I mean worst, luckily he gets a lolly straight after. I wish I could tell you more but unfortunately I fell asleep, well it was 5am so it could have been that, but let's put it this way I'm an insomniac.

This film does have its good scenes, mainly when Danny is arguing with his dad, the teenage wit and angry demanding parent though stereotypical is realistic and at least gives the movie some sense of reality before it generates into the monomania of your average American teen horrorfest.

If you're a fan of the original maybe you should ignore my small analyses, it's possible you might like this. I mean the Freddy films became a bit silly, humorous, comic book and people still enjoyed them (I know I'm one of them) But the fact of the matter is, if your looking for a serious, creepy, dark horror film then your best bet is to stay away from this horrid sequel.


This time the remaining mean spirited kids are moved to a new location where they bring their usual kill-crazy antics and it's up to a tabloid journalist (Terence Knox) and his rebellious son (Paul Scherrer) to save the town from "He who walks behind the rows!" and save their love interests from sacrifice in this surprisingly watchable sequel, which is against genre odds better than it's lame predecessor. While the King story has nothing to do with the sequel, there are some entertainingly nasty scenes such as a voodoo nosebleed as well as a wheelchair smacked with a semi truck. Also as Scherrer's love interest, Christie Clark comes off very well. While Terence Knox looks like a cross between Treat Williams and Michael Pare. It's no masterpiece but for a campy horror sequel, Children Of The Corn II works as mindless entertainment.

2/5 Matt Bronson


I have to agree. What a really awful movie. This was just a poor ripoff at a time when poor ripoffs weren't as common as now.

Sigh...

The original Westworld takes a good concept and works well. The attempts to tie futureworld back to Westworld are poorly structured.

Wooden performances abound, not just from the 'robots' either.

Watch Westworld and skip the sequel.

Another reasonable pick for an odd Yul Brenner movie is an odd post-apocalyptic knife fighter flick.

Aardvaark


Worth it just to see Blythe Danner shoot herself. Or does she?!? Am I the only one who thinks Blythe Danner is HEAVILY OVERRATED?? I'm sure she's a perfectly nice person in real life. But in Futureworld she really destroys what little good there is in this movie. Seeing as there's very little good in this movie, its not much work for Blythe. The one joy is seeing the actors shoot each other. I took a little bit of guilty pleasure thinking that their dopplegangers were basically meting out some critical judgment by way of electro-laser-gun. I actually enjoyed Peter Fonda in Easy Rider. But I always wondered what destroyed his acting career (before his comeback a few years ago in Ulee's Gold). After watching Futureworld this mystery has been solved.


At least some bad movies have *something* in them that you can talk or laugh about after the fact. Some are so bad they are funny. Not Futureworld, my nominee for the worst movie of all time. I challenge you to find me a worse movie. Watching this was agony. I know its a rare sequel that matches anything like its precursor, but man, they could have copied a little of the first one--even a sex scene for cryin' out loud. It's been over 20 years, but the taste in my mouth is still bad.


I was surprised to see the wide range of opinions in the other reviews of this movie, from "terrible" to "brilliant". I go with the former. From start to finish this movie is uninspired, unfunny and just plain silly.

The plot is a weak mixture of implausible and meaningless. Apart from once or twice, I laughed _at_ the movie, not _with_ the movie. The twist at the end doesn't explain much and just makes the movie that much more random.

This is a strong contender for the worst movie I've ever seen. Totally pointless.


Perhaps I may not have understood many of the jokes that seemed to come from the anti-French sediment in the United States during the brief period this film was made, and I do mean brief. Of course the film is situated in Texas where they have to include every stereotypical character found in any other teenie bopper movie. No human being with an IQ over 40 could have written such crap, the script appears as if it was written by a few 14 yr old girls until you hear the out of place and unfunny sexual innuendos that are often said. This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen (still not as bad as Glitter though). To sum up, don't waste your money and waste your time - instead go out and get some freedom fries and American made wine.


I got this movie by doing a search of Piper Perabo movies, trying to find something as good as Imagine Me & You, which I saw her in. So far I have been striking out. This movie was no help. Perabo is awful here, with a very poor accent and bad acting. That said, there was no one else in the picture worth checking out. The script was bad. The premise was tired. We've seen it all before, done better.

But above all, this teen comedy does something that makes all other consideration moot, it is not funny. It's not even interesting! Actually, it is just annoying.

A great movie to MISS.


I must admit, I only turned on this movie because of how hot Jane McGregor and Piper Perabo are, and that's the only reason I watched it all the way through. I thought the entire plot was rather implausible; plausibility isn't a requirement for a movie, but this movie is implausible for no good reason. It has some funny moments, such as Starla's (McGregor) French exam, which got a few chuckles out of me, but a lot of things which I suppose were meant to be funny fell flat.

I say it's implausible for no reason, because it wasn't very entertaining. The whole idea of Genevieve (Perabo) taking over Starla's life isn't even one of those ideas that sounds like it could be made interesting, but maybe that's just me. Why an exchange student would come to America from France and even risk a stunt like ruining the life of one of the members of her host family is beyond me, and the movie isn't enjoyable enough to make me forget that. It's predictable, and it's not terribly smart or funny.


A bad day of movies. First, it's Dreamcatcher, which I couldn't even stand the last twenty minutes of. Now this! This is a chick flick, full of brainless nobodies (besides Perabo, what's she doin in this?), and it's a comedy. But with no laughs. The most hilarious moment would have probably been an unfunny catfight. So, this is definitely one to avoid. AVOID.


When I started watching this movie, I was confused. What the hell is this supposed to be? A comedy? A drama? Is this some surreal Bunuel-esquire flick, full of elements which get introduced then dropped just as fast...But no, it turns out it's supposed to be a comedy. Which is too bad. 'Cause this movie could totally work as a bizarre little movie, with random bits of weirdness (Ms. Beef Pageant? This is funny?) and annoying over-the-top accents. In that sense, it would've been great. But no, it's a comedy. A terrible, terrible comedy. With a plot that only begins to reveal itself an HOUR into the movie. Horrible acting by Piper Perabo. Confused genres (you're watching it thinking, is this supposed to be like Mean Girls? Is this supposed to be like Napoleon Dynamite?) on a level not seen since "Cool As Ice". Moreover, every time Piper Perabo was on the screen, I wanted to punch her in the face. She is a terrible actress and should contemplate killing herself. Avoid this movie at all costs...unless you haven't read this review. And know nothing about it. In which case, enjoy the surreality.


This insult to the 'teen comedy genre' is both formulaic and predictable. This however is no surprize, as a movie like this is not, nor should be watched for its indivuality. However, my low expectations were still too high. It offers nothing to anybody with anything resembling a normal brain capacity. The only time I smiled was when the end credits starting to scroll up the TV screen - that was a happy moment.


I frequently receive free movies passes at my place on employment so I get to see lots of movies that I normally couldn't bring myself to pay for. "Slap Her, She's French" is the type of film that I would have been very, very angry/embarrassed if I had paid to see it.

If you took every bland, unoriginal American comedy and removed the two or three funny lines you would have "Slap Her, She's French". This film is nothing but a waste of your precious time. The only positive thing about this movie is the fact that the lead actress is reasonably attractive.


This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long while and I went to see this with friends, basically it turned us into those kids you hate in movies.

The movie had no plot at all and the pointless turns which drove it about was as good as sticking a knife into a toaster whilst it's cooking. The characters were poorly acted out and very stereotypical. The scenes dragged out a lot and I really can't describe any it was that bad in taste. I'm presuming they were trying a cliché of high school angst and romance but it failed in any of those subjects.

A waste unfortunately.