"Seven Brides" seems like it spent pennies on a script, on the acting, on the film equipment and the film crew and 99% of the film budget on the seven-minute dance scene where they raise the building. Although I truly must admit it is one of the most exciting dance numbers ever put on film. But to build a whole film around one dance number is pathetic, really.

And it's only seven minutes!

Before and after that scene, everything else is just flat. Flat, flat, flat. Flatter than most actresses before they make it to the silver screen. Flatter than Roseanne's singing voice doing the Star-Spangled Banner.

Howard Keel is cool. He plays the same character in all his movies, which isn't so bad. Although I'm glad he knew to spend the better part of his career on the stage. Acting isn't his thing.

One more positive thing: The movie does have lots of color. Vivid primary colors. Costumes in Technicolor. Ooooooh!

4 stars for the dance scene.

1 star for the rest of the movie.


I think this film is schneiders worst. Of course, this depends on what you expect of a Helge movie. As a Helge fanatic for years i am used to the kind of humor of the preceding movies - loving the sometimes senseless, sometimes daffy but mostly with a subliminal critical and ironical undertone between the lines style of this intelligent musician and comedian. But this one is really different.

I was really looking forward to see the movie. When i went out the cinema, i was really deranged and couldn't really believe what i saw. There might be the thin storyline of the club, Helge and his fellows playing jazz at, being closed and Helge is forced to ensure his subsistence and so on. But in my opinion this is not enough even for this relative short movie of 84 minutes. The only thing happening is the band jamming at their jazz club, Helge selling fish and Helge carrying out newspapers. Additionally visiting the bum under the bridge and bearing his wife.

I think Helge just didn't want to miss the chance making a movie with his temporary band mates Jimmy Wood and Pete York but without really having an substantial idea of a story - so this really boring movie came out.

Nevertheless the music being played at the movie is still of high quality as we are used to from Helge. Furthermore there are indeed some funny scenes like Helge trying to get the newspapers under control in the hurricane or the alien-scene at the end of the movie.


I love Helge Schneider. I know that he is a brilliant musician, his jazz concerts are amazing and I've seen him live on stage where he combines jazz and classical music with comedy in a perfectly funny way. But this movie, although it contains brilliant jazz music, was simply boring. It does not contain any kinds of hints of a story, the whole film is about jazz, well done jazz, I have to admit. But if you like his music you should better get yourself one of his CD's. Helge once used to be hilarious, but those times are apparently over. This work was not worth watching it. But I don't care, I still love Helge Schneider!!!


Ah the early 1980's......how I miss them! The era embodied a sort of innocence which dissipated towards the end of the decade and has sadly yet to return. Who can forget the fads of the time; In music we 'bopped' along to the sounds of New Romantics, pioneering synth pop acts and additionally were blessed with a wonderful array of 'big hair' heavy metal bands. On TV we enjoyed such classics as Knight Rider, Airwolf and the incomparable, The A-Team and in cinemas we were treated to probably the best decade for horror and action movies......yes, the eighties....ah, they were the days.

There was actually another craze that swept the western world during the early part of the decade also; What was it you may ask? Why it was Ninja Mania! We just couldn't get enough of these enigmatic stealth assassins in fact. The public obsession first began proper when the Cannon Film Group released the Sho Kosugi outing, Enter the Ninja in 1984. Kosugi himself went on to a semblance of super stardom literally overnight - this despite the fact that he was actually playing the films main villain! Such was the mystique and allure that these historical figures exuded on screen. Needless to say, more ninja flicks were swiftly put into production by a plethora of film companies, each trying to out do the last and cash in on the publics apparent insatiable fixation on all things connected to the ninja. It was inevitable of course that these seemingly semi-mystical beings would break out into other entertainment mediums also. This they did in the form of numerous comic books, novels, toys, games and in the instance reviewed here, a television series starring veteran actor, Lee Van Cleef and as it happens, the by this time living legend, Sho Kosugi.

The plot concerned Cleef's character returning from Japan where he had spent years studying the ninja arts, in order to find his estranged daughter. Also along for the ride was the token wise cracking side kick (as was a somewhat unfortunate trend of the eighties....) who becomes Cleef's new student. Unfortunately, our veteran ninja is also being hotly pursued by a fellow ninja from his clan (Kosugi) who is incessantly intent on sending him to the great beyond.

Despite ninja mania in full swing at the time, the show curiously lasted for only one season before disappearing as quickly as......um.......well, a ninja in fact.

Whilst mildly enjoyable in its own right, it has to be said that the series was unfortunately hampered by its incredibly formulaic treatment. As with the vast majority of eighties TV shows, the plot was never more ambitious than to set our heroes (who just like in every other eighties show), travelling around from place to place helping out those in trouble (invariably a sexy, feisty female) from evil property developers and the like. Every now and then to spice things up, Kosugi puts in an appearance and it's no coincidence that these episodes are the best of the series which sans his presence is somewhat pedestrian at best.

For a bit of nostalgia or else those still desperate for a fix of anything ninja related the series is probably worth a look as long as you don't set your expectations too high.


Found this film under Cinema Classics and was very disappointed with the entire film or TV Series film which lasted with only two episodes. The only reason this film might have interested the film viewers was Demi Moore who is a daughter to The Master (Lee Van Cleet) and was missing from her dad for many years. The Master enlists the help of a young man (Timothy Van Patten) whom he trains in the martial arts so the both of them will be prepared to defeat the kidnappers. However, The Master and Timothy are unaware that a deadly group of Ninja assassins are on their trail. Demi Moore made a few brief appearances and gave a few quick kisses to Timothy, there was some action, but nothing to write home to mom about.


Writer-director Jean-Jacques Beineix's film follows the sad life of Betty and her lover Zorg. From the steamy beginning of their relationship to the bitter end, we share in their heartache. This story has tragedy written all over it.

"Betty Blue" fails to captivate though. In fact it only succeeds in repulsing due to the ugliness of the central character. Betty is such a crazy wench that you never know whom she might attack next. It is thus very hard to sympathise with her, or any other of the rather uninspiring characters.

Having said this, Beatrice Dalle is superb as the severely disturbed Betty, and Jean Hughes-Anglade lends strong support as "writer" boyfriend Zorg. Additional cast add extra weight to the acting credentials. Cinematography from Jean-Francois Robin is top notch, as is the original music from Gabriel Yared which is just that, fresh and different. Beineix presents the production well, but is unable to win us over. Phillippe Djian's novel could be intriguing.

Sunday, February 22, 1998 - Video


i saw the 185 minute version and maybe that's why i don't give it a higher review...i don't agree with Roger Ebert's take on this but i do think it's way over rated...the acting is good enough and the settings, hues, rooms, buildings, camera work etc. are spectacular and beautiful to look at...the couple's relationship gets to be a drag to watch...one, no nuttier than they other...if he cared about her he would've come up with a shrink or something...i felt, after awhile, the thing was too contrived...i heard one reviewer say Betty Blue is great and Million Dollar Baby was lousy and i wished i hadn't read that dude because he told the ending...at least this is a spoiler...i think Betty Blue is OK but Million Dollar Baby light years more enjoyable and moves along telling lots more in the time alloted...this is a pretty film, a slow film, well acted and put together...the story is contrived too much...a different, but same, Cuckoos Nest...it's a comedy at times cutting itself up i think...some of the characters , at times , 'over acted'...i enjoyed it though.


The most important and interesting part of this movie is probably the 3D animation. And clearly, it is very professional and able to compete with other animated movies or scenes.

But I don't understand why the rest of the film is so unprofessional: not only are some technical assumptions, such as the stability of a DC-10's nose gear, highly uncertain, the characters, acting and music are very poor, too. It should have been possible for the producers to find a competent actor or actress for the driver, or to find or compose better music.

The fact that 405 is an action movie don't make interesting characters unnecessary. And the comedy is somewhat over-used.

Watch the movie, but, except for the animation, don't expect much.


Pretty bad film with George Sanders and Lucille Ball starring. Their chemistry is about non-existent. This is supposed to be a murder thriller and for a change there is absolutely no violence shown as 7 women fall victim to a mysterious killer.

Charles Coburn is the inspector of Scotland Yard yet he has no British accent. Lucille Ball plays a dancer doing odd jobs who works as a decoy for the Yard when one of her friends mysteriously disappears and eventually shown to fallen victim to this maniacal killer.

Ball is essentially Lucy without the laughs. Despite what others say, she shows absolutely no dramatic flare here at all. I expected Ethel and Fred Mertz to intervene at any time to save the day.

It becomes so obvious who the killer is. Sir Cedric Hardwicke, who was so good in "The Ten Commandments" and memorable as Henry Cabot Lodge in "Wilson," looks like a real odd-ball here.

The ending is predictable even with Sanders, the lover of Ball, in the film confessing guilt to draw the real killer out.


The director & co-screenplay writer Jean Jacques Beineix must of thought he was the French personification of the director of Heaven's Gate, which we know or should know was an overlong indulgent movie.

La Lune Dans Le Caniveau (The Moon is in the Gutter) is of the same cloth,pretty at times to look at but mostly grim needless artless & uninteresting. A better translated title would be The Moon is in the Sewer. it is that dreary & boring.

Now this does have a very well known cast of 1983 & still are known today. Gerard Depardieu was 35 when this was made & he sure was very handsome & sexy. Victoria Abril was very young,sexy and very beautiful.The same goes for Nastassia Kinski.

These three fine talents do NOT rise above the base script.

This is a very long 138 minute film, I have heard that the director (like Cimino) had a much longer movie. The film may have been a good movie at about 80 minutes.

Ratings: *1/2 (out of 4) 42 points(out of 100)IMDB 3 (out of 10)


When I read the jacket on the videotape, it sounded like an interesting story. A guy's sister is raped and he can't get over it and continues looking for her assailant. However, that really isn't what the movie was about. While it is true she is raped and he talks about finding her attacker, so much of the movie just seems banal and pointless. Along the way, we are shown a variety of naked women and images that MIGHT be true (or a dream or who knows),...but none of it really adds up to anything. While some might find it surreal and artsy, I just found it boring and a real drag. It's a shame, too, as the movie stars Gerard Depardieu--his talents are pretty much wasted, as anyone could have sleep-walked through the movie as they had his character do.


Dreary and very slow. Almost pointless. There maybe something here, but that would be a real stretch. A game between the socio-economic classes: the have's and have-not's. Pseudo-psychological? Is it possible that Nastassja falls for a male bimbo? It is no wonder that this film will probably never see the light of day in a DVD format. The darkish, grim European dock/waterfront slightly lightened up a bit by a red convertible car, driven by Nastassja.


I was unfortunate enough to be exposed to this abomination at a film festival recently. I don't know who Bruce Bickford is, but somewhere, an asylum is missing an inmate. This guy's claymation art, while skillfully done and painstakingly detailed, is truly disturbing. The images are almost unbelievably violent and gory; little clay torture chambers, be-headings, disembowlings, and other atrocities are performed on the inhabitants of his claymation universe. God knows the stuff isn't suitable for kids, and even some adults would be turned off by the sheer enormity of his violent, surreal and grotesque work. On another level, the film is just plain, well, bad. A documentary is supposed to educate and inform; this film really does neither, and instead is a simple collection of "interviews" with Bickford in his home, expounding on matters metaphysical and real, all interspersed with snippets of his claymation films. I was left feeling that I knew little about Bruce Bickford, and didn't want to know more.


If you see the title "2069 A Sex Odyssey" in the video store, BEWARE!! The cover has Tori Wells and three other "80's" porn stars, and has a copyright of 1986. If you're like me (and I hope you're not) you'll think "80's porn? Tori Wells? Alright!" Trickery!! It was made in 1974 and has dubbed German stars! There's nothing inherently wrong with 70's German porn, but it's not my cup of tea, and it's nothing like what the cover leads you to believe you're getting. Once I got past my rage about the blatantly misleading jacket, I watched it anyway. It's a bad, bad movie. Sorry, I guess I didn't really get past the rage.


This movie will leave most Israelis depressed. It follows the journey of two Israeli losers who can't catch a decent break. It is hard to laugh at their misfortune, since anyone who lives in Israel is surrounded with millions of these people. Why pay money to see misfortune and suffering? Just look out your window or take the bus to town. And if you are a non-Israeli, the humor in this movie (if any) is in the snappy dialog which does not translate well in the subtitles.

Another central theme of the movie, the Holocaust, does not cheer the movie up any either. This theme, which has been rehashed in a Zillion other films, is milked for all the shmaltz it can muster. For example, why would a child of Holocaust survivors have flashbacks of concentration camp train rides and arrests. This does not ring true to me at all (and I am a son of Holocaust survivors).

This might be a good movie to show in Israel on Holocaust Memorial Day as it would leave a somber and depressing effect on its viewers. But as entertainment? Forget it, this movie offers none.


... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10


There isn't one decent scene.

Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well.

Then the dialogue is also crap.

Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them...

Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?

Lame.

The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.

And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?

Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid.

There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.

After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera.

The end...

Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.


If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.


Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.


They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.


Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.


Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.

The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.

Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.

There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.

This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.


I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.

The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...

They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...


The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...

1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.

3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.

I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.


This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.


I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.


From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.


What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.

The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.

The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.

I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.


When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)

Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form.

I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)

One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class.

As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.


Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.

All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.


I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.


This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.


Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.

The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!!


This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!

While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).

Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3.


There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter.


Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.

I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.

Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!


I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.

Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.

Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.

This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.


I don't usually write a comment when there are so many others but this time I feel I have to. I have spoken of taste in another review, saying it's all in the eye of the beholder but when it comes to this film, if you like it, it simply means you have bad taste.

I love films. I loved "Isle of the Dead" which is pretty much an unknown B&W film. I even liked "Scream" and "Scary Movie" I liked these films because they have, if not a lot, at least something good about them. I appreciate 99.9% of the films I've seen because they tell a story which I haven't heard before, and most directors only make films with a good storyline. Throughout this film I was thinking "Where is this going?" (even near the end) "Where did they get these awful actors from"? "Was that supposed to be a joke?" and suchlike. With the obvious twist looming I was sceptical, but hoped it would perhaps "make" the film and prove I hadn't wasted my time. I was sadly mistaken. The storyline was bad to begin with and the twist actually ruined any glimmer of hope there was. Here's a rundown: Storyline  much like the first film, which was alright, this one is slow and sparse with no audience relation to the characters or the situations. The situations are cringeworthy and shallow and completely boring and predictable. The twist was terrible, it didn't make me feel a thing, like excitement or WOW. Just "My GOD." There was nothing in the bulk of the film that you could look back to and think "Oooo wasn't that clever" because it wasn't. In "Fight Club" there are flashbacks at the end showing bits where Tyler's true identity was cryptically shown, and when you watched it again you saw more, it really was a work of genius, how it was written, laid out and directed. This was a meaningless attempt at an awesome twist. I think it was "wild things" that had like a pretty poor double twist and I still liked the film because the rest was OK and it wasn't trying too hard to be a big twist. Its like the CI2 writer thought it was gonna be the best twist ever. But really, its just a bad story with a bad twist dumped on the end. The film ended almost immediately afterward, with the whole film void by Sebastian's whole story build up meaning nothing and a horrible half forced, paedophilic ending with a particularly young and innocent acting girl. Acting  the actors in this film are appalling. Almost as bad a "Sunset Beach." - Extremely corny and badly performed. It's not even so bad it's good like "Hunk". The worst acting I thought came from Amy Adams who played Kathryn, it was a rigid, pathetic and badly thought out performance by her. Robin Dunne was also poor. I haven't seen "American Psycho II" yet, but no doubt his laid back "cool" style has ruined that film also.

I can't even say it is a good film for teens, as its not. If my son or daughter liked this film I'd be ashamed. But they wouldn't anyway, as they would take into consideration all the things that make a good film, which this film has none of. Really. I'm disappointed that some have said "you might not be in the age bracket for this film, and so dislike it" I like all the films now that I liked as a teen and had very good taste. Also, do you really think that when you reach 20+ you suddenly don't like any teenish story lines? No. I liked "Mean Girls" and other generic teen films, and watch "Beverly Hills 90210" all the time. There's no excuse for poor directing, acting and screenplay I'm afraid. Besides, I was 16/17 when I first watched it. If anything, being older just makes you a better judge of a terrible film. I can't believe anyone can give it 10/10 either, one of my favourite films is "Memento" and I gave it 9 as I know there can be better. It is a shame for this site that people do that, give 10s flippantly, or don't get the films/show, and so give it 2.

Anyone who liked this film really should vary their taste, and perhaps their lives, and with this realise that this is the worst film EVER made. (worse than "Loch Ness")

If you aren't a teenager with bad taste, or simply don't have bad taste you will absolutely hate this film.


Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE!

If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH!


Films need to stand alone. No sequel should work where one needs to see the first to understand the second; the work of the director is to allow first time viewers to understand their goals, missions, and tones of the film without forcing more money out of their hard earned pockets. Not the case here. From the beginning we are pushed into the lives of these four, sometimes three, mostly two, teenagers that love nothing more in life than to talk about sex, getting married, past boyfriends, and historical moments in the past. The problem with this film, where it faults immediately, is that there is no future. Nobody cares about consequences or decisions, and there is no authority there to stop them. Sure, this was 1965, the times had fewer boundaries, but Wilson doesn't give us this. She allows her girls to have free reign and control, and thus the story becomes disastrous. To begin, we have no characters. There were no developed characters at all in this film. Through monotone voices, staged lines, and unrehearsed moments, we follow these girls as they leave college, head to Oregon, and suddenly into California. No parent worries, money doesn't seem to be an issue, reality happens to float right out the window. One would think witty dialogue would follow, but it doesn't. Nothing of value occurs with out characters, because they give us nothing to care about. A review quotes Margaret Langrick's performances as "Sandy Wilcox" as charming, but to me, she was utterly dull. None of these characters has any emotion when they spoke, they were all dried up, and nobody (the actors nor the director) seemed to care. It was the 1960s, I guess anything was possible.

Moving past the characters, one would hope that the story would venture at least a spark of interest, but not with "American Boyfriends". Having nearly found myself ill with the characters, the story had me running to the bathroom. Nothing was cohesive. I have used the word "nothing" quite a bit, but it is because all other words escape me. Nothing of value happened in this film. In one scene we were driving to a wedding, no money, no cares, and the open road ahead of us. Then, we are getting gas, eating dinner, getting our hair done, and living the pampered life. Then we are at the wedding, cousins flirt, the driest best man (another sore moment for the film) attempts to talk, couples unite, others break apart, and free cars are given out to those that whine the most. Then we are in California, looking for surfers, finding freeloaders, drinking, listening to music, crying about the war, and talking to a guy named "Glider" who apparently loves hotdogs. Tragedy happens; we are back to Canada, and rushing the boarders. All in a days work -- but not for me. Nothing of value happened outside of what I just mentioned. There are no characters, no stories -- not one reason for this film to even exist. My toes wouldn't even tap at the music because it seemed cliché and overused. It didn't reflect the situations that our pseudo-characters were going through. It felt as if Wilson wanted to make a film, throw in several of her own favorite songs, and keep her friends from films past  not actually make a strong, memorable body of work. Most of the time I can find at least one positive comment to make about a body of work that a team spent blood and tears on, but with "American Boyfriends" nothing comes to mind. It was a stale piece of bread hoping to find out that lighting does strike twice, but alas, the weatherman called for clear skies.

Overall, I cannot suggest this little film to anyone. There is a reason why it hasn't seen the DVD light yet, and it would be a waste of disc space if it miraculously did. The characters were unmotivated, boring, staged, random, and sprinkled with a bit of amateur night on top. They were not professionals and only added to the diminished quality of the film. The story was non-existent. There was nothing, outside of what I could summarize in two minutes that made this film stand out in my mind. It was as if Sandy Wilson didn't know how to make a movie, or that there wasn't any script, just money and a map. Focus on the direction and characters, no matter the power of the story, and still something will stick to the audience. There was nothing of value at all. The music, of which this film prided itself on (i.e. see the sticker on the box) was horrendous. It completely missed the direction of the story. It felt like I was watching "Good Morning Vietnam" set to opera music  it just didn't work. There is nothing positive to say about this film. It is a blemish on both the Hollywood name as well as the word "sequel". I cannot suggest this film to friends or family, nor even to Sandy Wilson. It was rushed, trite, and completely incomplete. Whomever thought these girls could act, were horribly mistaken. Skip this one please, for the sake of your family  you will live a happier life.

Grade: * out of *****


This movie stunk. For those of you Nicholas Lea fans out there who are trying to get ahold of this movie because it's listed on his credits and you can't find any information about it anywhere...look no further. Nick has about 15 seconds TOTAL screen time and about one barely audible line. This movie is not worth sitting through...even for Nick. The characters seem contrived, the story is rushed, and it becomes increasingly hard to sit through it as time passes. Honestly...pass it over on the shelf, and get something better.


Words cannot describe how terrible this "film" is. I would honestly rather watch House of the Dead four times in a row than ever sit through this garbage again. The girls are hot, there are couple of steamy, but brief, lesbian sex scenes -- but they are not worth a rental or even the time it would take to skip to them on an online copy of the film. The acting from Marc Senter (The Lost) is excruciatingly horrible and the filmmakers just wasted his talent. The plot makes no sense and I can't tell if they were trying to make the film comical or disturbing. It is NOT disturbing in the least and if it was supposed to be comedic, a film about a transvestite spewing "Yo Momma Jokes" for the entire runtime would be more entertaining and humorous than WICKED LAKE. The cinematography in the film is terrible and it looks like the director forgot to clean the camera lens because there are an alarmingly vast amount of noticeable water marks in certain scenes and the picture is washed and incredibly grainy. The acting is beyond awful, the score is OKAY, the plot (I stress that word) sounded cool, but the movie is not. What's even worse is that the filmmakers actually think they made a good movie, which they didn't. (At least they were kind enough to spare us with the numerous fake IMDb accounts tactic claiming this to be the greatest horror film ever made.) It looks like anyone can make a film these days, so grab your friends, any object that has a camera, and get to work!

THE WORST MOVIE OF 2008, HANDS DOWN.

A complete waste of $17 & and hour and a half.

AVOID AT ALL COSTS.


Send 4 smart ass babes who interact all lesbian with each other for no real reason to a cabin in the middle of no where. Send 4 creepy Texas Chainsaw Massacre type guys to the cabin so they can torture them! Gross shock and blood peppered with attempts at humor. BUT WAIT! The lezbos are vampire witches!?!? YAY! LET THE REVENGE BEGIN!! Throw in a couple of Hillbillies and 2 Keystone cops, dicks getting bitten and shot off an you have the perfect blood and babe gore fest! I feel sorry for all the actresses (and some actors) involved. I now know people will agree to ANYTHING to get a credit on IMDb. Marc Senter as Caleb was very good. (wished his character was in it longer) and kudos getting Al Jourgensens music and some of the special effects (head in microwave for example)...but other than that.......Unless you are a crew or cast member STAY AWAY!


Wicked Lake is frankly just a horrible and boring movie. The cast of young women is attractive but the characters are too shallow to care about and the so-called psychopaths are just stupid. i truly hate this film and I hope that there is never a sequel to it. very boring junk with a slick poster and DVD cover to lure in audiences. such a waste of time. i can't believe how bad it turned out to be. stay far away from this movie!!!! also there is a scene where a feminine dude literally cries (while running) at the camera for five whole minutes and you my mouth was open the whole time in shock. ughhhh!!!!!!

Score: 0.5/10


I agree with the other posters on this title, it is truly dreadful. The lesbian sex is not arousing and very dull. I'm not very sure what this film is about because there is not much of a continuous story. Robin Sydney is gorgeous and the only part that I enjoyed in the film. She is killed early on so we don't see much of her. Terrible settings and bad camera angles. I didn't care about any of the characters and the acting was horrendous. Everyone involved should best leave it off their resume and I am still angry for wasting the time and cash to see it. How this got a distribution is truly a shock. The poster is awesome but the movie isn't.


I gotta be honest when going in to this film i was expecting not much but i at least thought it would have been a half decent cheesy horror movie with plentiful nudity there was in fact a lot of nudity but in this case it did the film no help. The women in this are beautiful but that is the only thing this film has going for it. The character development was terrible the direction was all over the place and the acting is probably some of the worst i have ever seen in anything plus add shoddy camera work and you have the likes of wicked lake even though there are some nice nude scenes there just anit nothing here i can recommend this is seriously bad. Just my opinion


Unbelievable that a movie this amateurish even got a decent release, I purchased this clunker at Best Buy. How does this kind of thing even get released? Simple plot about vacationing girls "molested" by local redneck punks is needlessly complicated by boring supernatural twist and "cops" on their trail.

Long, boring, and tedious with a coupla gore FX thrown in from Halloween Express, this thing looks like it was shot on VHS tape or a low pixelated DVD-R camcorder.

The tone- unbelievable! Was it a comedy? An Ed Wood attempt? Or was all the stupidity accidental? One minute it's serious, one minute it's slapstick, the next...who knows, it's just completely confusing.

The lead gals are lookers and the nudity is nice, but they aren't into their parts or the "lesbian" scenes enough to make it worth your time.

I'm floored the lead singer of MINISTRY contributed some halfway decent music to this production, or the camcorder makers just stole it, synced it up, and put his name on it.

Ineptitude of the highest order, I certainly hope this team of wannabes does not embark on any more ventures, pleeeeeze, I wrote all your names down so I will avoid all future projects each and every one of you "behind the sceners" are involved in.

WICKED LAKE gives horror flicks...camcorder flicks...and underground movies...the cliché negative reputation it deserves because so many hacks hawk up luggies like this smegma.

Stay far away from this thing, and shame on FANGORIA magazine for giving the camcordermakers so much publicity! Shame on everyone involved for making such crud! I'm telling you, you can't imagine how inane this thing is til ya try to sit through it...Ugh!


Some directors make films that go on to become cult classics. On the flip side, you have lazy, untalented hacks who desperately want their films to be viewed as cult classics and think they can accomplish this by making everything as loud, vulgar and obnoxious as humanly possible while populating their already annoying movie with jerks and weirdos who scream moronic comments at each other from beginning to end. It's about the cinematic equivalent of a 5-year-old brat having a screaming tantrum in hopes that someone out there actually cares. And that brings us to WICKED LAKE, an embarrassingly awful ADD horror-comedy from some guy named Zach Passero. It was written and co-produced by Chris Sivertson, who made multi-Razzie winner I KNOW WHO KILLED ME starring Lindsay Lohan, which actually looks like a genre masterpiece in comparison.

Things begin with a nude model posing for some nerd who speaks in an annoyingly forced Michael Jackson-like girlish whisper tone. She goes home, he follows her, gives her a painting of a unicorn, basically makes an ass of himself and runs home crying while some horrible cover of the horrible song "Bang a Gong" plays over the credits. Then we get a brief glimpse at the home lives of both the model and the nerd. The nerd lives in a cartoon-like abusive household full of obnoxious men who beat each other up for no reason and SCREAM idiotic childish insults instead of having a normal conversation. Every single one of them seems retarded and/or unhinged. Yeah, this is real hoot so far... The model is a lesbian who lives with three other lesbians, none of whom have any notable characteristics that set them apart from one another or make them the least bit interesting. But as we all know, any time you get four inexplicably hot lesbians together they just can't seem to keep their hands off one another, which leads to a slow-motion group sex scene that lasts several minutes. Cause that's just what all lesbians do in their free time when they aren't fixing cars or playing softball.

The four lesbians then head out on some sort of vacation and basically prove to be boring, unlikable bitches on the way to their rented lakeside cabin while another horrible cover (this time of "Radar Love") plays. When they stop at a gas station, Angela Bettis is seen exiting a bathroom. Thanks for stopping by Angela. Don't know why you bothered, but we appreciate the effort.

The ladies finally arrive at their destination for some HOUSE ON THE EDGE OF THE PARK-style unpleasantries. The nerd and his obnoxious, ugly male relatives use their apparent psychic abilities to find them. So the guys break in, overact, scream and act like obnoxious attention-starved cretins while holding the ladies at gunpoint and forcing them to do things they don't like, such as cleaning up a puddle of puke on the floor. One of the ladies gets her ass smacked with a belt before being forced to work the wheelchair-bound patriarch's "nub." I think this is supposed to be funny. But it's really not. At all. Unless you're about 11 years old. And since it's all so poorly directed, acted and written, it's not the least bit disturbing or horrific either. Just dull, unconvincing and tedious.

Naturally the ladies get to turn the tables on their attackers and are revealed to be blood-drinking vampires... or something. Maybe demons. Or succubi. Or I guess they could be werewolves since the full moon sets them off and they growl every once in awhile. I couldn't really tell what they were. Maybe they said at one point and I just didn't care. They like blood and human flesh. And making out and rubbing up against each other while covered in blood. Since the main portion of the film is hardly enough to adequately fill 90 minutes (despite having no less than three music montages thrown in), there are completely pointless and boring scenes features detectives tracking the girls. One is played by Tim Thomerson, who has nothing of interest to do. To extend the running time even more, this resorts to several of those trendy prolonged 'torture' scenes a la HOSTEL where the victim is tied down and taunted/terrorized a bit before being killed. Zzzz. Gimme a break.

The dialogue and acting are all beyond terrible, and not in an amusing B-movie sort of way. Every time a horror scene begins it's accompanied by an extremely annoying and clichéd metal guitar riff that's as bad as the rest of the soundtrack, which includes a clueless screechy metal redo of "It's a Wonderful World" over the end credits that fits in with the tone of the rest of this garbage. I usually give films with some blood and nudity at least a 3 because I think those aspects might redeem a film somewhat or give it some exploitation/guilty pleasure cred but this garbage doesn't really deserve any extra credit.


Four lesbian girlfriends go on vacation to a lakeside cabin getaway only to be accosted by Caleb, an extremely shy classmate of one of the girls, and his incredibly horny dysfunctional family. The chicks aren't damsels-in-distress for long as when they decide to get revenge, all hell breaks lose.

Some editing and pacing issues hamper the movie from being as good as it seems to have wanted to have been, as does a lack of sympathy for any of the characters, and a tired lame sub-plot involving two cops who are merely obvious cannon fodder. The highlight of the film for me was less what was going on in the movie and more the great soundtrack score via Ministry's Al Jourgensen, which I just hoped would be in a better movie.

Eye Candy: Carlee Baker, Eryn Joslyn, Eve Mauro, and Robin Sydney all provide T&A (Robin I saw topless before in "Big Bad Wolf", the other three are baring for the first time) There's also nudity in some of the extras (noted with an asterisk)

My Grade: D+

DVD Extras: Optional Intro by Al Jourgensen; commentary with Director Zach Passero, Actresses Robin Sydney, Carlee Baker, & actor Justin Stone; 19 & a half minutes of bloopers & deleted scenes*; photo gallery; Advanced trailer* & theatrical trailer* for this film; and Trailers for "The Oracle", "Love me deadly"*, "Blood Sisters", & "Witchery"*


if you like lots of pointless female nudity and lesbian scenes,this could be your movie.but if that's the case,there is always porn. here's really nothing much else of value here.no coherent story.(and speaking of porn,the story might even be better).pointless,gore,lame dialogue.the whole thing is one big long boring mess.with no real beginning,middle or end.not only is there no conceivable story,there also a pointless non subplot that attempts to tie into the main non story.i can't see who the target audience would be for this particular movie.but everybody has their own different taste.however,this is added to my list of worst movies i have ever seen.this gets the big goose egg.definitely not recommended.but then,what do i know? 0/10


I have to give the Film Makers props on this one. They had one HELLUVA Producer to sell this script. It honestly saddens me, that I, as a film maker, have to work so hard to get financing for a Project that has been deemed, "The Pulp Fiction" of Zombie movies. Another script reader stated they don't even like horror films, but they would watch "The Z Memoirs" once it is made.

I just pray that once The Memoirs is made, that the Makers of WL watches it to see what an Intelligent Horror film is like.

With the cast we have, and the Production staff, yeah, we have DP's from Dreamworks signed on, I'm sure this will be one to remember...

What film was I on here commenting about again...? lol


the entire movie seems like it was an attempt to get a few girls naked. the plot is horrible. the acting is worse.

looks like it was filmed on the cheapest camera available. the soundtrack was the best part of the flick, and even it wasn't that great. i'd rather have my eyes gouged out than be exposed to the shittiness of this movie again.

i regret paying the price of the rental. it was like paying to be insulted. over and over again.

if i had wanted porn i'd have stuck to the internet. to be honest, i could probably find a better quality movie on youtube.

i sincerely hope that no one ever pays to see this movie again. i hope even more that no one ever gives the hacks that made this piece of crap enough money to make another movie ever again.

i've seen better from first year film students.


A terrible attempt to cash in on the success of A Man for All Seasons, this is a very overlong and boring film. Richard Burton, always a wooden film actor, overacts like never before as Henry VIII. His horrid, raspy chain smoker's voice is all wrong for the part - cigarettes didn't even exist in the 16th century. Burton is also too old for the part, he was only 43 during filming but looks more like 50. I wasn't surprised he was amazed to receive yet another undeserved Oscar nomination for this garbage, not only is the film so terribly acted by its elderly cast but there is nothing good about Burton's awful performance at all. Unsurprisingly, the film was an enormous flop on release. Forget about watching this crap, stick with A man for All Seasons instead starring Paul Scofield, an actor who (unlike Burton) actually had talent and could act.

0/10.


This is a light-hearted coming of age story that manages to succinctly weave the dark undercurrents of bad parenting into the mini-adventure. Centered around 2 siblings, Josh & Sam is a very charming and watchable family film peppered with some good, funny moments, that should raise a chuckle or two.

Constantly being shipped from back and forth, between their divorced parents, takes it's toll on Josh and Sam and eventually reaches breaking point when their mum decides to marry and live in France for a year with a French guy. Leaving them with no option but living with their father and his new family. For Simpson fans, their fathers character bears an uncanny resemblance to Ned Flanders without the moustache. You're just waiting for him to say okily-dokily.

The older of the two siblings invents an outlandish story and persuades his younger brother, whose character was brilliantly delivered by Noah Fleiss, to go on the run together heading for the "sanctuary" of Canada to avoid been sent to Africa as a child warrior. Of course the younger Sam swallows the story hook, line and sinker and off they go meeting up with the, exceedingly delicious Libert Maid, Alison (Martha Plimpton) along the way.

Josh & Sam reminds me of the Irish movie called "Into the West" which managed to weave some old Irish myths and legends into the story. Both are charming and both are watchable. Both are not the sort of films that I would pick out of a a rental store shelf, but, if you stumble across them on TV both have great child acting performances. Both Tierney and Fleiss carry this with a little help from Martha Plimpton.


Josh(Jacob Tierney)and Sam(Noah Fleiss)are brothers upset with the news of their parents splitting. They cope with taking off on the road and meeting up with the affable Martha Plimpton. This movie is scattered with comedic situations, but not enough to make for a memorable movie. Also in the cast are: Stephen Tobolowsky, Joan Allen and Chris Penn.


The earliest sounds films tend to be weak, awkward, and more interesting for historical reasons other than entertaining. This is a classic example. "Feet first" strikes me as quite weak, and Harold Lloyd is one of my all time favorites.

Here, our man is a shoe salesman who tries to move up in his business. The humor and gags drag like lead, and if you have this on DVD you will skip a number of scenes trying to get through it. There is one mildly amusing moment where HL practices public speaking pounding his fists and waving his hands with a ridiculously pompous pontification "If it weren't for shoes, we'd all be---BAREFOOT!" But things don't get really funny or interesting until the skyscraper-climbing scene reminiscent of SAFETY LAST. That's well done. As for Willie "Sleep & Eat" Best as the hapless janitor trying to help Harold during his predicament, his character was WAY too stupid (such as the "hose scene") and it is horrible to hear the beloved Lloyd refer to this African-American comic as "Charcoal," (especially when one considers that Lloyd is usually kind and polite to Black and other nonwhite characters in his films). Admittedly, the fact that Lloyd and Best become equally scared at the sight of the gorilla (as was the case with Lloyd, Sunshine Sammy Morrison, and the supposed ghosts in "Haunted Spooks") takes SOME of the edge off the stereotype.

In either case, this is only for hardcore Harold completists. Casual fans will want to stick to GRANDMA'S BOY, SAFETY LAST, WHY WORRY, etc.


not only does this film manages to have no plot, it also has some of the most awful dialogs i've seen.

certainly, the story may offer some potential, but i can't help the idea that someone threw a few clichés into a pot and tried to obtain a film (?) out of it.

from the start one can tell it's going to be a very amateur film, but as the film develops, we realize even the production is amateur - the scenes that should be happening at approximately the same time are filmed in what seems different time spaces (i can't tell how many days have passed, as time passed differently for the different characters) and the effects can't even be called "special"...

i'd like to say that the actors tried to save this production, but it never happened, they just got lost within the absence of plot.

save your time and watch something else instead.


Some college kid reporters go off in search of a hidden ghost town called Acheron. Naturally they find a bit more than they bargained for. After a good start the movie gets pretty bogged down. During the first half it's kind of hard to figure out much about what's really going on, it just plain jumps around too much. There are flashbacks that don't really help since they just sort of pop up out of nowhere. The last half hour or so picks up nicely as people are getting knocked off left and right in very violent fashion. You're gonna have to watch this sucker twice to actually enjoy this flick. That way you'll have some idea where the plot is going. Watchable if you like blood and guts. I give it a four out of ten for gore.


I was the principal cinematographer* on EVIL'S CITY ( credit omitted from the film at my insistence for countless reasons although it still shows up on IMDb.com ). My comments herein are based on my own observations and understanding, and of course, opinion, all of which some might consider incorrect.

The filmmaker, a very nice guy and noted industry attorney ( hence my above disclaimer ), had sincere intentions of a quality project and a hip, entertaining moralistic tale; like so many first-timers stifled by lack of time, money, and other factors, the result was clearly otherwise (in my humble opinion).

Originally budgeted at $20,000 ( I was told ), I refused the project repeatedly but finally agreed to lens the film ( my last favor for anyone, ever ) after meeting the cast and hearing the filmmakers detailed cinematic vision. The budget swelled to over $65,000 ( raised by a lead actor and another individual who "purchased" a small role ) ; most of the dollars were spent solely on "panic" last minute location expenses associated with complete lack of any discernible pre-production accomplishments. I know it wasn't spent on catering.

Ironically, the main "City" street in the film, thankfully a ghost town in the story, was a movie-ranch set used in countless films and TV shows; it was almost impossible to shoot, as there was no provision for requested lights or power ( the filmmaker insisted that there was power on the street; he did not realize the 3/4 scale power poles were strung up with rope, not electrical wire... they were props, like everything else, miles from civilization). A mere few thousand watts of tungsten light on hand and a construction generator were provided ( hence the completely dubbed or inaudible portions of the soundtrack and the mostly black portions of the film ).

In an attempt at complete auteur-ship, the film was edited, remixed, and color-altered by the filmmaker.

Numerous people involved brought talent, experience, heart, energy and hope to the project, most without benefit of paycheck, but ultimately if a pilot flies a plane straight into a cliff, everyone still dies.

This film and SNITCH'D prove anyone really can make a movie, and even get it on the shelf at your local video store. I'm not sure if that is a good thing.

Of confounding interest to other filmmakers may be the fact that EVIL CITY sold to distribution with almost no effort a few short weeks after availability of screeners; DVD's hit the chain store shelves in the U.S. so fast that a star of the film found out when hewent in to rent a movie and saw his name on a film box he didn't recognize ( the working title of EVIL'S CITY was THE LAZARUS SPORE, and then CROSSING ACHERON by wrap of photography ).

* Film contains numerous inserts and other material shot by the director or purchased stock. As for the color grading...


I don't know why I keep trying these movies at the video store. The cover and story are intriguing, and I am irrevocably drawn to it in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, this one will be different than the mountains of B schlock that I've seen in the past. But alas, it just never happens.

This is one more on the pile of practically worthless movies I've seen that have a great idea, but extremely poor execution. I am a horror fan, and love the premise of ghosts, haunted towns, and other supernatural elements in a movie when handled well.

The acting from the first frame was unconvincing and amateur, and proceeded throughout. Suspense was typically minimal and most of the "horror" moments were handled very sloppily. I will never grasp how such crap can manage to get funded. The producer(s) must take out a second mortgage or something else dire, and then roll the dice and hope that enough schmucks will shell out their hard earned cash to gobble up their vile stew. Hey, Blair Witch sucked and it made money, right?

I must digress a moment and say that there were a few decent scare moments here and there, maybe one good gore bit to keep it from being a complete waste of one and a half hours of my life. It was also interesting to see a host of a show I enjoy called "Cities of the Underworld" on the History Channel have a bit part here.

But these fleeting moments do not make the experience worthwhile. If you must submit yourself to this "film," and I use the term loosely, then get it for $0.50 at Family Video. Or just forget it and look for something that's bound to be better.


Me and a friend were sitting in the local movie store and decided to just go to the horror section, spin around in a circle, and point at the first movie we saw and then rent said movie. Luckily, or unluckily, we ended up renting "Evil's City". Now, it was completely our intention to rent a terrible movie, so you could say that we were more than satisfied with our choice.

There's really only one phrase that can accurately describe what a pile of crap this is: a HUGE pile of crap. The DVD alone reeks of bland, uninspired filth. No special features or "making-of" that would most likely just show the writer pooping out his script. The scene selection offers 4, yes FOUR scenes to choose from. I guess the editor couldn't figure out how to slice this steamer of a movie into eighths or sixteenths. Anyway, DVD features aside, the film itself sucks. The only remotely significant character, who I assume is some kind of angel that wears black, is an Aussie who has about 8 minutes of screen time and then disappears for the rest of the film. You later see his face poorly pasted on a stained-glass window which causes a female character to scream rather inappropriately.

The only way you can like this movie is if you love clip-art special effects, shoe string budgets (and when I say shoe string I mean the director literally sold his shoe strings to fund the movie when he should've just wrapped them around his neck and hung himself), and putting emphasis on the wrong syllables. This movie needs to be filed under comedy for the unintentional hilarity that ensues on this whacky adventure all the way from the random beginning, over the mountain of plot less and disconnected exposition and then ultimately to the regret of even wasting your time on this.

I give Evil's City a -20 out of 10.


There is nothing worse than a movie everybody in it knows will suck. No one acts, no one writes anything decent in the script, the sounds are bad, the editing is bad, the camera work is bad. This film is just bad. Forget about horror. There is nothing horrorful about it, only the horrible production that one can hardly name a movie.

Let me emphasize this: this is so bad, you can't even laugh at it. There are no ridiculous scenes, because they are too bad to actually laugh at them. This will never be a cult movie, nor will it be something taken seriously by anyone. The budget is so low, that film students wouldn't touch it, so i guess a "film company" tried to sell this piece of crap as a video rental money maker.

Horrible! Awful! And average in its awfulness.


Evil's City (2005) is a real bad DTV flick about a creepy old town that a nosy reporter and her crew decides to visit. Nobody seems to know how to get there making the trek a bit difficult. A stranger with a hodge-podge English accent who's a drifter "in these parts" also gives the reporter a cryptic warning about darkness and evil. This doesn't deter the reporter who continues on her mission to find this mysterious town and learn about it's dark past. But will she and her friends like what they finds? Who is this mysterious stranger and why are people in the vicinity so quiet and mum about "Evil's City"?

A bad movie that might appeal to survival horror fans and those who enjoy DTV movies. I was just disappointed in the overall execution and script. I wouldn't recommend it but some people might enjoy it.


Welcome to Evil's City, where the population isn't in fact 4,320; it's 0! Yes, I said it. This film was horrible. It was an indecent, cheaply made satire of how a scary movie is supposed to be. I found the film quite absurd that it was made very poorly. The movie was created using Microsoft Movie Maker and Power Point. I could edit a picture better than Tom Lewis can name a movie. Before I continue to describe my fetish for "enjoying" this putrid pile of garbage, let me break it down to you in every category.

The acting in this movie was about as stale as the bread slice lodged down my throat. I also found the actors choking on their lines more than I was choking on that slice of bread. Before I was able to die of complete and utter disappointment, I managed to realize that the actors kept a smile :) on their faces throughout the entire movie. I felt this film was more of a comedy, rather than a horror film! Oh, excuse my comedic ways. That bread must be making me grow a sense of wit and absurdity!

*spoilers or w/e get a life. I'm not ruining anything you won't see it anyway.*

The plot for the movie was simple: Nosey kids getting into trouble. If I were these kids, I'd have stayed living in my parents house until I reached the humble age of 30 (I'm 34 currently and unemployed, lol) and grow a beard on my own. Instead of being good mannered children, they go around accusing people of lying, starting fights with homeless people, stealing chicken from someone's house, breaking into the houses to steal the food, and causing someone to remember they died. Not to mention, they stole some Aussie's key chain. Later in the movie, they encountered a crazy man with half a head. He then explains the whole situation. I didn't follow it because I was too busy scratching the mole on the side of my neck. The only bit of excitement came when some crazy girl was going to dig into this guy's pants. Too bad my mole gave me more excitement.

*no mo spoilin stuff.*

The movie had special effects as good as this movie wasn't a horror film. I felt as if I was playing a Sega CD game. I suppose a poor man makes a poor movie! Oh dear, I'm killing myself. But seriously, to put it in a nutshell, the special effects were as lame as Casey Sharpe.

The suspense in the movie was good, though. I found myself clinging to the edge of my seat when the movie was over. I was actually thinking there would be more. The movie ended abruptly and so is this review.


This movie pretty much consists of a good idea but crappy development. Underfunded made this movie a big POS but anyway on with the review. This movie is about a group of story go-getters that want to get the biggest story of all and have pictures for proof of its existence. Their after a town called Acheron which apparently everyone died in. The town is out in the middle of nowhere and a few random people just appear out of nowhere and begin taking a role in the movie. But before you can even fathom how it ends let me tell you how it begins, a girl gets a gun to her head by some freako that said he saw this town, which they didn't even know what it was then. This movie pretty much isn't worth the 7.95 I paid for it, fund it better and make a new one with a real director and it might be worth your time.


Although I gave this movie a 1 because the director put in the horror Genre I couldn't help but laugh at the awful acting the saddest most hilarious part about this movie is that the best actors were the crazy Hillbillies that beat the hell out of Harding speaking harding the other characters had some sort of hatred for this man because if you pay attention the three phrases you hear most in the movie are "Harding your an a**hole" "Hey Harding F*ck you" "Harding acts like a 5 year old" The movie also has randomly disappearing characters,Name Changes,obvious picture cropping,misleading plot,awful sounds,windows that break but actually are just copy and pasted triangles flying through the air well anyway if you watch this you will be sure to laugh its a riot trust me!


There's a great story there somewhere, unfortunately, this wasn't it. Very poorly acted, it reminded me of one of those Christian films where the underlying theme is "Trust in God, He's great." I'd love to see a real director and screen writer tackle this story because it's a great one (read "Pistol: The life of Pete Marovich"). This one I couldn't finish. The basketball scenes were real slow so the kid could make the under the leg passes and trick shots. I'm sure they spent a lot of time on them and they looked totally rehearsed. At no point do you actually believe a real basketball game is going on.

It's was a total fluff piece but the worst thing of all was the narration. The guy who was supposed to be Pete as an adult who was narrating the film was WHISPERING THE ENTIRE TIME. I had to stop and rewind a couple times because I couldn't hear what he was saying. Was he recording his voice over on a golf course? Why did he speak so low? Tell me that wasn't the best they could do for someone who is simply NARRATING the film???? I hated this movie.


I mention the Omega Code because it is my personal benchmark of bad movies promoted by Christian ministries (i.e. Paul & Jan Crouch of TBN).

I had never heard of this movie until recently receiving a promotional e-mail from the American Family Association (Don Wildmon), which by the way, had bad (404) links anyway.

With the NBA finals going on, I decided to rent it from NetFlix. I have to agree with most of the comments from the last two posters and disagree with most of the comments from other admirers who must be suffering from 1 Corinthians 13:12 ('seeing dimly').

The film was a big disappointment. The acting, writing, and more importantly -- the directing, was some of the worst I have seen. I had hoped to see a true biography of Maravich's life and accomplishments -- not a snapshot of one year (8th grade) in his life.

Certainly none of the content is offensive in the movie (unless you consider 'butthead' vulgar), and if your child is involved in PIP and/or Upward Basketball, you'll recognize many of the drills.


I'm beginning to think that every other person (save one) who posted on this movie's board has sustained some sort of serious head trauma. I looked this film up with hopes that I could enter into some fantastic and deeply ironic conversation on this film's utter lack of merits. Imagine my surprise when I found that some people seem to enjoy this terrifyingly bad piece of rubbish.

The acting is atrocious, particularly from the slow child in the title role. He seems ruefully aware of the fact that there is a camera in his face. The script seems less to have been "written" then compiled from a book of clichés by an illiterate night manager at Wal-Greens. The screenwriters hope to trick the audience to accepting comments like "you don't want people to think you're light in your loafers, do you?" as homespun wisdom or, at the very least, something that normal loving families say.

Maybe I'm just a purist, you know, with wanting healthy relationships to be sustained by something more than a game. But apparently, according to a few posters, a shared love for basketball is a healthy and loving way for a father to relate to his son. One wonders what sort of relationship Press would have had with his boy had he been, say, a dancer. I'll leave that to your imagination.

In any case, this movie blows. Hard. Don't ever ever ever ever ever watch it.


This was a rather pedestrian version of the Agatha Christie short story thriller (Philomel Cottage). Of course, the original short story confined itself to the time the couple spent on their honeymoon, although the subsequent adapted theater play expanded on the plot. Sylvia Sidney came off as a kind of Betty Davis type with a distracting edge to her delivery. John Hodiak's performance started off with subtlety but towards the end it deteriorated into melodrama. I agree with another reviewer that I couldn't help thinking that this would have gotten a much better treatment from Alfred Hitchcock. The plot development was implausible at times. Although the beginning was cogent and mood-setting, I was disappointed by the lack of subtlety in the ending, which differed from the Christie ending. The story should have been about the psychology of predator and prey, but that aspect was muted. I have not read the theater play, so I don't know how its ending compared to the wonderful Christie ending.


This movie "Love From a Stranger" is based on a story written by Agatha Christie. It is similar to "Love From a Stranger" made in black and white in 1937 starring Basil Rathbone and Ann Harding.

This one is from 1947 black and white. The stars of this movie are John Hodiak as Manuel Cortez and Sylvia Sidney as Cecily Harrington.The premise is the same in both movies.

A woman wins a sweepstakes/lottery, drops her boyfriend, and meets Mr Wonderful who sweet talks her, marries her in a short time and prepares to kill her at sometime in the near future at 9:PM.

Cecily is the target. She finds out more about Manuel her husband while he is away one night and gets scared. She sees a hole like a burial hole down in the cellar where no one is allowed to go. I like the ending in this one too is was like a bar fight but much better. The one with Basil Rathbone had a ironic ending too. You can watch this with John Hodiak on this IMDb site http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039586/ which will link you to Hulu.

You can download the one with Basil Rathbone at Archive.org for free or watch it on line with the same name. http://www.archive.org/details/LovefromaStranger


A woman suffers mental trauma twenty years after being raped - at least that's the most obtainable synopsis for this bizarre but entirely unengaging drama. Theresa Russell plays the bored housewife, trapped in a passionless marriage with doctor Christopher Lloyd. When a man claiming to be her son - stolen from her arms at birth after the rape - appears out of nowhere, knowing an awful lot about her, it releases the trauma she has kept hidden for so long.

What should be intriguing is anything but. It is impossible to care for Russell because she's embarrassingly bad. Lloyd has nothing to do (never mind nothing funny). The young Oldman is shown up in this most difficult of roles. That's probably thanks to the director more than himself. Roeg's output is horribly inconsistent. You would have hoped that working from a script by the late, brilliant Dennis Potter would have inspired him to make a masterpiece. He can't even keep the film on the ground.

But then again, the Americans never got a grasp on Potter's humour. And Roeg has hardly been worth watching since he went to the States.


Oldman's intense performance and an obvious effort to make a surreal, metaphysical statement weren't enough to pull the weight of this film. Long, drawn out scenes reminded me of the guy who goes "Get it? Get it yet? Get it now?" long after the joke has been made. Also irritating were Russell and Camps' performances, which were hard to pinpoint as whiny scripting or whiny acting.


MAN WITHOUT A STAR has to be one film the former Issur Danielovitch must surely wish he could erase from his resume. Douglas plays a ne'er-do-well ranch hand who ends up switching sides during a range war among two big cattle ranches. Jeanne Crain is the boss lady of the ranch he starts out on, and you can almost feel the beginnings of THE BIG VALLEY in this largely awful Western from the 1950s. Outfitted in stylish, form-fitting shirts, Douglas is simply terrible as the conflicted cowpoke. Talk about miscasting. Crain isn't bad as the boss lady, but she's no Barbara Stanwyck. A veritable army of familiar supporting players including Jay C. Flippen can barely keep this turkey afloat. The script stinks, the direction is aimless, the cinematography is wasted. If this was the kind of movie intended to keep viewers away from their TVs, I can't imagine it succeeded in doing so -- even though I understand it was a box office hit in its time.


This was Akki's first film with DD who is known for his mad films, Akki had done a comic role before in SUHAAG(94) but here he plays a full comedian

The movie is a full crap and surprisingly DD released it with another film of his DEEWANA MASTANA which had better actors like Anil and Govinda(at least that time) and that film worked

This film is a complete crap film and makes no sense and it doesn't even keep you entertained, A must for comedies

The comedy scenes are trite while the main plot is itself senseless and the attempts to comedy are foolhardy though the message is a nice one

Direction by DD is bad Music is okay

Akshay seems uncomfortable in the comedy set up as it was his first attempt and he was a bad actor those days He shouts too loud and comes across as a poor man's Govinda Juhi is amazing in her comic role and steals the show Kader repeats his act, Paresh is awful Satish Kaushik annoys Gulshan Grover has an indefinite role


I could not disagree more. This was an embarrassing episode which lacks the "punch" usually associated with great Twilight Zone twists.The story is already stated by other reviewers. I saw this episode when i was 10 and i was shocked at the ending but looking back now it was only a pun. Larry Blyden's "afterlife" sure wasn't hell. If hell is to be surrounded by beautiful women 24 hours a day and being worshiped and loved by every one of them then maybe its where we all should go. I certainly wouldn't "get sick" if I were in that situation. Lets face it , it isn't hell. Hell is 120 degrees of constant work, torture, and torment for eternity. Blyden got off quite easily. The episode seemed superficial as well. Actually Sebastian Cabot was the only thing that stood out in this episode-one of the great character actors of all time.Yes the ending is not what you expect but neither was the depiction of hell as we know it. This ranks with "Too Serve Man" another "classic" which was nothing more than 25 minutes of fodder thrown on the screen just to set up a big 1 minute twist at the end.I guess some reviewers are just easy to please


A year or so after George C Scott was spooked by a cadaverous child in 'The Changeling', Devere decides to try and keep up with her ex-husband's career by inheriting an Old Dark House from her deceased aunt. This affords sundry opportunities for neighbours to give her dirty looks, a priestly Joseph Cotten to pop up and proffer ubiquitous blarney, and the titular carriage of death to keep turning up outside the front door heralded by mist-machine overkill.

In terms of supernatural 80s horror movies this is acceptable enough for undiscerning nostalgists; though purists may balk that the central things-going-bump-in-the-bedroom sequence between Trish and her resident toyboy handyman Gautreux sets the whole picture at odds with the otherwise PG-compliant avoidance of physical horror and narrative suspense. And just when you thought it was safe to go back into the shower... it is.

Whilst it is fair enough comment to make that no-one (probably rightly so) took Devere seriously again after her split with Scott, she at least here proves herself a capable enough genre screamer for the undemanding. What is more interesting however, is how suspiciously similar this film is in terms of plot and style/construction to the soon-after 'The Nesting' - in that it misses most of its most crucial horror 'cues', but nevertheless burns independently down its own vaguely self-stylised 'fuse' to an incoherent, unsatisfying 'explanatory' climax. This also, but slightly more exclusively, involved a has-been actress ignominiously doing very little for the money (Gloria Grahame in that particular instance).


This very standard early 80's haunted house/possessed souls chiller does feature one ingenious and genuinely creepy gimmick, namely the titular vehicle that mysteriously drives around at night. Barely recovered from personal problems in the big city, Jane Hardy moves to an inherited mansion in a small and very superstitious village. The locals treat her like dirt, especially when they learn Jane is the niece of the previous resident, who worshiped the devil and whose dead body mysteriously vanished when the hearse ran into a bridge and caught fire. It doesn't take long before Jane herself begins to suffer from nightmares and the antique hearse even begins to stalk her! "The Hearse" is very slow but occasionally atmospheric and well-acted. Unfortunately however, the script is full of holes, too predictable and the total lack of spectacle is pretty hard to forgive. I respect the fact there were obviously financial limitations to this production, but to deliver an entirely bloodless film is a tad bit exaggerated. Class actor and horror veteran Joseph Cotton ("Baron Blood", "The Abominable Dr. Phibes", "Island of the Fishmen") is totally wasted in the role of obnoxious attorney. Crap ending, too.