This was an unusual movie. That Fred Sanborn has got to be as strange a comedian as there ever was in a movie. It's really bizarre. The stooges are fireman and do their thing with Ted Healy batting them around. Probably wouldn't seem so bad if you did not know what they would do later.


AMC has been showing this stinker for the month of March,2001. Ted Healy gets my vote as worst actor ever on screen. He does a second-rate Jolson impersonation- and that may be an insult to second-rate! In the scenes with the Stooges(of the 3 Stooges fame) Shemp comes across as the leader of the three, but Healy tries and fails miserably at doing slapstick comedy better than the Kings of the art form- The Three Stooges. I understand Healy was eventually murdered. Too bad for him, but great for the world of comedy.


As an avid fan of silent and early talking films, I saw no harm in wanting to watch this film. I had enjoyed the Three Stooges growing up, and the opportunity to watch a film from 1930 was always welcoming to me.

Never before have I been so disappointed in a film from this era. It was absolutely atrocious, and a waste of seventy minutes' time. As for what happened to the actors, I couldn't care less, not that they were doing anything anyway. Somebody should have given some care to this film. The film was not even enjoyably stupid- it was just plain foolish. To think that this 'masterpiece' was preserved makes me question whether someone really didn't just throw money away. To return to the film- do you want to be sickened, made uneasy? Then watch this awful thing! Also, Fred Sanborn- ha! what can one say save that he turns the stomach! To be somewhat fair, there was one good five minute sequence with Healy and the Stooges at a party. As for the rest, it should have rotted away.


Harriet Hilliard stars as a prospective band singer. On her way to an important audition, she meets Gene Raymond. When she gets her high heel caught between two train cars, Mr. Raymond is smitten; he tries to pry her high heel loose. They find themselves playing out their cat and mouse romance at the same hotel. Joe Penner and a host of comedians become involved with the couple.

Of particular interest; Ms. Hilliard (Harriet Nelson, of course) in a musical comedy performance more reminiscent of later "Lucy" than later "Harriet"; her "Let's Have Another Cigarette" is an ironic highlight. Ann Miller brackets the film with a couple of tap dances, but has no film role; her finale is another highlight. And, Mr. Penner's infantile funnyman antics are a precursor to Jerry Lewis. The film's story is somewhat difficult to follow, weakening several situation comedy possibilities.

**** The Life of the Party (9/3/37) William A. Seiter ~ Harriet Hilliard, Gene Raymond, Joe Penner, Ann Miller


Easily the worst western ever made. It seems that Kennedy's sole purpose of making this film was to annoy and irritate viewers - and to see how many western movie clichés he can cram into 100 minutes.

The film opens with twenty minutes of pure imbecility: the "bad man"/drunkard kills, rapes, loots, and then burns the "town" down, and about a dozen inhabitants of this town don't do a thing to stop him. Except the boy; it seems that we are supposed to be lead to believe that only a young boy would have the courage.

The "bad man" (as the Irish woman refers to him) is stone drunk and yet he manages to hit every target, and no one dares to shoot at him! These first twenty minutes can be analyzed scene by scene, but there wouldn't be an iota of credibility or intelligence in it. But a lot of awful clichés. I never lived in the Old West, but I cannot imagine that the people living in it would have sat around and just watched while one man was going around totally berserk; the early inhabitants of the frontier were tough people (unlike modern-day pansies) who would have had this "bad man" chopped up in little pieces, cooked, and then eaten.

The film has no realism what-so-ever; when the father of the raped girl goes to save her he goes WITHOUT A GUN (he's carrying a piece of wood)! He naturally then gets shot by the "bad man" and walks out of the saloon like a zombie and then drops to the floor - a very dumb scene indeed. When the undertaker decides to get his horse back from the "bad man" he turns his back to him and gets shot! Wouldn't he shoot at the "bad man" first? Or at least not turn his back to him? Who does Kennedy think I am to believe this crap? After the "bad man" leaves, the cowardly, philosophizing Fonda starts rebuilding the town; what follows from here onwards is over an hour of pure tedium, with Fonda moralizing endlessly and giving preachy, corny PACIFISTIC speeches every time he can get someone to listen.

At the end of the movie the "bad man" comes back, very predictably, and he starts doing the EXACT SAME thing he did a year earlier - this being one of Kennedy's numerous attempts to inject symbolism into this dreary mess of a movie. What follows from here has to be SEEN TO BE BELIEVED: Oates, the town's sheriff, tells the "bad man" to step out of the saloon, but the saloon owner steps out instead and gets shot by Oates! Then the "bad man" comes out and shoots Oates. (That Oates would be killed was predictable as early as an hour before.) This is Kennedy's attempt to make a point about how proper Fonda's ANNOYING PACIFISM is.

Another one of Kennedy's "symbolic" attacks on our nerves comes shortly after Fonda (finally) kills the "bad man": Fonda brings the body to the Irish woman who was bent on violent revenge all along. He asks her "Are you happy now? Is this what you wanted?" LIKE A TRUE DUMB Hollywood PACIFIST. And now comes the mother of all dumb "highlights": the Irish woman stares at the dead "bad man" when - suddenly - he opens his eyes (he wasn't dead - the name is Jason Michael Myers) and grabs her hand violently. The boy wants to shoot at him to protect the woman but kills her instead! Oh How I laughed... If this scene doesn't make you at least giggle, nothing ever will.

So what is Kennedy's message? Without a doubt, it's this: If someone goes around killing your family and friends, and burns and steals all that you have fought hard for all your life, then don't get mad - and most importantly DON'T GET EVEN. Just calm down, count to ten, wait for the misunderstood anti-social "bad man" (or men) to leave, and then rebuild your town and your existence. Until he shows up again... And when he shows up again don't get mad and - for chrissakes - DON'T go for the gun because, honestly, it won't solve anything, it won't bring back the dead, and it won't eradicate all the other "bad men" roaming around in this tough world.

Sounds a lot like an American liberal's argument against the death penalty, doesn't it? Yes; Kennedy is another one of those DELUDED LEFT-WING Hollywood KNUCKLEHEADS, with a view and philosophy of life that will make any self-respecting Clint Eastwood fan wince (I'm of course referring to the MAN WITH NO NAME, not The 90s WUSS WITH NO GOOD MOVIES).

It seems to me that Kennedy read a lot about Gandhi and actually took that iconic charlatan's "teachings" far too seriously. (Look up my review of another cinematic piece of crap, "Gandhi".) This film was made at the height of popularity of Eastwood's spaghetti westerns, so my guess is that it was a major flop, since most people can't identify with the sort of arrogant quasi-hippy gobbledygook that movies like this espouse. And labeling the town "Hard Times" is worse than pretentious; it's downright pathetic.

I guess it'll be quite a while until I come across a movie as bad as this rubbish. A comforting thought...


Wonderfully daft piece of movie-making that actually grows worse with age, "Welcome to Hard Times" is a presumably honest description of the feeling author E L Doctorow experienced when viewing the Burt Kennedy screen version of his work.

By turns jaunty, tedious, unfathomable and unwatchable, it actually suffers from a greater absence of structure than the town it purports to chronicle, a place which keeps being, er, burned down by a laughing madman who no-one can stop because he's A Symbol.

Most of the time, of course, this doesn't matter, because Kennedy thinks he's directing a musical, a sort of Seven Whores for Seven Miners, as a result of which one scene after another has dancing girls a-dancing and drinking men a-drinking, all of this to the accompaniment of a music score that if not played by someone tone-deaf was certainly written by one.

Script felicities are many and varied, though none is more rewarding than the scene where Fonda is told that the mine -- upon whose fortunes the town depends -- has just closed, after which he immediately begs his adopted son to settle down in this selfsame place of doom and earn himself an education instead of playing around with guns.

Logic, right.

When it's not being burned down, the town -- a tent and two wood-frame buildings whose Nouvelle Vague minimalism is echoed by a cemetery with just one grave -- is regularly assailed by Janice Rule's hilarious Irish accent, though she certainly gets her just desserts (as indeed, do nearly all the cast, shot down either accidentally or deliberately in a climax so stupefyingly barmy that you wonder if Russ Meyer assumed the direction after Kennedy took an errant slug.)

With a budget to die for -- well, no self-respecting production designer could contemplate living on the money allocated here -- "Welcome to Hard Times" inadvertently delivers so much in the way of good times that it seems uncharitable to criticise.

But then, my name isn't Doctorow.


Recap: A brutish and violent gunfighter holds the little frontier settlement of Hard Times in terror. Local mayor Will Blue is helpless, and the terror only ends with the gunfighter burning the town and riding out. The town is almost deserted, but when a saloon manager, along with his group of prostitutes settles in the town to serve the miners from the surrounding mountains, there is hope once again. But Blue struggles with both his own guilt of having done nothing and other locals accusations of the same. And sometimes the gunfighter will return, will Blue be able to defend his town then?

Comments: A rather uneventful and badly acted western. Especially the movies threat, the gunfighter, is so exaggerated so that the threat seems just silly. The it is supposed that the drama should come from the tension between the surviving townsfolk, but it never gets really interesting. One problem is that the supposed hero, Blue, is nothing of the kind. And without a hero and an absent threat, there is no real reason to care. Is there? In fact, Blue is so little of a hero that he doesn't even succeeds to gain redemption when the villain returns. He doesn't do anything until the villain is out of bullets, and defenseless. Only then does Blue fight him.

With nothing to care about, the movie uninteresting at best, and boring at worst. It certainly is disappointing. A veteran such as Henry Fonda should be better in choosing his projects, and do better with the material at hand. But I guess he didn't care either

3/10


this is one of the lousiest movies i've ever seen.The only reason i kept watching this is because i was trying to understand why H.Fonda was in this movie.It seems to be trying to promote pacifism but its so stupidly done that it actually manages the complete opposite,the viewer is convinced by the end of this movie that guns and violence are absolutely necessary.Fonda's character doesn't make any sense other than he is a total spineless coward.There is absolutely no rational excuse for his actions.The whole story is supposed to convince the viewer that Fonda's character is right,but there is very little argument in favor of a man who just sits around doing nothing to stop evil because he is afraid. Seems to me Fonda had played too many heroes before this and tried something different without thinking if it made any sense. Lousy and pointless movie.


Awful dusters like this are the key reason so many people hate the genre. It's the cheapest pulp imaginable ... manna for the addicted, but utterly unpalatable for the rest of us who expect intelligent story-telling in whatever kind of movie we may choose to watch. In this tiny town -- and really that's being charitable; hamlet is more appropriate -- there are but a handful of inhabitants and only three apparent businesses (saloon, store, and undertaker), no court or jail, no regular transportation services, no communications, no government offices of any kind, no mayor, and no law enforcement, yet a busily occupied lawyer? The citizens - despite possessing a good cache of weapons - come out to the street and stand around helplessly as a drunken psychopath goes on a slow and relaxed killing rampage interspersed with ample rest periods and ample opportunities for him to be ambushed. If you have an IQ in three digits and expect a plausible story, don't waste even a moment of your time on this piece of rubbish.


It's amazing that Henry Fonda made the fantastic "Once Upon a Time in the West" the same year, or thereabouts, that he made this atrocity. Tonally inept, directed like a school play, with an obnoxious, heavy-handed score, this is an object lesson in how not to make a western. As you probably know by now, an impossibly brutal killer terrorizes a small town but no one has the courage to stand up to him. You'd think they could hand out a few guns and encircle the guy, instead of taking him on one at a time. Various central-casting western types cycle through, brandishing their mustaches and petticoats, and seem to have been left to their own devices on such matters as line readings (Keenan Wynn, in particular, barks his dialog as though dictating it to a sign painter). Ersatz Aaron Copeland music kicks up for interminable montages of town-building. Henry Fonda and Janice Rule have the same argument for two hours until, mercifully, some bloodshed makes the conversation moot. You will mourn the two hours of your life you sacrificed on the altar of this inert flick.


I had high hopes for this, but wound up despising it. This is pacifism with a broad brush, absolutely sophomoric in it's persistent delivering of the kind of message that makes "turn the other cheek" resemble heroism.

I just hope impressionable children are not being exposed to this defeatist philosophy.

Pushing this movie's obvious message to kids is like passing around the bubonic plague.

The actors are first-rate but are squandered here in my opinion.

In WWII actors flew bombers or fought for their country on the beaches and were slogging along in the infantry for years in dangerous terrain. Regrettably, things have deeply changed in the USA. Hollywood has become the mouthpiece of the left. This movie was produced in the 60s and bears the stamp of those times, times when the inmates tried to run the asylum--and very nearly succeeded.

So watch and enjoy the fine acting in this film, but don't succumb to it's defeatist message.


Burt Kennedy who made so many good comic westerns back in the day, tried his hand at a serious realistic western and fell flat on his face with it. Henry Fonda must have felt like Tyrone Power in Nightmare Alley, he and the film got great critical reviews and the public stayed away in droves.

No accident, western fans expect certain things in their films and Welcome to Hard Times delivers none of them. It is a realistic depiction of the growth of a western town, maybe too realistic.

Henry Fonda is the mayor of this little burg and purportedly the hero of the piece. Problem is that there is nothing heroic about Fonda nor the town's people.

Aldo Ray is the silent Man from Bodie, the villain of the story. He's about the worst villain on screen since Liberty Valance, without any redeeming characteristics. He defiles some of the women, shoots some of the men, and sets fire to the town. A few including Henry Fonda try to stop him and fail. Fonda fails in a moment of weakness.

Fonda's girl friend Janice Rule is among the defiled and she grows understandably bitter. The main story line is the conflict between Rule and Fonda, especially over young Michael Shea whose father was killed by Aldo Ray and who Fonda has now taken over raising.

Some veteran players like Keenan Wynn, Warren Oates, Denver Pyle, Edgar Buchanan, and Lon Chaney, Jr., make things interesting as the story drags on. There is of course a final and very bloody confrontation again with Aldo Ray that has some unexpected consequences.

Somebody should have told the town of Hard Times what the town in Johnny Concho did about William Conrad who was in the Aldo Ray role in that film. The solution to the problems of Hard Times was right there.


I kept waiting for this bad movie to move beyond its stock characters and hackneyed plot, but it never made it. We have floozies with hearts of gold, grizzled old-timers, cowardly townspeople, and an over-the-top Aldo Ray playing evil incarnate. Elisha Cook is given the opportunity to reprise his Shane role, the spunky, fearless, impulsive, and doomed fool: Jack Palance, with one of cinema's great sneers, shot him dead in Shane and Aldo Ray does him the same courtesy in Welcome to Hard Times. One plot gimmick after another is thrown in, evidently just to fill up some screen time, when more time might have been spent developing the characters of the townspeople.


A brutal western morality tale starring Henry Fonda as the "mayor" of a tiny frontier town whose courage is tested when deranged outlaw Aldo Ray runs rampant burning buildings, raping saloon girl Janice Rule and killing anyone who stands up to him. Directed by the efficient Burt Kennedy and based on an early E.L. Doctorow novel, WELCOME TO HARD TIMES isn't great by any stretch, but it is involving and features some great acting. Fonda, Keenan Wynn, and Warren Oates are excellent. The great Janis Paige sings a couple of Christmas songs. Highly trained actress Rule affects an Irish accent like a highly trained actress. Ray, in a nearly silent role, is suitably nasty.


I love Westerns. I have watched dozens of them and I continue to watch every one that comes on that I haven't seen. (Thanks to the IMDb 'My Movies' I can set them up and get alerted to them coming on, a very nice feature.) This has to be the all-time worst Western I have ever seen.

The townspeople in this movie are the direct ancestors of the families in the home security system ads, where they put a night stand up against the bedroom door and are talking to the security guy on the phone. "Is everything all right?" "No, there is a man coming up the stairs who wants to kill us all." "Don't worry, I'm calling the police right away." Whew! Close one! And how preferable it is to have the police arrive in ten minutes, with a killer ten seconds away, than to have any means of actually defending oneself. Right? It is THAT level of self-imposed helplessness that afflicts the people of the town in this movie. They stand by, afraid to do anything for fear that it might be wrong. And you can bet, if they DO do anything, it WILL be wrong, so best not to ever defend yourself or try and stop a bad guy. Just cower and hope he won't make it hurt too much for too long.

As another reviewer said, in the old West, any idiot who tried to do what 'the bad man' did in this movie would find himself dead in side of five minutes, because back then, people stood up for and defended their family and property and town. They did not stand by in horror, clutching a copy of Consumer Reports and watching as the women were raped and the town was burned. The person who wrote this trash movie has no clue what this country used to be about. The 'bad man' would have been the 'dead man' in no time, and a person as wimpy as the mayor played here by Fonda would have been disgraced and yanked out of office pronto.

This whole movie is written from the viewpoint that bad people will eventually stop being bad if we let them tire themselves out beating us up, so we should not do anything about them. It is not realistic, it is not dramatic, it is not riveting, it is not honest. It is a complete frantic fantasy from the viewpoint of a clueless, modern-day political liberal, plain and simple.

I can almost forgive Henry Fonda for appearing in this cow plop of a movie because his role in 'Once Upon A Time In The West' was so powerful. Here, he is nothing but a complete power failure.

Someone commented that Fonda's character was much more realistic than the type played by say Clint Eastwood. I totally disagree. Perhaps there is nobody as-such we can point to from history who was exactly what Eastwood portrayed, but look at the famous sheriffs and marshals and gunfights and bad guys who are well-recorded in history. Where are the pacifist hand-wringers? History did not note them, because they were nothing that anyone would want to remember. They died as ineffectual cowards, and their only legacy was the shame of being too afraid to stand up for themselves against the power of bad.

The 'bad man', riding through town, doing crazy things and cackling and laughing the whole time, is one of the most bizarre and totally unrealistic characters I have ever seen in a movie, let alone one around whom the story is supposed to revolve. Can this be a serious attempt at a Western movie? It is a sad, pathetic joke of a movie, designed to push a pacifist viewpoint from the perspective of someone who knows more about tofu than about the old West.

I hate this movie. Have I made that fact clear? This movie is GARBAGE. Thank you and good night.


Residents of a lawless, three-horse town in the Old West are paralyzed with fear after psychopathic stranger Aldo Ray arrives and starts shooting people and setting fires; time passes, and lawyer turned mayor Henry Fonda helps rebuild what's left of the community, but when Ray returns, Fonda has to confront his own fear and morality. Although the story sounds promising, this cheapjack execution is not, and Ray (despite some cackling) has really no character to play and no dialogue. Lots of familiar western-movie faces in the cast, but the characters are clichés and cut-outs, and the melodramatic plotting is only useful for unintended laughs. Janice Rule plays a traumatized saloon hostess with an Irish brogue that comes and goes, and poor Lon Chaney (Jr.) has a miserable excuse for a role as an alcoholic bartender. Henry Fonda is stalwart, as usual, but the surroundings have no atmosphere and Burt Kennedy's direction has absolutely no artistry (he points the camera and shoots). Some incidentals in the theme bring to mind the later "The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean", but that film was much more ambitious and engrossing than this extremely modest underachiever. * from ****


SMALL SPOILERS Hard Times is the name of a town...well, it's more like only just a street, where the people have no joy, no past and certainly no future. There are about 20 people living there and about 65 % of that population dies when a big, angry man ( Aldo Ray ) comes to town to raise a little hell. The survivors leave except for the "Mayor" played by the legendary Henry Fonda. His name is Blue ( I guess that how he feels constantly as well ) and he's tired of running. He decides to stay and build up the town again. This seems to work, since there soon arrives a man who handles in liquor and girls, an undertaker and a shopkeeper. Still, there's fear in the air because the man who already destroyed the town once is most likely to come back...

Welcome to Hard Times isn't that much of a good film. It adds very few to the genre of western-drama's and it's only worth a look because of the terrific acting performances. Henry Fonda ( if he wouldn't star in it, I'd probably never seen it ) is great as the pathetic, cowardly mayor. He wants to teach people the valueable lesson that violence doesn't pay but he's only getting laughed at. It's one of his lesser known movies but certainly not one of his lesser performances. Aldo Ray is very impressive as the tough-looking brute man who comes to destroy the town twice. Although, I think it's a good thing that he never had to open his mouth...his facial expression is good enough in his case. It was great to see Lon Chaney Jr. again in a movie. I really hated that his part was so limited.

Overall, you won't regret watching Welcome to Hard Times as long as it lasts, but you certainly won't remember it long neither. You can easily skip it, but it's well recommended if you're a fan of Henry Fonda, like I am.


This has got to be one of the most pointless movies I have ever seen. Absolutely nothing interesting happens in this odd western.

OK so the story is as follows; A very bad man comes to town, he rapes a whore, kills a couple of people and sets the town on fire. The rest of the movie focuses on the rebuilding of the town leaded by Blue (Henry Fonda), some whores and a couple of other completely uninteresting people. At the end the very bad man returns of course again (surprise, surprise!).

The characters are absolutely the dullest and weirdest I have seen in a long time. Why should you ever care about one of them? During the movie nothing interesting happens and the movie leaves a very pointless impression. Even the finale is bitterly disappointing. And what message tried this movie to give? I'm still puzzled about that.

Especially the scene's between Blue and Molly are horrible and have some awful dialog and silly moments that really don't make an awful lot of sense story-wise.

No there's nothing to enjoy in this movie. The story is dull and the dialog and characters are ridicules!

2/10


"Welcome to Hard Times" (Burt Kennedy, 1967) is a visibly cheap, shabby little Western starring Henry Fonda in his senior stage as a movie star. The film reflects the anarchic dissonance and harsh violence of the newfangled "spaghetti" Westerns then pouring out of Europe, but ultimately its sensibility and construction belong to television. It's a traditional Western (partly comedic and partly melodramatic) that plays like a bunch of TV Western episodes pasted together in slack fashion, while also projecting some of that "spaghetti" dirtiness and desolation. The 61-year old Fonda (playing a 49-year old but looking his real age) is excellent as a wary, avuncular, impotent realist who shies away from violence and heroic action until he has no other choice. Janice Rule, as Fonda's testily neurotic and misguided female antagonist, is also stellar, as is Aldo Ray as the wildly destructive stranger, an anarchic monster periodically haunting this muddy little outpost (which can hardly be considered a town). Unfortunately, these actors are diamonds in dung in a tonally inconsistent, unfocused, and clumsy little Western from Kennedy. The spastic, sudden violence of the opening and closing acts, and the conflict between Fonda and Rule over the fate of the young boy (played by 13-year old Michael Shea), make "Welcome to Hard Times" worthy of a look. However, the picture isn't pretty.


I upgraded my PC to Vista because Halo 2 would not run on XP and to become up to date. Halo 2 is graphically the same as 1 IMO. Same characters same feel nothing new, in fact I swear they used the same maps but I could be wrong. The flood are back, the bubble headed boobies are back (ohh the pain the pain). The annoying screens just to get to play single player, I mean who cares if I cant upload my progress, I just want to play!!! I play about half an hour a night before I get bored. It seems that they have ported to PC just to rake in the profits, no thought to current day graphics,Try it out first before you spend your money. This may be the first FPS I have started that I may not finish. Sorry to all Halo fans but...this one is garbage!!


This game has been out for a while, but if you don't have it yet: DON'T BUY IT!!! This game is absolutely horrible. It's just another one of those stupid games where you go around killing things, while in the background you experience a horrible plot that was obviously put together over a weekend. The books of this game had some promise, the horrible lack of depth and emotion behind Halo's plot was ultimately it's downfall. I hated Halo, but I bought Halo 2 just to see if this was any better. It was better, however, I gave a Halo a rating of .00001 out of 1000. Halo 2? Halo 2 gets a .0002 out of 1000. Seriously, regardless of what your friends may tell you about how this game is "TEH ROXORS", I assure you, this is a sorry excuse for a video game that looks like it was done over the course of a week. It has no focus on gameplay or plot, and focuses ONLY on graphics and eye-candy, just like Halo 1. There's no point in buying this game. Save your money and buy something worthwhile.


I might spoil the ending by accident, so watch out, but you won't be missing anything.

I hear people around me yelling stuff like, "Halo 2 is immaculate!" and, "Best game ever!"... I do not agree with these statements completely, but I do not deny that Halo 2 was an incredibly great game.

With beautiful levels and creatures, wonderful gameplay for an FPS game, and an amazing storyline (that never actually completes in the game), this game dazzled me, but I think it was overrated.

The ending is what killed this game. When I saw the ending, all I could say was, "What?... That's it?" I'm confronted with an absolutely extraordinary story, but then, it stops before my eyes before ending!

This could be a death sentence or a blessing from the gods. It could either mean that Halo will be a lost story and will never be completed, or it could be a prophecy foreseeing a third installation in this truly wonderful game series.

I only have 1 controller and I don't have X-Box Live, so I'm not exposed to the true greatness of Halo 2, but I've played these modes at friend's houses.

Back to my true subject, Halo 2 is greatly overrated when compared to the TRUE ultimate game... SUPER MARIO BROTHERS!


This game was supposed to be all great. Well, being a hardcore gamer, I must say differently. This games graphics were nothing special, they were very cartoony. The plot is terrible, no real story to this game. Weapons suck massively. There is some intense gameplay, but nothing at all in this game is anything special. Halo 1 was a better game, I give it a 7/10. I also compare this game with Half-Life 2, which is a great game.

Halo 2 Half-Life 2 Graphics: Poor Amazing Story: Poor Great Weapons: Fair Excellent Realism: Poor Amazing Overall: Poor Excellent

Scale used: Poor Fair Good Great Excellent Amazing


Yes, you read it right, this defines insane action movies, not because of the huge amount of action, but because it's completely insane. If you are a regular viewer of the bottom 100 (which you must be to look at a movie like this) then you would have seen 'US Seals' on the least, at its worst the number 1 bottom movie. Now just think about that. How is it possible for somebody to make a movie which is worse than EVERYTHING. Think of the worst, most painful movie you've ever seen. These people have made a movie worse than that. And why is this relevant, you may ask?

Because the same team made lethal ninja. Except lethal ninja was a lot earlier, and a LOT worse. In fact, it's possibly the lowest quality movie i have ever seen, and i watch bad movies on purpose. However, it is also one of the most hilariously atrocious movies you will ever see. The makers seemed determined to throw in every crappy cliche they possibly could, so the dialogue is completely inane. It goes along like this:

Woman: What are you doing? Man(dangerously): Don't mock me you bitch.

You will find gems like these scattered (actually, the movie is drenched in them) throughout the movie. Now, on to the story.

I've watched it twice recently, but i still haven't managed to pick up the story. Thats not because of me, it's because it has the most glaringly obvious plot holes EVER. The story is something about some woman and her crew finding poisoned water in africa. Then boom, no explanation, ninjas are there slaughtering everybody (serious. Their swords even bounce off people. I thought they were sharp...). Then she is taken hostage by somebody in a hotel in south africa (She chooses just to wait there rather than escape). Her husband, the american yoga guy, hears about his, grabs his mate, and off they fly to south africa against the warning of this government guy. They just happen to stay at the same hotel as his wife (coincidence of course) and then the fun kicks in.

Because, you see, Lethal ninja is absoloutely insane. The first flaw is that the main guy is not even a ninja. I think they should have called 'Lethal Redneck'. Anyway, I'll give you a rundown of some of the flaws and stupidities. When they arrive in south africa, they are carrying machine guns, pistols and bazookas. The customs man asks them 'do you have any firearms' and they say 'just crossbows'. And then, faced with these 2 huge and obviuosly dangerous men, the man LETS THEM WALK THROUGH WITHOUT CHECKING FOR WEAPONS!!! When they get to the hotel, they know nobody, so naturally they just pick up the phone and dial a random number and ask 'wheres my wife'. Theres a tip for hostage situations. If your wife has been kidnapped, pick up the phone, make up a number, and then dial for instant success. Anyway, there are too many flaws, but you will see them standing in the desert or something, and then one of them will say:

'hey, we better check out that old fort'

And off they go. It seems that the script was improvised as they went along, because anybody could come up with a reason for looking at the old fort, but they DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTED!!!

Anyway, i grow tired of this. All in all if you're looking for one of the stupidest and funniest movies, rent this. And watch for the dance and musical number which i swear the director choreographed himself. You thought Aaron carter was bad? Wait till you hear and see this!


Where to start? This movie is crap. I didn't watch the whole thing but I saw enough to know that this movie makes most low budget films look like masterpieces, OK maybe that is a bit too harsh.

The movie starts off with a helicopter flyover that looks like its from the 60's. As it goes on it looks it may have been made in the late 70's or early 80's. But that isn't the worst part.

The acting in the movie is simply horrible. Some of the worst acting I have ever seen. The guys wife sees her scientific base blow up and just stays there with a stupid look on her face.

Another annoying thing about the movie is its crappy audio that makes the movie look like it was 50% dubbed.There's nothing quite like the refreshingly annoying and destructing movie with dubbed audio that makes you second guess every actors voice.

The best part of the movie is the choreography. Just take a moment to ponder the wonderful choreography that was in such TV shows as Batman (1960's). Now take even more uncoordinated actors and doubles and add slow motion. That kinda sums up how crappy the fight scenes are.

This movie is almost unbearable. Go see it or rent it on DVD (why in the hell would they release it on DVD anyways) if you want to torture yourself or someone you love.


Silly me, I thought ninjas could fight! Well, not according to this movie: the two leads (who are NOT ninjas) have about as much trouble taking them out as they would have with random people taken from the streets. They are so clueless and out-of-tune with their surroundings, in fact, that you can easily sneak up on them and twist their necks (aren't ninjas usually supposed to be the ones DOING that, instead of having it done TO them?). No wonder the bad guy says at one point "they've made a mockery of my men" - his men are his private ninja army, who are practically good for nothing, except rollerskating! There is one half-decent fight scene somewhere around the middle, against the only ninja who at least tries to put up some sort of fight; the rest of the fights are forgettable, and often poorly edited. The entire film is utterly forgettable, but some of the stunts are worthy of respect, so I'll be generous and give it *1/2 out of 4.


Although the self-absorbed undergraduates with their pseudo-intellectual babble will sniff about how "the masses" won't be able to "connect" or "appreciate" this movie, the reasonably intelligent movie-renter will recognize this film for what it is: a piece of crap. First, it is a road movie that rips off Kerouac and thinks that somehow gives it legitimacy. Second, it invokes Kurt Cobain, another transparent attempt to pass this off as a Gen X film by linking it to the over-commercialized and overpraised rock star. And third, it is just plain BAD. Inexplicable and pointless flashbacks of the two main characters as kids (yeah, we get it, they are buddies) are one problem, but the real weakness is the constant ripoff of Tarantino - an annoying drug dealer who engages in a monologue that exists only to waste the viewer's time, thugs who chase the "hero" for screwing a gangster's wife, we've all variations of this before. I rented this because of Jake Gyllenhall, a fine actor (go see Brokeback Mountain and Donnie Darko if you don't believe me), but his character exists in a drug-addled haze to Leto's brain-dead pool boy, who isn't high and has no excuse for his imbecility. Jake must have needed the money (it is supposed to have a $14 million budget, but clearly not in the cinematography department), for this stinker does nothing to enhance his indie-movie icon status. For a much better movie from 2002 that showcases his acting ability, check out "The Good Girl."


The most exciting thing about this movie is the alligator boy and after that and before that, the movie is a completely boring and a major waste of time. I keep running into these movies where all these people do is smoke weed and laugh. These two boys go on a road trip and all they do is get high and pick up hookers. There is no real point to the movie expect that the one guy wanted to get away from having his feet broken. Then they get in the car and the two do some drugs and pick up some hitchhikers. That one guy looked a lot like Weird Al. I don't think that Weird Al would waste his time in a crappy movie. It had very very little to do with Kurt Cobain too even if the box said it did. This movie was a waste of time, I was bored and now I no longer care about it.


You know this movie had a great potential, could have been a major film for all the characters involved. But somewhere along it fails major. Doesn't really make you 'feel' for any character, they all seem like cardboard characters. Should have breathed life into them. Instead it just manages to take you 'around' aimlessly. It fails to surprise you, the bad guys remain bad, the good are good, the neutral are neutral nothing changes or happens. Whatever was supposed to happen happens. So what's the point of watching it? Some useless diversions which make no sense, probably a very personal film, fails at all levels. There is the classic whore with a heart of gold, the drifter, the two friends, but the chemistry is missing. The electricity just went out. They are all on high, so no lows!


A few nights ago, I was in a mild state of insomnia and found that Fox was airing HIGHWAY. I began to watch. The movie is about two insane men, Jack Hayes (Jared Leto) and Pilot Kelson (Jake Gyllenhaal). They flee to Seattle one day after Jack sleeps with the owner of a pool he cleans and her husband's friends ("Miranda's Pandas," Jack and Pilot call them) come after him. Along the way, they encounter Cassie (Selma Blair) being abused by her friend (or more), and decide to pick her up and bring her along for the trip. Meanwhile, Miranda's Pandas learn from Jack and Pilot's stoner friends where they are headed and set off after Jack, intent to break his feet. Johnny the Fox (John C. McGinley), Pilot's stoner friend, comes along for the ride to attend Kurt Cobain's memorial. Will Jack evade Miranda's Pandas?

Usually I would go into more detail about the plot, but I really don't know what a lot of it is about. There were several scenes that were absolutely lost upon me (the scene where Johnny the Fox and Pilot are spinning around, high on drugs, and there's some nonsense being muttered, in particular). And above all, I really don't know what to make of this movie. I wouldn't call it a drama by any means, but I wouldn't necessarily call it a comedy either. I would call it a mixed bag.

There are a few scenes that are pretty funny--the beginning, mainly, and some of the part about the sideshow feature the Alligator Boy. But most of the scenes are just incredibly weird. It's a pretty entertaining movie for the most part, although by the end I found myself not really caring what happened to the characters (though that could have been sleep calling to me).

The oddest thing about this movie was the characters and the actors who played them. All of the characters were insane in their own way, though Pilot is a definite standout as the weirdest. The main thing I wondered while watching HIGHWAY was what possessed Jared Leto and Jake Gyllenhaal to do this movie. They were both in versatile and great projects prior to this--why this movie? The fact that they were in it was quite a shock to me, to say the least.

All in all, HIGHWAY left me completely baffled. The story's pretty entertaining, but the characters and the majority of the scenes are completely insane. This is, without a doubt, one of the weirdest movies I've ever seen. 4/10.


There are very few horror films in which I can find no redeeming quality - and "Ghost Lake" has the dubious honour of being one of them. Although it doesn't feature the same level of technical ineptitude as, say, "666: The Demon Child", its unspeakably annoying "actors", awful dialogue (which, I'm sorry to say, is perfectly audible at all times), and pitiful visual effects all add up to a thoroughly reprehensible waste of an hour and three quarters.

Add to all that the fact that the plot was gaffed entirely from a Matthew Costello novel entitled "Beneath Still Waters" (which, as luck would have it, is being adapted by the lovely Brian Yuzna) and you have a film that you simply can't like for any reason at all. Really.

Well, that's not completely true. In the picture's defence, the scenes involving forcible expulsion of water from the mouths of various people are awfully amusing... for entirely the wrong reasons, of course. Please avoid this dreadful thing.


Rebecca Haster (Taturn Adair) blames herself for the death of her parents and decides to spend sometime alone in the lakeside cottage of her parents in Rushford Lake. She meets Stan James (Timothy Prindle) on the road and gives a lift to the stranger. Later they become friends, while Rebecca sees supernatural events with drowned people in the lake. While searching the accidents in the library, she finds that mysterious deaths happen in the spot every thirteen years.

I bought this DVD without any previous reference and only based on its creepy cover, since I love zombie movies. Unfortunately, this film is simply awful, with a messy and flawed screenplay. I have no problems with low budget movies with simple special effects, but with good story, direction and performances and this is not the case of "Ghost Lake". Further, I am not moralist but the lead character Rebecca has the behavior of a slut, having casual sex with two strangers in a couple of days and while grieving the death of her parents. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "O Retorno dos Mortos" ("The Return of the Dead")


This is just another STV "horror" movie that plagues video stores everywhere. There is nothing I want more than a resurgence of good horror movies, but films like "Ghost Lake" do everything possible to ensure this never happens. The movie is garbage from start to finish; horribly written, shot, acted and edited. Even the minimal zombie make-up can't save it. I wasted $6.50 at Blockbuster with this one, and I've done the same thing countless times before out of desperation and a faint hope than someday, somewhere, someone will make a horror movie we've all been waiting for. As a horror filmmaker myself, I say give me the budget for Ghost Lake and I'll show you how it's done.


What a terrible film, it looks like neither the visual effects staff or the sound staff have any experience in the industry. The acting was "satisfactory* but the zombies and dead bodies where out of date, as in they looked like they were borrowed from a film made in the 70's. The visual effects look like something off a scary 80's series. The storyline doesn't make sense and is no way original as it babbles on about some sort of curse where unless they kill someone they will die on the 13th hour or something.

The cover image of the DVD looked good but when i finished the film i realised that quote; "never judge a book by its cover" is true

To be honest, i got half an hour in and skipped through the rest. I also understand why this never made it to the big screen.


I'm one of those who really get easily scared by movies, and especially horror movies, of course. I'm so easy scared that it's almost embarrassing. It doesn't even really have to happen anything; if the mood is at least done almost right, I can sit in intense suspense and wait for something to happen.

So the strange thing about this movie is: I did not get scared. I mean - I probably jumped a bit in the seat one or two times, and I think I felt a bit, and only a bit, of suspense maybe three or four minutes together, during the whole movie.

That must mean that they hardly did anything right, right? And that's right - they hardly did anything right: Most of the supposed-to-be-scare-stuff happened in broad daylight. I mean, how scary is broad daylight? And the mentioned stuff was for a big part filmed from far away, and how scary is stuff that is filmed from far away? Another thing: what did they do with the screen all the time?!? That division-stuff - disturbing!!! And I still wonder how the lead-lady figured out the secret of "now is the 13th year, so they are going to kill 13 people", for instance. Much of the plotting was completely not understandable.

Okay, one cool thing to end with: the start really freaked me out - with the place-to-place- and time-jumping.

Oh, did I mentioned that much of the acting (though not all) was completely laughable? The bad-guy-laughter from the three Zombies by the lake near the end was probably the most artificial (both concerning acting and directing) I've ever seen - and I've seen my share of oldies.


This is one of those films my friend calls a Potential Sleeper. Meaning that its one of those films that you have never heard of and have no idea who the actors are. Never the less the film might surprise you and be good. This film was not! The overall feel of the film was that it had been made by a 7 year old. However the film did keep me riveted to the screen. I kept watching and waiting to see what muck was going to appear on the screen next.

The acting was terrible, the cinematography as already stated was amateurish, and the makeup and special effects were unbelievably bad. The corpses looked like they had covered a toy skeleton in jelly. When the first corpse spoke I almost wet myself with laughter.

The opening scene in which her parents die from a gas leak, told me all I needed to know about the production values of this film. The main plot involved some kind of curse, at twin girl who pretended to be one of the dead people living in the lake and people getting killed every 13th something or other. The story was badly structured and made no real sense.

The only saving grace, is that the main actress exposes her two bouncy friends. If this is a ploy to keep you watching in the hope that she will do it again, then it worked. I was rewarded for my 90mins of agonising pain when she did it again towards the end.

I feel sorry for anyone who has to watch this film, and I feel sorrier for anyone who actually liked it.


Oh where to begin! This movie was so ridiculous I'm almost ashamed to admit that I paid $5.99 to see it. This movie set an all time record for showing the lead characters boobs the quickest (approx. 2 minutes) and they're not even that great. The scene at the bar where the suave dude picks her up is incredibly lame. It's quite clear throughout this movie that nobody in it has ever acted before....except for possibly bit roles in Anal Paprika 3: Menage-a-Death (it's a real movie). The little girl might be the best actor in the whole movie....and considering every time she spoke you couldn't tell what the hell she was saying that doesn't bode well for the rest of the 'cast'. One area that was surprisingly decent was some of the makeup on the zombies...it wasn't great...we're not talking George Romero here...but it was good considering the quality of the rest of the movie. The end of the movie made absolutely no sense....it made my head hurt and my girlfriend still has a confused look on her face the next morning ;) I would recommend this movie to anyone looking for examples of no talent....otherwise...curl up on the toilet with a nice magazine and you'll probably be more entertained.

Best Actor: Little Girl - can't comprehend what she's saying...but somehow that's a good thing.

Tatum Adair's boobs - they have more scenes than several zombies....and no lines...so that's good.

Green Ball - no matter how many times the little girl bounces this ball it always comes through...look for it in the sequel!

Worst Actor: Mother - no acting ability....terrible...just terrible.

Dad - bad...but at least acted paralyzed fairly well.

Sheriff - not sure what movie he was supposed to be in...but most of what he says doesn't relate to this movie. Seemed very robotic, monotone....."Bueller.....Bueller.....Bueller"

If the goal of this movie was to make you laugh...then in a way it's very successful....but I don't think it was the goal. It was just lame....sad....pathetic.....worst movie in history.


As some have mentioned, this is, well, not a good movie. The only good part are the scenes at the beginning and at the end in which our hot lead actress Tatum brings out the twins - and nice twins they are. I would NOT, however, care to see them again if that means watching the whole damn movie - it was THAT bad.

Fine, so it's low-budget. And yes, i've seen Eclipse and I've seen Back From Hell, and I enjoyed them! I've even ANALYZED Black Woods. These films are all fine examples of cult-like films that have done the most out of their budgets. I'll give you another example of low-budget horror: "Blair Witch" ring a bell? True, it didn't need as much special effects as this move would need, but every single actor in that film was better than every single actor in Ghost Lake - and for one hell of a lot less money. For Nick, who wrote that the acting was more done "like in real life" instead of exaggerating - please watch the movie one more time. I could never in my life have talked anything like any of those actors. They talked like they were reading from the script during the whole film, from start to finish. In fact, I found myself thinking several times, "what the hell? Didn't they get time to memorize their lines properly??".

This movie is one I would not want to watch again unless my life depended on it. Let's say we forget about the acting that makes Coolio look like Oscar material for a minute. Let's say that we didn't notice the make-up that is supposed to make the actors look like zombies but instead makes them look like they dropped buckets of various paint over their heads, or when water came out the "zombies'" mouths like when you put water in your mouth and talk - you know, like when you were in kindergarten. Let's say that just for a minute, the story wasn't utter rubbish, and didn't contain almost exclusively script flaws and logical errors. Let's then say that we would be able to overlook ALL of this at ONCE, in an attempt to find other good things about this movie. The what would we have?

We would still have a bad movie.

The first thing that struck me was that this was actually a comedy! My thoughts wandered off to "Scary Movie" or "Dawn of the Dead" - in other words either an intentional parody or, well, another kind of intentional parody. I was sad to see that I was mistaken.

Never mind the laughable scene in which our boobalicious Tatum is PUSHED out to the party by her parents; never mind the scenes where it switches between her driving, her letting the nice, big twins out for some air and some lickin' - it's the plot.

First of all: For a horror movie, something happening every 13 years is way too often. A curse is not something happening twice every generation. I can not for the life of me figure out how anyone in their right mind will even CONSIDER the plot or the storyline in any way anything but awful.

Secondly, I can say the same thing about the directing - yes, he does film very well at night, fine. But he's using amateurish cutting and ways of quickening the pace. It seems to me that he's rushing the production to make the suffering shorter.. I don't think even Jay Woelfel really knew what the explanatory mathematics at the end meant, and our poor Tatum and her twins looked just like a teenager pretending to understand when being presented with the Theory of Relativity - "Ah, so THAT'S what's happening! Of course! I KNEW that E wasn't good for you, but i never knew why!"

And thirdly, and this is the worst part of the whole movie: The beginning. And i'm not even talking about the laughable way Woelfel is cutting the memories into her driving, or the humorous "Days of our Lives"-wannabe expressions on Tatums face when she tries to act on the cuts, either. No, i'm talking about the way her parents dies.

This is a major spoiler for you who haven't seen the movie yet, but it's a fun one, and the reason why I thought this movie was a comedy at first: Her dad wakes up in the master bedroom, coughing - he smells the gas and yells something like "honey! *cough, cough* I think there might be a gas leak! *cough *cough' Honey?!", with no response. So he crawls (yes, CRAWLS) out of bed, and KEEPS crawling, actually, across the floor and to the stairs - from which he falls down and dies. And how does her mother die? From the gas as well - as she is sitting right next to the stove. Now hold on, I'll say that one more time: Her MOTHER dies next to the stove without noticing the gas leak, but her FATHER not only notices the gas, but he notices the gas IN HIS SLEEP and WAKES UP! Not only is it highly unlikely that the father would even be much affected in the second story of such a big house - he would CERTAINLY not wake up from the smell! There are so many logical flaws at the beginning of the film that I could not see how this could be anything but a parody. I even told my girlfriend as we started watching, "oh, cool, it's a parody! I thought it was a horror flick!" - and sadly, I was mistaken.

I rank this among the two worst movies I've seen along with "Dracula 3000".

However, I still just can't bare to give this a one. After all, Tatum ARE letting her twins out. Twice. That, to me, doubles the value of this film.


Rebecca leaves for a night of drinking wanting to be home by ten but her mom essentially says, and I might be paraphrasing here "no hon go whore around, we don't want to see you back till late". Of course she gets the message and sleeps with the first guy who gives he a kind of semi-compliment. As she'staking it all like the slut she is, her parents die of a horrible acting um.. I mean a gas leak. She goes to the cabin by the lake to get rid of her guilt, not before picking up a hitchhiker that she'll later screw (her parents would be proud) A mixture of bad and TERRIBLE acting, as well as some crappy split screen. What had the chance to be a perfectly good mediocre movie crashes and burns.

My Grade: D-

Eye Candy: Tatum Adair gets topless


Ghost Lake starts at the funeral of Ruth (Linda Brown) & Richard Haster (Raymond Suriani) as their distraught daughter Rebecca (Tatum Adair) looks on, not feeling that good about things Rebecca decides to head to her parents cottage in a small town near Rushford Lake. On her way Rebecca picks up a hitchhiker named Stan James (Timothy Prindle) who also lives near the lake, they quickly become friends as Rebecca still feels bad about her parents & needs a shoulder to cry on. However, things take a turn for the worse as a terrifying set of events happen to Rebecca, first she finds the body of a dead fisherman in the lake, she sees zombies walking around & a strange girl keeps popping up. Sheriff Dobbs (Gregory Lee Kenyon) reveals that Rushford Lake has a dark & sinister past that Rebecca feels is the cause of her troubles. As Rebecca unravels the truth about the ghosts, zombies, bodies & the Lakes history she discovers great evil...

Written & directed by Jay Woelfel who also appears in the film as a 'shadowy figure' & if that wasn't enough he also composed the music, is there no beginning to this mans talents?! OK, maybe that was a bit harsh but I personally thought Ghost Lake was a pretty dire film all round. The script takes itself extremely seriously & to be fair starts off alright as it builds reasonably well, it has a certain something about it that kept me interested but once all this nonsense about the 13th month, 13 victims & various other things that contain the number 13 kick in it all starts to become confusing, muddled & far too complicated. I don't think Ghost Lake makes itself particularly clear & that has to be down to the script & Woelfel, I don't think Ghost Lake comes across as a straight horror film as instead of going for scares & gore it tries to develop a complex mystery which just isn't that interesting or engaging, imagine a low rent The X-Files (1992 - 2002) episode. There is a good film trying to get out but unfortunately it fails, it's different & tries to surprise but I think it's predictable & I think twists need to be clever & relatively simple to work & be effective, Ghost Lake's twists are none of those things. Forget about any hordes of zombies rising from the lake as suggested on the DVD/video artwork, it doesn't happen as this is a straight faced ghost story rather than a zombie film.

Director Woelfel was obviously working on a low budget so I'll cut it a little slack. Having said that it still looks cheap, bland, forgettable, flat & extremely dull. Forget about any scares, atmosphere or tension as there isn't any. There isn't any gore either, there's a few ghost/zombies & a few rotten corpses but nothing else, this is really tame stuff all the way.

Technically Ghost Lake isn't too bad considering it's low budget shot-on-video origins, the best thing I can say about it is that it's competent. The acting didn't impress & I didn't like any of the character's particularly.

Ghost lake is a pretty bad film overall, it has virtually no horror elements, the various twists are dull & just don't work out in any sort of satisfying way & the artwork on the box really is very misleading. Not recommended.


Maybe a bit naive to think but I thought that amateur movies like this weren't made anymore in this era- and most certainly didn't received a global release.

The movie really surprised me how incredible amateur looking this movie was. Not only with its acting and visual style but also with its technical aspect, such as the editing, camera-positioning. Especially the editing is extremely lacking at times. It makes some sequences come across as disjointed and confusing. Also the weak camera-positioning most certainly doesn't help all of the sequences. At times the movie really looks and feels as if it was being made by a couple of high school students who decided to pick up a camera and start shooting an horror movie.

The movie just isn't ever tense, scary or mysterious, were also lies a big problem of the movie obviously. For a genre movie it just does basically everything wrong to reach a good enough and effective end result.

The musical score is also quite horrendous. It's a very simple typical kind of movie score, that is too prominently present at times when nothing is happening in the movie and not present at all- or not good enough at the tense or scary moments of the movie. The music has some huge misses in the movie, it could had truly enhanced some of the scare moments and tension of the movie at times.

Of course the story also doesn't help much. The movie doesn't have the most incredible pace and story-flow. The movie also tries to be more clever than it really is, by putting in many plot twists and making things seem different than they truly are. Without doubt they also did this to make the movie original. The result however isn't much good, since it makes the movie unnecessarily difficult to follow, especially toward the end, when twists and false twists follow each other rapidly. Through the many twists the movie also starts to make less and less sense. The movie is filled with some gaping holes and the more you actually start thinking about the story, the less sense it starts to make. Not only are there many improbabilities but also many things that just plain good old fashioned plot holes, mistakes and other things that don't make much sense.

Judging by looking at this movie Mr. Woelfel (is that even a real name?) watched a bit too many Japanese horror and John Carpenter movies. In its style it mostly tries to impersonate Japanses movies and in its story, storytelling and characters it mostly tries to impersonate John Carpenter horror movies. Nothing wrong with impersonate different styles and applying them to your own style film-making but the style just doesn't work out, mainly due to its poor budget, weak editing and story-flow. It's perhaps even a bit sad to see at times how hard they tried, without a good result.

I had no idea who Jay Woelfel was before this but looking at his filmography he seems like a regular B-horror movie maker, who just isn't the most talented or visionary person around, no matter how hard he ever tries. He is one of those typical persons who thinks he can write, direct, produce, edit and compose all of his own movies. And does he think he is Brian De Palma, with using all those redundant and completely pointless split-screen shots that don't add anything at all? Yep, I think I'm going to watch more Woelfel movies alright.

Yes, it's true that the movie is so bad at times that it becomes good. It's unintentionally funny at times, due to how clumsy it is made and how bad the acting and dialog are. Who ever told those persons in this movie that they could act in movies? Granted that the script with its many weak and often pointless dialog also doesn't help them much but honestly, it's obvious as well that the actors just don't have the talent for the job.

On a positive note, the make-up effects are quite good looking. Same goes for the simplistic but effective special-effects.

With the same story material but more money and real professionals involved this movie possibly could had been a perfectly good genre movie to watch. But not now.

2/10


Becky's comment to Grandpa Tomson's question of "Why is all this happening" pretty much sums up my feelings about this gosh-awful flick, which rips off so many other decent movies it's hard to keep track. The cover had me fooled--perusing through the rental store, I thought I'd stumbled upon a zombie flick I hadn't seen yet (always a good thing), but it's NOT a zombie flick at all--zombies EAT people and traditionally don't talk, and that didn't happen here, so it can't be a zombie flick. Rather, it seemed to want to be a version of the far-superior "The Fog" (1980--not to be confused with its abominable wanna-be 2005 version). I'm a big one for an engaging plot and characters I can understand--this had neither. Even the guilt trip that Becky had as a result of her parents dying the ONE night she goes out in how long, made no sense. And about understanding it--I couldn't follow the line of logic, if it even HAD one. OK, the ghosts come back every 13 years--why?? Oh, wait, that one guy killed his dad 13 weeks after the little girl drowned, which was 13 months after someone else died...???? And the "death sequence" got totally messed up--OK, the dead couple dragged the young couple off the beach, then the young couple took the car-crash couple?? Does the newly dead person get to take another live person right away, or do they have to wait 13 years, or WHAT??? By the time the cop died, I stopped caring and just wanted to see how it played out. I should have listened to my DVD players, which started skipping about 1.5 hours into the flick. I finally got it to play to the end. Boy, that was a relief (insert sarcasm) here. The awards should all go to whoever designs the video covers--THAT was scarier than the entire film.


This film has to be a candidate for scariest of the century. I felt truly overwhelmed with fear throughout this gut wrenching horror. The special effects were exemplary and really brought the film alive - at one point, where one of the ghosts from the lake kills an innocent picnicker with a ferocious blow over the head, I almost went over and wiped the blood from the screen as blood splattered over the camera lens. One of my friends said it looked unreal and like it had been drawn onto the tape with felt tip, but it sure had me fooled. Also, the use of Vaseline on the dead (or undead?) bodies really gave me the creeps - I've always been paranoid about getting near the stuff! The film was directed with true talent and precision - all the shots were called right and the camera transitions were just great - it really took me back to the seventies! The running scenes were a work of art, the actors choosing to jog rather than run from their attackers as they were gripped with too much fear to use their legs properly.

The acting is some of the best I have seen in years and I'm really surprised that none of the actors received any Oscars after these convincing, truly inspirational performances.

Overall, I thought the film was a worthy addition to gleaming hall of horror fame - a real gore treat that will leave you bricking it!


What a plot. What nice parents. What a quickie. Sex to die for. Hum! This film started off confusing enough. She felt she had killed her parents so she sees the ghosts of them. Would they have done this? The parents I mean. They loved their daughter and didn't blame her for anything. So her guilt was her own and she runs from the cemetery leaving her car behind. Sees her dead parents in the house and runs out of the house and into her car. Where did that come from? She drives from home miles and miles (how interesting-Not!) Then she picks up a stranger and chats and forgets to drop him off and gives him a hug. He was a Hitch-hiker when do hugs come into it. The then poor guy (Oh how things change) had to walk home after all. Oh and the rain that fell just in front of them without them getting wet (someone with a watering can in front of the camera?). So the story develops. This is deadsville with more corpses than you can poke a stick at. Someone said that they reminded them of the '70's but then for me the whole film did. Actually the film got a wee bit better and I did stay with it until the end. I guessed the dead bits (it wasn't hard) and I liked the idea of the sheriff being supportive (young though. And I like the idea of the drowned town and the death/hauntings. Look I was generous giving this 3 but it did have some endearing qualities. Naff lines like, killing people. Marvelous! The little girl was quite creepy on her own. And why do all dead children of the female persuasion look like her? I loved the dead getting up in the town hall. The deaths where interesting, but never really made clear. One more thing. When she drove away to go home the scene was exactly the same as the one when she was travelling in the opposite direction. Didn't they think we would notice? Watch this if you want and if you don't expect much you will not be disappointed but be warned it is z grade horror Cheers Furdion


Once in a while, you watch a movie where you can just immediately tell that the directors mother is also his aunt. One such movie is Ghost Lake. As a no-/low-budget filmmaker, I generally sympathize with others in this end of the field. One has to cope with annoying editors and actors who, in various strange ways, convince you that they can actually act and sign on to the point where it's too late to replace them. But much of this can be forgiven if the general intention with the movie is good or just honest. Not so the case with Ghost Lake. It repeatedly rips off one horror movie after the other, all the while setting new lows in acting, shooting and musicianship (yup, the score was awful to boot).

That being said, I did laugh my ass off watching it. Watching this movie was the equivalent of reading a list of cinematic don't's. And I don't mean "don't" as in "Don't use voiceovers" and similar snooty filmschool bs. I mean "don't" as in, "Don't do this, because it looks like you can't tell your ass from your elbow, anyway you slice it". If you're in any way into films (just being an avid moviegeek will do) this movie will provide literally dozens of laughs-per-minute with it's machine-gun like barrage of ineptitude. You're going to want to show this to your friends just to see their bewildered expression that simply says "Wtf were they thinking?!" like nothing else.

If your idea of awesome cinematic experiences is films like Death Tunnel or Kaw, well this movie is too shoddy for even that. No person living could possibly like this dreck, and the mere possibility is downright offensive.


Seriously, how does this even exist. It doesn't suck in the sense that it makes you angry and want to kill those who made it, but it does suck in the sense that it's almost funny to watch this absolute nonsense. The acting is awful except by our lead actress, and the movie seems way too long. The flashback and guilt-trip scenes are really annoying in the beginning. Our lead actress's breasts get more screen time then the zombies at the end of the movie.

But where this one really falls apart is the directing and storyline. Jay Woelfel was obviously eager to get his "movie" out, but where he failed was putting time into making it. The storyline becomes a convoluted mess once we get into the whole "thirteen victims, thirteen months/years" crap, and it's very hard to keep track of it all. And then at the end of the movie we have Stan (love interest guy) saying that the little girl was the thirteenth victim, when the lead girl was supposed to be? Let's not forget about how Stan turns on our lead girl in about two seconds and is revealed to be a bad guy for utterly no reason, along with the Sheriff. Just...wow. The directing is equally bad and confusing, but I've seen worse. It's just cheap and tacky.

But aside from why this is technically bad, you just can't stop watching it! That's the worst thing, it's stupid and shallow, and very lame, but it's also really funny, and you end up stuck to the screen waiting to see what happens next! It's a right conundrum, I've never seen a movie like this. The bad acting, lame script and storyline, and hilarious images of zombies retching around with water spewing out of their mouths may have come together to form a movie that is actually worth watching for comedy fans.

Let me just re-iterate something before I end the review: You're watching a movie about people that come back from the bottom of the lake every 13 years and drag more people down with them. There's also some mumbo jumbo about a little girl and her twin sister who's dead, and a green ball. And breasts. But not a lot of real horror. Not recommended to anyone who doesn't want a good laugh.


I'm generously giving this movie a 2 rating only because we laughed so hard we cried at several points during it. This film is absolutely awful! The dialogue is stupid, I'm pretty sure the casting was done by knocking on neighbor's doors asking them if they'd like to be in a movie and the "special effects" are completely laughable (hence the 'laughing until we cried' part). Of course, there are a couple of gratuitous nudity scenes for all you men out there. If you watch this purely out of curiosity, take notice of the horrible blood splatter effect and the sinking boat scene. We laughed so hard we had to rewind and watch them again just to laugh even harder! I can't believe someone out there actually funded the making of this atrocity! LOL


Alright, I'll be honest about it, It scared the hell out of me, Why? Because of crap like this, Hollywood is getting a bad name. How in gods name can one make something like this for an actual Hollywood release???

The school movies we used to make with a simple video-camera were even better.

The story is stupid, it's the return of the undead-movie number billion, but with shitty completion. The actors, hahahahahaha...I'm sorry, thats mean, I mean the amateurs that had roles in this movie obviously haven't been in or considered acting school before accepting parts. You know at one point I thought I saw the price label still hanging on one of the zombie masks, it looked like it was 12 dollars.

With a little editing, it could go for a comedy. In a way it is horror, I mean, it's shocking to see what kind of junk makes it to Hollywood.

Avoid at all costs, unless you're really really really drunk.


This "movie" is a pile of random video footage mixed together! There is no logical order! I don't understand anything that happens in this movie. I understand that some stupid ass ghosts/zombies/ghouls or something like that come and mess people up every thirteenth year and then it is just a blur! It would have been a good idea to make a more simple plot! Or am I just so stupid that I don't get it? But anyway if someone understands the plot please tell me!

Now let's talk about the special-effects... They suck! If you can't make special-effects don't make them! I think everyone who has seen this "movie" remembers the scene where the zombie/ghost/ghoul/thing hits a man with a brick and there's blood splatter in the camera... classic!

And now let's talk about the acting! I thought it was quite good... If the cast of Ghost Lake were the only actors alive! And even then they would suck! Everyone can act as good as them. They just suck. But the child actor irritates me the most! She say's the lines like this:"Himynameissomethingsomethingilikeponysanddogsandcats..." If you can't get a decent child actor don't make a movie that includes children!

I can recommend this "movie" to movie makers as a educational film. If they changed the name to "Avoid Making Movies Like This". And also if you like to watch the worst of the worst, this "movie" is highly recommended!


This film is a total brain-fart. I think I got 'special' whilst watching this film. It makes no sense, at all, ever. The special effects include a sliding screen and a large quantity of Vaseline. If you ever feel depressed about the state of your own life - FEAR NOT - it could be worse. You could be in this film ..or watching it. The leading lady has no facial expressions, the leading man on the other hand will not quit moving his damn eyebrows! ITS VERY DISTRACTING FROM THE INCREDIBLE STORYLINE ..as is a tiny hole in his tee shirt. Change your goddamn shirt beefcake. Best quote: (from the other room) - *AHHHHHHHHHHH* Hefty lady - That was a scream.

I'm lost for words.


OK, three words: WORST MOVIE EVER!!!

Generally I'm into that kind of "horror" b-movies a lot. But this one was by far the most outrageously ridiculous of each and everyone I had ever seen...

First, it wasn't scary. But that's OK because only a few of them are. Second, it didn't have a plot. Again, that's OK because even fewer do. Third, the acting was pathetic (I guess my goldfish could be more convincing). Yes, once more that's OK because none of us watches these movies for their Oscar-deserving performances. But what I simply found totally insane was that it wasn't even funny!

What's the point in watching a splatter b-movie if there's no laugh - at least?

Yes, this movie is groundbreaking after all. Groundbreakingly meaningless!


I watched this film last night and I must say that straight away it was a cheap nasty film. No one in it could act and the music was crap. Becky went on a like a cheap blonde slut. There was far too many mistakes in the film that I was really lost half way through watching it. I couldn't understand how the little girl went missing in the lake in 1967 (She is on the newspaper) and her twin was the same age in this film??. They say that the ghosts attack every 13 years starting from 1928. So it would go 1928, 1941, 1954, 1967, 1980, 1993, 2006. If this film was set in 2004 then the ghosts would not be attacking! Even in the library there was only Becky the librarian and the little girl but then you see someone playing with the doll house! I thought the special effects were crap as well for its age. I'm wondering if it was just students making this film!


You can't be a horror fan and not appreciate lower budget films. It doesn't work that way. I really enjoyed Ghost Lake, and appreciate the different, more spooky approach it took, as opposed to the fast paced, cgi driven garbage we usually get. Don't get me wrong, I love gore, I love f/x and all that, but it was a nice change. It takes some nice twists, has some real scares, and just has very effective atmosphere throughout the entire story. A very solid ghost tale. I'd go more into the story but there's already a million reviews on here that do that, so just let it be known that mine is positive. My two favorite characters are Rebecca (the lead) and the young fisherman (the zombie from the cover, he's alive for some part then gets killed). I could definitely see these two in a sequel where the fisherman goes after Rebecca and slays the people that gets in his way. I just think they were the stronger actors and a next possible movie would be better off using them as the focus. It could be a nice turn from spooky tale to effective slasher. So check out Ghost Lake and appreciate what the real hard workers of the film business put together for us folks. If you can't do that, then you probably lost focus reading all of this due to lack of explosions and cgi, so it doesn't matter anyway.


This films suffers lack of budget and talent. Still GHOST LAKE is worth watching...especially on a rainy night. After the death of her parents, Rebecca(Tatum Adair) tries to escape her misery by taking off to the hopeful solace of their old lake house. Instead, she stumbles upon a curse that puts her own sanity to the test. Over a hundred years ago the local residents were drowned when a dam was built to create Rushford Lake. It seems that about every thirteen years a tragic accident occurs on or near the lake and the victims are never found. It seems now that those lost souls are restless and rise from the lake to bring more company to the bottom of "Ghost Lake". Written and directed by Jay Woelfel, GHOST LAKE is mildly eerie...especially when fog covers the lake. There is brief nudity that will get your attention. Also in the cast are: Timothy Prindle, Gregory Lee Kenyon and Azure Skye Decker.


I guess the first installment of this series was about being nice to people (and not blow them up). Come to think of it, so was the second one.

Now the third one was, well, about being nice to people, whereas the fourth  I'm sorry. It's just too much being nice.

At least JERRY WAS A MAN had an edge to it. This is pure mush.

It's all about these mutants, but of course we all know it really isn't, but just to be on the safe side, we get a lecture on AIDS. It's about society being beastly to some people we could mention, this is a story about society being beastly to the less than perfect, the voice-box of Stephen Hawking tells us, and it's very beastly  just so we know.

They're all aboard this spaceship (so you see, it really is science fiction) and everybody's having a hard time. BRIAN DENNEHY at least gets a big hand, and JOHN HURT is reminded that two heads are better than one, even though the other one is very small and seems to have originally belonged to KLAUS KINSKI.

Of course, anyone not applauding such a noble intention, whatever its literary and cinematic qualities, is an insensitive brute, and here I go being beastly to a less than perfect piece of - Saturday evening entertainment. So sue me.


The only impressive thing about "Down to You" is just how amazingly bad it is. There is no plot, no characters, the jokes aren't funny -- a complete waste of five minutes, not to mention two hours. Henry Winkler is good, but even he can't keep this from being a likely candidate for worst movie of the year 2000.


After seeing `Down To You,' you might wonder whether Freddie Prinze, Jr. even has more than one facial expression. His one puppy-dog like expression seemed endearing in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, but later translated to simply bad acting. In his new movie, Prinze plays Al Connelly, a college student searching for love, among other things.

When he meets freshman Imogen, played by the lovely Julia Stiles, he is immediately fascinated by her. Unfortunately, the audience doesn't get to revel in this too long, because ten minutes later they were sleeping together, and soon after that, acting like an old married couple. The movie chronicles their tale of first love, along with every obstacle in between, such as Al's friend who directs porn movies, and his father, who wants to start with a Cops -like cooking show with his son.

At the beginning, this seemed like a wonderful idea for a movie. The first fifteen minutes were a sweet, almost realistic account of first love, which many people could relate to. A particularly endearing moment was when Al tells the camera, `I thought this would last forever,' after describing a romantic moment shared by the couple. However, all of the potential of this movie was shattered when all of a sudden, in a moment of 90210 like melodrama, Imogen thinks she's pregnant. Of course, this event is the beginning of their problems for the rest of the movie.

The film continues its downward spiral, culminating an unrealistic and contrived ending. Prinze and Stiles simply had no chemistry on screen, and by the end, the audience was simply not interested in whether they got together or not. Prinze seemed incapable of showing any emotion, making his character extremely boring and just annoying. On the other hand, Stiles (of 10 Things I Hate About You) was charming as usual, but unfortunately stuck in a bad movie, with no place to show off her talent. Additionally, the supporting cast was no help, awkwardly put in scenes to make badly acted sex jokes, and having no relevant or even interesting purpose.

Written and directed by Kris Isacsson, the movie had some good ideas, but those were quickly overshadowed by too much melodrama and contrived storylines. What could've been an earnest and sweet romance, turned into a boring story with annoying characters.


Ever since seeing her in 10 Things I Hate About You, I've been anxiously awaiting Julia Stiles' next film. Talk about disappointment. Not that she did a poor job -- neither did Freddie Prinze, Jr. -- but there just wasn't any chemistry between the two leads. What could have been a good romantic drama/comedy turned into a confused mess. I've seen some really well made three hour movies (The Green Mile and Magnolia, to name two) in the last few months and neither of them felt as long as this mere one hour and thirty-seven minute film. About a half hour into the movie, I found myself already giving up on the characters and looking for some other redeeming quality -- a decent soundtrack, fresh cinematography ... something. About the only really good thing I can say about this movie was the role played by Shawn Hatosy. At least he was able to throw in a little comedic relief in an otherwise uncomfortable movie to watch. Word has it that Miss Stiles will also appear in four more movies in 2000 -- there's still hope!


Typically, "teen movies" star good-looking young actors as teenagers who fret over sex, relationships, popularity, their appearances... all the things that teenagers worry about. And despite their obvious non-Oscar-caliber scripts, some of them are quite enjoyable, both for the eye-candy as well as the funny adventures the characters have.

However, this semblance of a movie fails miserably at being enjoyable in the least. I don't see how this movie got by its screenings at all (which probably explains why Miramax didn't even allow screenings for critics).

The plot, while obviously overdone, is quite capable of producing an entertaining movie: boy meets girl, boy dates girl, boy and girl have a relationship, girl cheats on boy, boy breaks up w/ girl, boy wants to get back together w/ girl, and they're together in the end. It's been done, I'm sure it can be done again, but not this time.

My biggest complaint about this movie (among many others) is how scripted the dialogue comes out. There are 3 second pauses in between lines, and they're not for effect. It's almost as if the actors forgot their lines, are trying to think of them, and they left the cameras rolling. The movie seemed to have been rushed to get completed as soon as possible. It's almost as if first-time writer/director Kris Isacsson didn't have time to have more than one take for each scene, in order to capitalize on Prinze's marketability as soon as possible.

I feel very sorry for the supporting cast in this film, as their talents have been wasted in this film. I really like Julia Stiles: she's pretty and has a very "real" persona, not some superficial, overdone glamour girl. Selma Blair is reduced to a slutty whore with no character whatsoever. And Henry Winkler plays his television chef character w/ brilliance.

The only redeeming quality of this movie is a brief clip of a TV show Henry Winkler's character wants to develop w/ his son (Prinze): a cooking show based on the TV show "Cops" that would be called "Cooks", a chef-meets-SWAT team hybrid where two cooks would enter people's homes, hold them at gunpoint, and make dinner for them in their own kitchen, complete w/ shaky videotaped footage of their sessions.

Overall, avoid this movie at all costs. Don't even bother renting it when it comes out on video. Spend your 1 1/2 hours doing something more entertaining (I recommend talking to insects, which incidently, the main character in this film finds himself doing).

3 out of 10


Quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen.

It was painful. Anything that makes a good film was absent - I thought at one point that it was a big joke. And the most ludicrous thing was, there were some big names here! Julia Stiles (though I loathe her), Freddie Prinze Jr, Henry Winkler, Selma Blair - even Ashton Kutcher, unrecognisable until halfway through (too long to be watching, I might add!!) in a bizarre role as "Jim Morrison of The Doors" for no good reason. It was try-hard, wannabe and unsuccessful in all aspects - even the main characters appeared to be wincing and cringing at times.

Don't waste your time.


So I went out to my friend's college and one of her roomates wanted to see a movie, this movie. The roomate was kind of decent looking so I figured I'd go and try not to be judgemental and tolerant and open minded. How bad it be? It's just your standard cliche laden "romantic" date movie. How bad can it be? VERY VERY BAD!!!! When the best part of a movie is an over the hill fonzie as a TV chef, you know your in trouble. Freddie Prinze and Julia Stiles might be the two most sub-par mediocre hacks ever to headline a movie. Joe Estevez is even better! Joe Estevez! The dialogue could be chopped from a who's who of cliche riddled movies and assemblyed into unstoppable force of all that is predictable. Not only do the two leads suck but they have no chemistry whatsoever between each other. Gerbils or 2x4's would have been more likable charecters.The title of the movie doesn't even make sense in accordance to the plot. My two friends sat through the whole movie in pure awe of the level of crappiness on screen while I sank ever deeper into my chair and contemplated suicide.


I believe this was the worst movie I had ever seen in my life. Freddie Prinze, what were you thinking!?!?!? I wont reommend this to anyone. I almost cried because I had to sit through it in the theaters. On top of it all the two characters, aren't believeble lovers. There was no chemisttry whatsoever. WARNING! Do Not See This Movie. I gave it a 1 b/c there is no 0. It doesn't even deserve a 0!


I love "teen" movies. I loved 10 Things I Hate About You and all those other movies. With the exception of "Simply Irresistibe," this is quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I'm a big fan of Julia Stiles, and it hurts me to have to watch her in this film. I don't know what the writer was thinking, or what the producers were doing when they greenlighted this trash, but it is one of the most boring 2 hours in cinematic history. The dialogue is absolutely horrible, there is no plot, and even though there are some decent actors, Freddie Prinze Jr ruins it by coming off as a big dope. Stay away from this.


This is an awful mess, so bad it's hard to sit through for more than five minutes. I guess this film was supposed to be "quirky," but it just comes out as a muddled mess. There are no laughs, the couple at the center of the story is boring in the extreme, the acting is pretty awful (Julia Stiles has been good in some other movies, but not here), and half the time it doesn't even make much sense. If this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, it's pretty close to it.


Having enjoyed "She's All That" a sweet teenage romantic comedy, I had high hopes for "Down To You." These hopes were dashed about five minutes into the movie. There is little plot and less character development in this film. (Having your main character want to be a chef does not flesh out his character). The dialogue was inane and insipid, the situations completely unbelievable--particularly the pornography subplot, which I can only imagine was meant to be quirky, but fell very flat. The film ends with the two lead characters--right out of college--in professional, well-paying jobs, living in an extremely well furnished apartment--they look like little kids playing dress up. Besides this, the film was boring. The best moment of the film had Henry Winkler throwing a bit of raw salmon onto a table behind him in a sushi restaurant--the only spontaneous, fresh incident of the film. Apparently the makers of this film wanted to repeat the success of "She's All That" without actually having to create a plot, specific characters, or clever situations.


have you ever been embarrassed for the actors while watching a movie because the movie was SO BAD? this is how i felt during down to you. i couldn't believe how badly put together this movie was, it was like i could see them writing the script. and then there was just this incomplete story feel to it. and it all makes sense because the same person wrote and directed it. i really wanted to like this movie because freddie and julia are cute people but my god... no way in hell. bottom line: avoid this movie!


I thought that _Simply Irresistible_ was the worst "teen" romance flick I had ever seen. But NO! Now this piece of trash holds that title; in fact it's the only movies I've voted a "1." It has the remnants of an original script, but butchered beyond all hope of redemption. Ummm, if you're looking for actual reasons not to see this movie, they include: zero chemistry between the leads, zero credibility as a relationship, more dumb white people dancing around to soul music they would never in a million years know, and of course, a plot so thin it is impossible to believe. And I am not a cynic. It really was that bad. I wish I had seen GalaxyQuest instead.


I'll keep this short and sweet: Anyone who found himself or herself crying at this film or felt that it paralleled his or her own experiences has taken part in the most shallow relationships possible, and should never be allowed to date. This is the most horrendously written piece of sappy drivel that I've seen in at least a few years. Most lines are predictable, and the story is absolutely worthless, not to mention that the constant narration that retells what we just saw makes the entire movie feel as though it's a prologue to a movie we really don't want to see. Keep your fantasies of these teen actors alive and go watch their 1999 movies instead.


The first "Bring it On" is no masterpiece, but it has charm and manages to be very entertaining. In this direct-to-video sequel, the talented cast from the original is replaced by second-rate actors and the script is brooding with everything I hate about teen movies in general. Maybe I'm biased because I'm from New Jersey, but I've never heard any of my peers use the phrase "Shut up!" Give me some characters and dialogue I can relate to for God's sake! Enough of these Barbie and Ken Dolls! Aside from the ultra-lame dialogue, almost every gag falls flat. And the stupid plot involves a couple of cheerleading outcasts training a ragtag team of students (who know NOTHING about cheerleading) in a limited amount of time! I'm not going to give away the outcome, but the premise alone makes you want to puke, right? Bree Turner is a hot actress, but she doesn't match up to Gabrielle Union. And that Reese Witherspoon lookalike who plays the lead definitely doesn't match up to Kirsten Dunst! Don't see this movie! Just another lifeless sequel to serve as fodder for the video shelves.

My score: 3 (out of 10)


It's hard to believe that any movie industry professionals were actually associated with straight-to-video production "Bring It On Again" (2004). Although a sequel, it is more like a really painful blend of "Revenge of the Nerds" and "Cadet Kelly".

Despite the warnings I actually watched my soon to be re-gifted DVD. Anne Judson-Yager (who looks like Reese Witherspoon plus 30 pounds) plays new college freshman and aspiring cheerleader Whittier Smith. She and her friend Monica (Faune A. Chambers) pass the audition and come under the scrutiny of sadistic head cheerleader Tina Hammersmith (Bree Turner). They soon tire of life under Tina and form a rival cheerleading squad of fine arts students and campus radicals. Despite a host of available movie stereotypes the screenwriter can't seem to figure out how to portray this crowd and you actually feel embarrassed for the actors who must deal with these portions of her script. Production design, style, and unity are apparently unknown elements to director Damon Santostefano (unsuccessfully seeking work since making this movie) and the whole thing seems randomly thrown together. It must have been an assembly nightmare for the editor, who may or may not share some of the blame- it's hard to tell.

I'm at somewhat of a loss as to the target demographic for "Bring It On Again". These things tend to be pitched to producers for their sexploitation potential. And in this case they could at least count on a pre-sold sexploitation audience of original "Bring It On" fans. But the only tie with the original is the subject of cheerleading and those looking for sexploitation elements will be disappointed.

My guess is that the target audience is actually preteen girls. The script is certainly on that age and sophistication level. The male members of the cast appear to have been selected for their looks (certainly not their acting skills) while the female members are a dreary looking bunch (although their limited acting skills are well-matched with those of the male cast). When your leading lady looks like Judson-Yager and your only really pretty actress is cast as the cheer squad's towel girl; alarm bells should start sounding for those outside this target demographic. I bet the producers wish that they had heard those bells and monitored this project a little closer.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


BAD BAD BAD! Sorry to anyone who thought this was a GOOD movie.. Hardly Believable, and compared to the fun fast pace of the First BRING IT ON, this one lacks..EVERYTHING! There was a lot of attempts at Copy-Catting the Original..We had the opening "Dream" and then there was a "Locker room scene" And there was a "Try Out" ... lastly a "competition" ... ugh...futile attempt. IMO: Sequels should NOT be made if the original Screen Writer didn't contribute, Very Important...DIRECTOR...The Original director was great! All the scenes were LIGHT...no squinting at dark scenes. Lastly, original Actors/Actresses, and if they don't participate...At least get actors/Actresses people can actually LIKE. Sorry, but Bring It On Again just didn't have Anything...Where was all the REAL Cheer leading??(noting: Exception of the "Competition") They expect the audience to Believe that a couple of disgruntled cheerleaders can have a "try out" get a bunch of activists together and uh Bribe them with the Winnings into suddenly being able to do all the moves and flips and such that Competing cheer leaders do? Sorry...Not Even. In the Immortal words of Missy....GIVE IT UP ALREADY!!


This film was terrible to be honest. No acting, no story, just a cop-out of the first one. Everyone is commenting on Bree Turner's portrayal of the "bitch" being great and the best .. it's not actually? I'm from the U.K and maybe shes not a familiar face over here but I cant think of anything else she's been in. She tried too hard to be the "bitch" and gives a mediocre performance? The cheering was o.k in this one, but nothing special. On the back of the D.V.D cover (yes! i didn't know i wouldn't like it!) it says something like "with a group of rising, up-and-coming new stars" .. what stars? They haven't been in anything since. I can ONLY vaguely remember watching Faune Chambers in "Epic Movie" which was also a flop in my eyes? The acting is shocking! I LOVE the Bring It On series and I actually do prefer the straight-to-DVD films rather than the original (my opinion!), i like the first one, and I LOVE bring it on 3 & 4 .. but this one? - - NOT WORTH A PLACE IN MY FAVES.


I like Bring It On, and Bring It On: All On All Or Nothing, but I didn't enjoy this movie. Possibly the only good thing about this sequel was the Renegades performance at the end. Looking at number one, which was enjoyable, I found this to be a really poor excuse for the sequel. They should have cut this one out and made number three, number two. This just was like a copy of number one, with a few differences. One) they don't make an entirely new squad, two) the music is good, and three) number one and three both had good song tracks, while this had a really boring track. No offense to those who liked this one, but this was a really bad excuse for a sequel.