I've seen a couple of Lovecraft based movies, and, oddly, all of them were pretty good. I appreciate when a film crew manages to capture the spirit of the book being covered. And from that viewpoint, an HPL movie would hardly show any gore or monsters at all, but, instead, build our expectations through time. The plot would be intense, although not necessarily very dynamic. The final moment of the movie would unveil a grim truth, probably rendering the protagonists insane. So, having set the (in my humble opinion) optimal lovecraftian movie criteria, let's watch Necronomicon! 90% of the movie's budget was probably spent on monster fx - a waste of resources! The acting is not very bright, the characters barely believable. As for the stories, they're a desecration of all things Lovecraft. Unconnected scenes. Almost completely unrelated to any book, and devoid of sense, they made me cover my eyes in shame. Someone here's written in a comment that this movie is for Lovecraft fans only. Boy, were they wrong! If you're a Lovecraft fan, stay away from this movie! Run, like it's the Dunwich horror!. Else, if you're a classical gore flick fan, go ahead, you might like this mindless collage of scenes painted red.


I could not believe how bad this movie was. It starts out okay, with Combs as Lovecraft seeking the Necronomicon inside a monastery, but when he finds it and starts reading it, the unfortunate viewer must endure 3 tales that are dreary instead of frightening, dull instead of engaging or morose. These stories will not satisfy Cthulhu fans -- they are void of Lovecraft's skill or imagination. This is an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back, wasted on a miserable and unsatisfying film.


I have to admit that I have not read any of Lovecraft's works, hence I cannot include any comparisons between the stories to the film in my verdict.

Although films based on books rarely meet expectations, there are those which are a great and sometimes they are even better than the books. I suppose fans of Lovecraft's works will be inclined to support the former case as I find it difficult to imagine any fan possibly enjoying this film. I was restless, constantly looking at the clock and tried my best to hang in there until the credits rolled just for the hell of it. This film is neither coherent nor interesting, but just loose tales cut and edited together with nothing that catches your attention or interest.

I would like to keep myself short, but I advise anyone to stay away from this horrible film. It is not even good enough for time-killing! 3/10


According to the book I read recently, only the last story is really representative of HP Lovecraft work. Let's compare with the selection in that book, a french edition called "The Colour out of Space". Briefly, in this edition you find a progressive assimilation of each protagonist in the alien world while reading each different story. "The drowned" is all right but not like the awesome "Dunwich Horror" and "The Shadow over Innsmouth". "Cold air" is a good story but with no trace from the Lovecraft's aliens just a kind of Frankenstein. Furthermore, that last story is unrecognizable from the original: the characters are not of the same type with a totally different role (if this could be called a role). The aim of the aliens is not clear. The means to achieve their aim is not logic or clear. All is a pretext to gore and only that ! Finally, I think this film lost it's goal: you cannot make a good film on Lovecraft work with only 3 stories which have no progression or logic between them.


I am a major horror film buff, but this was one of the worst films I have ever seen. Typical of "Special Effects" movie, the story line suffered (or should I say, "What story line????") The gore wasn't even cool gore, just lame! I had to shut it off, and come back to it later. That was the longest 96 minutes of my life. Three story in one movie, but you never really knew when one ended and another began. I actually didn't realize that it was 3 separate stories until I read it here. Lucky for me, I purchased this at the local swapmeet for $1.00, which was actually overpriced by 99 cents. Don't bother with this film, unless you need something to put you to sleep.


"Necronomicon" is an analogy of three short stories:1)"The Drowned"(Christophe Gans)2)"Cold"(Shusuke Kaneko)and 3)"Whispers"(Brian Yuzna).In my opinion,the first one is the best one maybe because it's highly atmospheric and a little bit creepy.It has also very appealing cast(Bruce Payne,Richard Lynch or wonderful Belinda Bauer).The second one is very weak:boring and full of uninteresting characters.I didn't enjoy it.The third one is too bizarre and also very ridiculous.It has some nice gore effects and nothing more.I suggest you to watch only the first story-"The Drowned".Don't bother with rest.My evaluation:4/10 perhaps 5/10.


I don't know what all the ravings about. If people think this is good, they should subscribe to Telemundo and watch their telenovelas, for this is surely no better. We call it soap. And some American soap has more lather. The plot is acceptable. The acting is OK, for a soap. But there is no depth. We have one brother who runs a business (which we never see). a haus frau who has little to do but talk with her gay confidant, another brother that paints sometime (we never know when) the gay confidant who does nothing but pine for one of the brothers and a mother, who has lunch, because she seems to be perpetually out to lunch. That's about all we know about these people, except when they run into each other. We know as much about the maid as we do most of them. Fine screenplay writing requires showing the characters in depth so we can appreciate their dilemmas, there challenges, their triumphs, their failures. Zoe- she likes flowers, she likes midnight swims, she likes sex but is on a Sat. night diet,( she suspects her husband is gay since he'd rather do almost anything instead of sex with her (not a bright bulb), she wants a child, she loves phallic paintings, she hates Bach, she's dangerous with a microwave. Ignacio- he says he loves his wife but seems to love men also, works a lot, is rich, loves Bach, hates moonlight swims, and as for sex, never on a Sunday... or Monday... or Tues... or Wed... or Thurs... or Friday... with a woman. Gonzalo- is a stud, is very selfish, was molested by his brother (and is still haunted by it), likes to paint phallic symbols, doesn't want to work in the rumored factory, doesn't want to get married but does want lots of sex. The mother...merely drops in for lunch and useless chatter. Wants a grandson. The Maid... knows how to make breakfast and keep her mouth shut. If one wants to make a good movie, he has to devote a lot of care to the craft. There was no depth to this. It was just slopped together.


A LOT OF SPOILERS HERE, SO BEWARE

There has been considerable fuss over this movie, and I'm not sure why. Rather than being 'shocking,' as some have called it, I found it pretty predictable, primarily because the characters are clichés that have been familiar figures in movies over the past 10 or 15 years.

'Mujer, etc.' is a Peruvian film that is really a stylish soap opera. We have the conflicted husband Ignacio (Christiane Meier) who can't conceive; the unhappy, confused and childless wife Zoe (Barbara Mori); and the husband's brother, a scruffy, ever-cool, always foul-mouthed Gonzalo (Manolo Cardona), who also just happens to be a talented artist (why are these people never accountants or claims adjusters?). Gonzalo wants to sexually possess the wife rather than love her, more out of revenge and hatred for his brother.

And then, to round up the usual clichéd suspects, we have the nonthreatening, flaming gay guy Boris (Bruno Bichir) who offers secret, breathless advice to Zoe while confessing, around deeply effeminate giggles, that he finds her husband 'very hot'. Zoe, for reasons that escape me, regularly and inexplicably seeks his counsel. This is some counsel: Boris says Zoe's husband must be gay because if he wasn't he would want to have sex with her every day (this is after 10 years of marriage). With advice like that I'd be looking for another nonthreatening, flaming gay guy.

It could be my imagination, but contemporary movies are littered with situations like this: the 'third-party' omniscient gay man who is sought out for advice by confused heterosexual women or men.

Director Ricardo de Montreuil tries to explain everything toward the end, and it becomes a pretty awkward 'wrapping up' ceremony. The husband confesses he 'likes men' (i.e. he's always been gay). The wife, who has slept with this guy for 10 whole years, appears to be shocked by his confession. Credibility anyone?

The nonthreatening gay guy offers to adopt the wife's baby as his own (and how many times have we seen this scenario?). The wife is content with a child donated by sperm from the rotten brother, who has exacted his revenge on his brother and wants nothing more to do with the wife. The husband carries on, living a gay lifestyle while he continues to live, and sleep, with his wife in an agreement that includes a 'fully loving' relationship. Egads. As if.

This director wants us to suspend a whole lot of disbelief in this film, and it just doesn't work, at least for me.


LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO is a bad movie that manages, through stylish visuals, neat transitions, lush electronica used as mood music, and a deliberate plot pacing, to look better than it is. Story-wise, it would have been better off set anywhere between the Fifties, because technically it's akin to the much better FAR FROM HEAVEN in melodrama, or even when this type of movies came into vogue during the period going from the late Seventies into the early Nineties. How and why it's situated in the present, and even more so, that its story got through the datedness that bogs it down is a mystery, but then again, Latin America is still in a mire of its own ultra-conservative values -- men are supposed to be macho; women who take charge of their own life are seen as little more than "zorras" in heat, and everything happens in a very hush-hush way. So for a Latin American public, the premise of LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO may work perfectly; on the other hand, it falls into an ugly "Splat!" of epic proportions on this side of the Rio Grande.

Much of it has nothing to do with its denouement, which to a degree may even then be somewhat forgivable. Its failing, and Achilles heel, is based squarely in the trite language -- both on a visual and written level -- that tries to tell an intelligent story but has nothing to hold on to. For example, we're told that Ignacio and Zoe have been married for ten years, and that's okay. What is not, and where the story's implausibilities begin to show, is that in those ten years, they've fallen into a predictability where Ignacio can only have sex on Saturdays and prefers business traveling than being with Zoe. Ten years is a long, long time for Zoe not to notice the 500 pound elephant sitting placidly in her sleek, minimalistic and uber-contemporary living room. Maybe it's those twenty grapes she has a penchant for. Then again, Dorothy Parker wrote a story called "Too Bad", where a married couple of seven years suddenly separated. No one knew why, but once we went inside the marriage, we saw that these two had absolutely nothing in common, not even enough for small talk. We never find out their mechanics, but it's still a pretty funny story.

This, however, is a story that takes itself seriously. Adding to the fact that Ignacio and Zoe have strange marital arrangements is the presence of Ignacio's studly brother Gonzalo. Gonzalo and Ignacio are estranged as presented in exclamation points early on at a family lunch. Zoe, do-gooder that she is, contacts Gonzalo and tries to make amends. He sells her a painting, and Ignacio hits the ceiling. Fifteen minutes are spent mulling and arguing over this painting as if it had some symbolic meaning. No sooner than this happens that Zoe is confiding deep secrets to Gonzalo as if she'd known him all her life, and a phone conversation implausibly makes its way to Ignacio's ears, but all he can do is throw the darned painting into the pool and seethe. More unremarkable events take place: Zoe also confides in who we're led to believe is her best friend, Boris, a stereotypical nellie. Conversations between Zoe and Boris are built to make us understand more will come out of their friendship, but that doesn't happen. The same can be said when Zoe makes Gonzalo prove to her he hasn't had sex with other women, or when in a repeat scene, she makes Ignacio promise her he hasn't had sex with men. It's all tease and fake promise.

So with all this teasing going on, it's not a surprise as to why LA MUJER DE MI HERMANO looks good, but is quite bad. It begins with the misnomer of its title which would have Gonzalo the main narrator of the story, and ends by its sheer quaintness that never decides where it wants to take its characters and leaves them muddled in its telenovela roots. At least for a debut film from Ricardo de Montreuil, it's not a flat-out failure. It sells glossy images, attractive leads that would be at home in daytime soap, the presence of a veteran actress (Angelica Aragon), and that's all there is to it.


A few days ago, I went to the theater to watch this movie that somehow got my attention.

This movies focuses on the story of Zoe (Mori). A woman whose marriage is in constant conflict. Her husband Ignacio (Meier) inheritor of the family business, and Gonzalo (Cardona) Ingnacio's younger brother who gives his life to painting, but makes a living thanks to his brother and strangely always shows hatred towards him. With all these background, it isn't hard to presume where the story is leading to.

As the story goes on, more background details explains why every character acts the way they do, and how a triangle of betrayal and disloyalties is taking part in the plot.

Acting: I think Cardona (Gonzalo) though not outstanding, is the only one who achieves a little touch of truthfulness to his character, showing himself as someone careless and incapable of commitment. Meier (Ignacio), He got his moments of clarity, but not enough to convince with his character. Mori (Zoe), I must say that it's the first time I see her acting, and to be honest, I think that she never managed Zoe, being absolutely lacking of the emotiveness required by her character. It's supposed that Zoe is a woman full of inner conflicts as a result of the relationship with her husband. Though, she never get to make the audience feel any empathy. I should say that being a beautiful woman is never enough.

Plot: It always kept predictable, that's why I expected any surprise near the end, but it never happened. Sometimes it might bores you or find that something doesn't fit.

Directing: Not outstanding, it has some highlights. For instance, the manage of close-up within conversations between character, where you can see that everything blurs but the faces.

Soundtrack: Apparently doesn't have one, you just can hear the song "Mentiras" from the Chilean band "La Ley"

In summary, I wouldn't recommend it. But if you want to give it a try, do it at your own risk.


This movie had such great potential - handsome leads and storyline that could have been engaging. The two actors playing the leads deserved a script that was considerably less wooden. Lingering (as in "when will something happen") shots with no point permeated this movie. Tours of the Dallas freeway system at dawn seemed to be the director's way of getting this film to something that would qualify for feature-length status. It even has a home movie within this home movie that is a musical rendering of worst kind. This is a movie that doesn't deserve community support - even in its DVD form. If you watched this film on You Tube, there would be long stretches when you think your computer has locked up because nothing is happening until you realized that the crawl bar is actually moving.


It's not often I can't be bothered to finish a film after starting to watch it but with this film is happened. As soon as the actors starting speaking I turned to my girlfriend just to check it wan't only me that thought the acting was terrible. Her look said it all.

It's a shame. Before watching the film I saw the very high IMDb score (but forgot to look at the number of votes) and was expecting to sit down to a cult classic, indeed the first 2-3 minutes set the scene with a suitably art-house feel but then.... oh dear.

Oh no! Now IMDb wants me to write a minimum of 10 tens without padding I'm not sure that I can do that without just repeating that this film is bad. I don't hold any illusions to be some master film critic but I know bad acting and a bad film when I see one.

Just don't bother.


This movie is laughably bad. Every shot is held three times longer than necessary... the script lacks any exploration of emotions that would be warranted by the circumstances and is filled with banal chatter rather than driving a story. The direction is wooden and the actors aren't much better. It appears as if the writer and director are afraid of exploring emotion, and use a plodding score and a lot of quiet tormented posing to imply emotional pain. The photography offers nothing in terms of visual meaning or interesting shots. Nothing happens in Ciao and nothing is truly resolved. This is an intriguing story concept that is completely wasted. You want to feel sad or happy or empathetic or something; you just feel bored. And the sighs from the audience confirmed a communal sense of boredom. One of the worst films I've ever seen.


I love Paranormal, Supernatural, Haunted, and/or whatever you want to call it. Do I believe in any of it for real. No. These guys are really entertaining but for all of the wrong reasons. I would love to go on one of these haunted missions because I could debunk everything right then and there. So could just about every non-believer in this stuff. Will I still be entertained by other entertainment containing these elements? Absolutely I will! Will ever convert to any of this ridiculous stuff, not in a million years. I wish I could believe and be spooked by chairs moving or water be turned on or whatever they say happens. Notice that none of these people are exactly educated, and if they were ALL of it could be explained. Still can be good stuff if you believe in it, but if not you'll be laughing at these people bumping around in the dark, scaring each other over nothing. There is reason why there is absolutely zero credible evidence of anything spooky going on, it's because there isn't.


I've been watching this show as a fan from the first episodes and now many years later have come to the conclusion this show is completely fake and that Jason and Grant are nothing but a couple of frauds. I admit I still watch portions from time to time and can actually feel my IQ lower while doing so. I just can't understand why this garbage is still on television. A show that in my opinion should have been canceled a couple of years ago when it was becoming clear that one of the investigators, who we all know now was Grant was faking evidence for the sake of the viewers.

The show which deals with paranormal investigations seems to be less about the paranormal and more about pulling fast ones on the viewers, viewers who seem to be more interested in the girls and guys seen on the show who have little crushes on these non-celebrities. When certain people try and debunk the shows evidence and point out parts of the show that seem to be obvious hoaxes the fans become defensive seemingly afraid these people may be exposed for exactly what they are... frauds.

It's still on though even though during a recent live Halloween investigation it became clear that head investigator Grant was guilty of trying to pass off a fake voice and on the same show tried making it seem like his jacket was pulled on by a ghost, when it was clear he was doing it himself by something rigged in his pocket. But these frauds state it was authentic and the fans buy it all. Recently these two frauds created an International version and in 2009 created a so-called Ghost Hunters Academy obviously created to make them even more money and train a new generation of frauds.

My vote on a scale from 1 to 10 is 1 (awful), that's only because I can't give this piece of crap of a show a big zero. This particular show seems to be about exploiting the paranormal field and it's gullible fans for the sake of the might dollar, passing off fake ghostly sounds and footage just to keep its viewers tuned in. If your a believer looking for a good ghost hunting show check out Ghost Adventures or Ghost Lab which I believe fans of this show are slowly tuning into as they learn what a big joke Ghost Hunters has become.


A group of plumbers use their vacation time to inspect houses that are claimed to be haunted by ghosts. The audience follows them through the houses with their technology and expertise, leaving us to be the judge.

I watched a few episodes of "Ghost Hunters" on a recommendation from a friend (who believes in ghosts, although his girlfriend doesn't). I was told it was pretty spooky and that it might show me that ghosts were possible. I don't think him and I watched the same show.

Two men are trained as plumbers with no scientific background. They use such devices as thermometers and video cameras to detect ghosts. I heard them say things like "it's cold here, must be where the ghost entered" and "I feel really scared and uncomfortable in this room". How is that in any way convincing?

The evidence was really nothing special, either. A cold room means there's a ghost? I'm not sure what that's based on. A flash of light is a specter? A bad feeling is a presence? The closest thing I saw to any ghost in this show is a door that opened and closed on its own. Nothing floating, no voices, no spirits. Just a door that opens and closes, which I didn't find very impressive. Doesn't air pressure do that in houses all the time?

If you believe in ghosts, you might find this show pretty amusing. If you don't, I don't think this is going to be the kind of program that convinces you. There were some good moments as far as drama goes -- they are very soap opera-like in how they deal with girlfriends -- but the actual ghost hunting is rather weak.


I'll admit that when I first started watching this show, at a friend's request of course, I thought it was vaguely interesting. I've always loved paranormal things, and figured a show called "Ghost Hunters" could fill my insatiable need to understand such things.

Unfortunately that was not the case. Gradually I became more and more annoyed at this show and their methods. Mainly I have a few issues with how they handle things. First, some of their members don't seem to respect the ghosts, or spirits if you will. I recall there was an episode in which one of the members was trying to provoke the ghost into doing something by calling it names. Careful doing that, newbie, you might just get possessed.

Another issue I had is that they rely on technology for EVERYTHING. They'll set up thousands of dollar's worth of cameras and other equipment around the place in hopes that they'll catch something. This may be scientifically proved to catch things that we have scientific proof of, but when you're trying to catch PARANORMAL things with EVERY DAY technology, you've got to know that you're going to get little to nothing. At least Paranormal State has the balls to use psychics, mediums, and religious methods, which are far superior to technology.

Last issue is my main problem. They're rarely willing to draw a conclusion about a whole lot of ANYTHING. They use their "scientific method" to try to rule out regular happenings before they can draw a conclusion, but even when they do rule out everything else, they STILL aren't willing to admit it's paranormal. For example, if they had a camera get knocked over or something, they would test for ground movement, wind, drafts in the house, physical intervention, etc etc, but even when they rule that nothing normal could've possibly effected it, they only rule that it could POSSIBLY be paranormal, and that's being generous. Get my drift? If science can't explain it, then obviously it must be PARA - NORMAL.

And whenever they DO find something they deem to be "paranormal", they don't do anything about it! I can't tell you how many times they've heard EVP's saying "help" or "help me", but they never do! They log it as just another phenomenon. Has it occurred to them that these spirits actually want help passing on, and this is their only way of asking for it? Nope, they wouldn't know. It's all about ratings and money.

Ultimately I don't like how they go about doing things on this show, and I believe that ultimately their methods are causing them more trouble than it's worth. I'll stick with Paranormal State, thanks.


I can't believe there are so many people still willing to buy this junk. If you're serious about investigating this nonsense, then just go here: http://www.skepticalanalysis.com/ If you just like it as entertainment, sort of like professional wrestling, that's fine, I suppose. But don't be snookered into believing anything they portray here. There's growing evidence that it is just as phony as pro wrestling, and much of it is completely staged. They just don't have the honesty to admit it, because that would ruin their ratings. And, after all, remember that it is on the SciFi Channel, not the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel.


At first glance, Take the Lead looks like it will take the "Inspirational light drama" genre to a new level. But a lack strong story structure and a reliance on clichés undermine it.

Antonio Bandaress plays his role well. He is every bit the suave cool dance teacher one would expect to reach out to inner-city kids. However, except for a couple of the kids the other cast members are fairly mediocre. The movie also has decent dialog. Most of it is convincing and fits the characters.

Take the Lead has more interesting direction than most movies of its type. There are some interesting shots. But that is not enough to save some of the more clichéd scenes. Also, the proper emotion is present in some of the grittier scenes showing the kids home lives.

The movie is hindered by its lack of plot. It opens by setting up its premise reasonably well. But then it descends into random dance lessons and struggles at home with the kids. Those type of scenes are not enough to hold interest, in my opinion.

Take the Lead will appeal to fans of dance and light dramas. Others will believe it to be territory that has been explored one too many times. Be cautious when deciding whether or not to spend time on this film.


well... i expected much of this film, since i think Antonio Banderas is a great actor, too bad the other actors, director and editors were horrible. the movie was quite boring, very few dancing scenes, the hip hop dancers aren't dancers at all. and on top of all that the editing of this movie was amateur work, i was shocked with all the microphone thing, throughout the whole movie you can see the microphones used on the set, someone REALLY screwed up at the editing. it's a lousy plot, and the only good dancing scene was between Banderas and the hot blonde, the rest was very mediocre. this movie is maybe good for teenage girls under 18, but not for older people. it's a waste of time and money... wait till it's on cables to see it


most embarrassing example of careless editing/shooting i've ever seen for a studio release.

the boom mic is visible in at least 30 shots throughout the "film," nullifying the effect of some admittedly-creative camera work.

as the entire theatre murmured and snickered every time the mic dangled in and out of the frame, i couldn't help but wonder how any exec (let alone antonio banderas) could allow such an oversight to go to release.

typical "dangerous minds," "sister act 2"-type clichés...

but what do you expect, i suppose.

the pace of the movie is curious, as it lingers in some dull spots, yet fast-forwards ahead, turning rookies to professional-calibre tango dancers in about 8 minutes.

yeah, yeah...my girlfriend wanted me to see it with her.


This movie is a hodge-podge mixture of "Save the Last Dance, "Dirty Dancing," "Shall We Dance," "Lean on Me," "Dangerous Minds," and the ending scene in "Sparkle."

C'mon! Why are we rehashing the same plots and themes and calling it new material?

Also there's a Suspicion of Disbelief ALERT on this film- it will behoove you to use it when watching.

Here's what I liked: Rob Brown (Finding Forester)- great actor; promising career. He was one of the few actors I took seriously in this movie. He added depth to his character and made him very believable when he could have taken the stereotypical-Black-angry-"thug-like"-teenaged character he was given and made us not care about his life. But he made us care; good job.

Ya Ya DaCosta- I think she did a great job for this being her break-out role. Her stint in reality-TV program "America's Next Top Model," made me curious to see how well she would do. Although I could tell she was new to acting, she surprised me and added charm and grace to her role (perhaps b/c of her background as a well-rounded Ivy-leaguer and dancer).

The Dancing- it was phenomenal and saved the movie a few times for me.

The Editing- edgy, quick, and fast-paced; it kept me on my toes and added a creative edge to the movie. The editor did a lot of cross-cutting in order to contrast different life-styles, values, and cultures which is a great idea to bring a message w/o weakening the film and adding it to the dialogue.

Here's what I didn't like: -The old and rehashed formula: urban school, urban kids, White-Latino comes in and "saves the day" and teaches them the refined culture of manners and courtesy which are obviously foreign concepts to them- seen this (formula) before and never liked it.

This is getting way too old for me. The first few times I let it go b/c urban inner-city (read: Black life) does, in fact, reflect some of those things, some of the time. Every culture has its dubious aspects and characters but they don't REPRESENT or become the ambassador of a culture like this movie and others would like us to believe. My God, the last time I checked in the mirror I was Black, and yet when I go to the movies I start to question it b/c my parents aren't drug dealers and I've never seen a gun before. WE GET THE POINT: Hollywood studios think minorities don't have manners, love to listen to Hip-hop and enjoy shooting each other or at least they think it's entertaining.

Don't get me started on how these themes have plagued so many movies to the point where it has gotten incredibly predictable and boring. Get a clue: this is not entertainment nor is it representative.

The fact that there were no caring and responsible parents represented in the film bothered me to no end. In fact, the one scene that featured parents, they were silent except for one comedic line! So now the infamous "parents in inner-city schools usually don't care about their children" stereotype comes into play. Yet another misrepresentation of Black/urban life.

The kids the Antonio Banderas character was working with were supposed to be the lowest of the low, the rejects, the outcasts, those with "criminal" records, the detention kids: give me a break! That was laughable. I'll take those kids any day over the kids I knew who were in detention in my high school.

Interesting note: The token White characters were paired up with the Black overweight characters b/c of their marginalized status among their peers. Token White characters were added to this movie b/c the studio probably didn't want people like me writing reviews like this one, accusing them of racism and stereotyping.

Well, clever move but I'm hip to the game. I don't think the studio was racist or stereotyping. I just thought they were making a bad movie.

Too bad good actors like, Brown, DaCosta,and Woodard, along with the film's editor and the man who inspired this film had to be a part of it.


By now you already know the essentials. This is like scores of other movies that mix the competition genre  success in life as dedication to some competitive sport  with the black kids redeemed by tough dedicated teacher. Its a predictable grind.

There are other distractions: the patronizing tone is heavier than usual, Banderas, usually charming, has some syrupy lines that might have been forgiven if he had actually danced. I guess it wasn't in his contract. The final peculiarity comes if you saw "Mad Hot Ballroom." The competition is in actually learning the graces of ballroom dancing, but this movie wants it both ways and ends with a hop hop sequence. It is as if he talked them into entering a polo context and they won it by playing basketball.

Well, I forgive all this, because the dance is handled cinematically, and that's good enough for me. Forget all the tepid excuses and bozo morality and just look at this as an episode in the long love affair between movies and dance.

This particular thread started with Fred Astair I suppose. The problem was that movies were trying to become something more than stage shows. So they had to figure some way to merge dance that would appear in the story. Astair combined ballroom dancing with the kind of stage dancing from the old era.

This way, it made sense in a subtle but important way and we ended up with a whole class of dance folding in what followed.

This movie is essentially about hip hop dance merged with "whitebread" ballroom dancing. The fold is ordinary: at the end we have an audience on-screen engaged in their sometimes nice business of polite dancing, sometimes with a representation of passion but not real passion.

And what gets folded in is "real" life, real passion (supposedly, though who believes kids can know anything about passion?).

So if you are going to judge this, there are only two things to watch for:

Is the passionate dance passionate? Is it real? Do you feel that you are taking risks with it; that you are seeing the dancers at the edge? Is it Jazz? Does it hurt?

No it doesn't. You never escape the reality that these are professional dancers picked to match the required stereotypes and who are moving clumsily by design. Then when they bust out you know you are watching something choreographed.

secondly:

Does the camera dance? After all, the whole thing is about enfolding us into the energy of the thing. And it is possible to place the camera amid the dance and animate it as if we were ourselves busting out.

And this does reward a bit, especially in the editing until the end. That end I guess is too important to the producers, so it abruptly shifts into conventional camera mode. It may have been shot first with a different creating crew.

But earlier, the camera does engage. And the lighting is subtly edgy.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.


I'm gonna start by saying that the only reason why I went to all the trouble of opening an account in this site so I could publicly complain about this movie. I was watching it a while ago and I just couldn't stop laughing out loud during the whole thing, since it's just unbelievable the amount of nonsense and common places just one single film can come up with. Although it is to be remarked that the dancing is sincerely amazing (which is why I gave it a 2), that doesn't make up for the fact that the rest of the movie is just an insult to both the viewer's intelligence and the art of story-telling altogether. If there was a competition to decide which script in the history of the film industry contains the highest number of clichés in the world, this one would definitively "take the lead" of it and leave all the rest of them behind. Honestly, I just couldn't believe it: when this movie was written, someone must have been following the how-to-make-a-corny-movie recipe, because absolutely all of the ingredients are to be found in this film. We have: 1) The authority: a mean and not-so-cold-hearted school principal, who pretends to be to tough to care but in the end proves that deep down she has feelings and all. 2)The hero: a sweet well intentioned dance teacher, who apparently has way too much free time and money in his hands. 3) The ones who are saved by the hero: an outcast group of annoyingly stereotypical minority examples, such as hispanic, obese and black people who have to deal with all sorts of dramatic issues: there's the drug related murder, the alcoholic father, the mother who has to prostitute herself to feed her children and the abandon father. Of course, all this kids go out of their ways to be "better than that". Yet, they are all in detention. 4) The nemesis: a science teacher who not only doesn't give a damn about this unfortunate children, but even manages to get the school PTA (mean bastards, the lot of them) against the dance classes, as if the parent and teachers didn't have anything better to deal with, given the fact that half of the students seem to be nothing but potential criminals. 5) The mean blonde (very blond. Stereotype contrast is everything here), who looks down at the lot because they are poor and not American. Hence, a bunch of losers. 6) The blonde who's not mean: an upper-class teenager (as white as white paint can be) with way too many issues to even talk about them. Risks her head joining the ghetto dance class but gets away with it and ends up hooking up with an obese black guy who everyone calls "monster". Her mother's gonna be proud. 7) The drama moment: the final scene where all of the above (yes, the principal too) come together in a dance contest that the for-some-reason-loaded dance teacher manages to get them into by paying a fortune. They don't win (that would have been way too much) but they do learn the lesson: "go for your dreams", "don't never give up", "we're all the same", whatever other cheesy thing you might think of. To all of this, I would just like to add the fact that the whole movie lacks of any kind of deepness in regards of the serious issues it pretends to deal with, it's boring, predictable and just as flat as a white sheet. Don't waste your time on this film; if you wanna see dancing moves, just go watch high school musical or something like that.


I was disappointed that IMDb would not let me give this piece of drivel a rating of zero. I suppose in retrospect it deserves at least one point for the way the director strung together every teen/dance movie cliché in existence. Save the money, and don't even bother to sneak in - that way you could spare yourself the two hours lost out of your life.

I would normally leave my comments as is, but the IMDb guidelines require ten lines. Which was the worst cliché? Hard to say. Was it all of the misunderstood yet well-meaning kids in detention? Perhaps the teacher with a heart of gold? The tough talking principle who comes over to the good side? The math teacher who thinks that his kids are being neglected in favour of the rejects (although none of the math geeks are in detention, and the 'teacher' (Banderas) is there for free? The list goes on....

If you were to make a drinking game out of this, you could call it "Cliche", or maybe even "Crap Movie". Every time you saw a cliché on screen, you could call it out, and everyone else would have to drink. Bring plenty of booze - it will be a tough game, and you may need it.

'Nuff said.


So, went to see "Take the Lead" with Antonio Banderas, and it, how do you say? Ah, yes. Sucked.

Here's a few reasons: * Every single character was a Stereotype. From the black, thug kids, to the hard ass Principal, the skinny Blonde Rich Bitch, Antonio the teacher who wants to make a difference, the geeky white girl- Not one character was multi dimensional.

* It was obviously written by a 40 year old white guy, which is why all the black kids say stuff like "You're a punk a**" and "Let's bring it".

*Clichés Clichés! The entire plot is one cliché after another. At one point, towards the end, the black thug kid shows up for the ball room dancing competition still in his thug clothes, and he decided he must dance with the girl who's brother shot his brother, but they have since resolved their differences through dance, so Antonio takes off his jacket and gives it to him.

*No scenes have a conclusion. Screen writing 101: Every great scene must have a beginning, middle and an end. None of the scenes have and end. Even the movie didn't have an end. You expect if there's a build up to a big competition, you would find out who wins at the end. Right? Not in this movie.

* It was based on a true story. This makes the fact that this movie had a half ass script even worse, because it's offensive to the people who actually lived through it. I would hate to be any of the people being portrayed watching this and think "Am I really that big of a stereotype? What the...?" In Conclusion: I'm glad I got to see this for free, cause I'd be mad if I paid $9.50 for this hooey.

Overall Grade: D-


This movie was most definitely the worst film I've seen in the year of 2006. Not only is the story line jumbled and poorly maintained, but the technical work is disappointing. It held way too many characters to keep track of and way too many sub plots that lose your interest and attention throughout the wasted 2 hours. I suppose you can't expect much from a director who has spent most of her time on music videos. I would say hold your breath and save your money. Stupid shots in petty attempts to be creative, cliché' dialogue and terrible acting, and the only thing that put this film up in the box office was a good preview. Don't get me wrong, there were some amusing and moderately entertaining scenes, but they were outweighed by the handfuls of junk surrounding them.


Well seems again those no good kids are about to learn a valuable life lesson through the art of dancing. Whenever you see a group of real gangster kids you know there is a well dressed hard-ass ready to teach the kids how to be successful and have rhythm. The idea has been done before, there is no originality whatsoever in any of the scenes made.

If I can give it one complement it would be the dance scenes, they were well choreographed and took some skill to it for that I applaud. Otherwise, yawn, has nothing to it. Story focuses on a man (Banderas) who one afternoon teaches a few bad apples how to salsa and change their ways.

"Take the Lead" has a less the choreographed plot to it other than a few cool moves on the dance floor. I don't no why Antonio Banderas keeps doing these bad movies "Spy Kids" and "Take the Lead", what happened to "Desperado", nowhere in sight. Sadly his career has fell flat on its face.---4/10


Formula for the teacher meets misunderstood/troubled students, where the result is positive for everyone.

Take a teacher (male/female). Place said teacher in an inner city or remedial class room. Add conflict, usually due to social class difference or the fact that said kids have never gotten proper encouragement or positive attention from adult figures. Teacher then breaks down said barriers with some "forward" thinking alternative teaching methodology. The kids learn. There is usually a fall-back to previous behavior (usually caused by external school situations), followed by redemption. And this is usually based on true life events, for added drama.

Now is the easy part. As we learned in algebra, we just place in the actual data to replace the variables. The teacher is Zorro himself, Antonio Banderas. There are the kids (too numerous and somewhat annoying to mention). And there's the forward thinking teaching method which would be ballroom dancing. There are numerous other movies that follow a similar path - Sydney Poitier in To Sir, With Love; Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds; Edward James Olmos in Stand and Deliver; The Rock in Gridiron Gang; Rhea Perlman in Sunset Park; and even Samuel L. Jackson in Coach Carter. The later entries on that list follow the same formula, except it substitutes sports for class and coach for teacher.

There is nothing overly original about this movie. Even though this movie is based on actual events and Pierre Dulaine (which is inspirational in itself and commendable), does not mean I necessarily want to see the same thing rehashed with different names, places and dates.

The music is decent and the dancing is average. I guess one really has to be into ballroom dancing to get a fuller appreciation. There is also nothing I like better than to be grilled by Zorro in a condescending fashion. On a side note Dante Basco really needs to invest time into getting his acting skills up to par and getting a new agent. He is almost pushing 32 and playing angst-ridden teenagers might be a bit of stretch right now. The problem I have with most of these types of movies is that the ending is gratuitous. The ending is usually somewhat if not completely happy in which something is achieved, but the full realization of turning one's life around and making something of oneself is never fully shown. For example, how does LaRhette resolve her mom's prostitution and how does Rock resolve his conflict with his alcoholic dad and not to mention with the local thug he just angered ?

The only true worth of the movie would have to be Zorro's tango with actress/dancer Katya Virshilas. That was kind of hot, but I think that was mostly due to her intrinsic abilities. I would have given this movie a higher rating if it actually induced sleep, because at the time I couldn't. Instead skip this one and just watch the trailer. It includes the best scene of the movie.


This is a textbook example of how the Hollywood cookie cutter factory takes a nice sleeper hit documentary and turns it into 2 hours worth of clichés. I lost count as to the number of other films whose elements and ideas it used. I almost expected to hear the blonde competitor say, "You're okay LaRusso", when she presented the trophy, or have one of Pierre's kids get on the mike at the end and say, "If I can change...and you can change.........everybody can change."

If you want to feel uplifted and see real kids enrich themselves in real life situations, please do yourself a favor by skipping this and seeing Mad Hot Ballroom instead.


I saw this movie at the Toronto Filmfest and had such high hopes... soon to be dashed. The plot is both confused and boring, leaving the audience incapable of identifying with the characters. The backdrop of an erupting volcano tries to give the film tension but merely confuses the storyline. Harvey Keitel manages to make some of the movie at least watchable but this movie rated high on the numb-bum-omiter... for a movie pegged at 135 mins it felt like 4 hours.

The whole audience was left in stunned silence at the end of the movie. When the Q and A started the director was asked "what were the evil nuns about? " he didn't seem to know what they were there for either... I'd like to think it was a nod to Monty Python ;-)


Dramas over two hours in length generally fall into two camps - they either have an epic story to tell, full of deep characterisations, complex plots and stunning backdrops, or they stink. Ginostra falls with aplomb into the latter category.

Never has so little happened of such little note in such a long time. If this were not bad enough, never have actors of the calibre of Harvey Keitel and Andie MacDowell delivered such clunky dialogue with such haste and apparent lack of skillful direction or editing.

The likes of Osment and Radcliffe have little to worry about from Mattia De Martino, who plays the son of a chef to the mob who is his immediate family's sole survivor following a car bombing. Keitel is the FBI agent on the case and he and his wife MacDowell base themselves near the island of Ginostra, the site of the bombing, while he tries to pump the child for information.

There is some innuendo between Keitel and Francesca Neri, who plays the wife of the local officer chasing the mob, who in turn appears to fancy MacDowell. Nothing actually materialises, which is the film's major problem - it's quite miserable and very dull. Misery is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but with nothing else to grab hold of, it's all a bit much.


Sounds like fun. Well it isn't. Location is great, actors are good (Keitel and Andie MacDowell) but there is no story, no plotline, nothing. Lets start shooting, who needs a story. Well, let me tell you, this movie was in very dire need of a story. Any story would have done, half a story would have given me a semi-enjoyable evening. I give you with 1/10 the first real dud of 2004. Should have gone to the party instead. 1-1-2004 02:45


I have used IMDb for years to look up movies. I have never been compelled to write about one. But I must warn anyone thinking about watching this movie. Please for God's sake, find another movie. I cannot begin to describe how boring this movie is. I rented it because the actors in it are normally first rate, well they were terrible and the directing was ridiculous. It's still on here at my house, it is near the end, and I could care less about how it ends. I just wasted 2 hours of my life, it feels like a day and a half, or a half a day depending on what scene I am watching. Shoot me now. The premise is that an FBI agent is protecting a young boy from the mafia family that his father worked for. The boys family was killed by the mafia and the FBI agent was semi-responsible because he was protecting the boys family before the father testified against the mafia. However, one of the FBI agents friends leaks the info to the mafia family, thus the family is killed but they missed the boy. This premise could have made for a riveting and action packed movie, it is neither, it is packed with meaningless dialog, scenes that are unnecessary and forgetful characters.


I had pretty high hopes of this film, primarily due to it having a couple of decent actors. Unfortunately the whole thing doesn't work at all. The attempt at a plot is just terrible. Some of the editing is very bad, for example, Keitel standing on a elevated road, and a second later getting on a tram down at ground level with no explanation as to how he got down there (that part's probably on the cutting room floor.) I also think some of the problem is it tries to be an artistic film but doesn't have any interesting plots or story, except for the tiniest interesting part at the swimming pool. I ended up just laughing at the stupidity of the whole thing.


This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. A story would have been helpful and if the director knew what direction he wanted the movie to go that would also be a good thing. The acting was also poor at best.

My advice is: Don't bother. PT


A film using an active volcano as a backdrop for a drama is an original idea but it is about all that is good in this film. This is sure to be Andie McDowell's worst film and probably everyone else's in the cast. The story line is impossible to follow and not worthy of suspense anyway. The character of the boy, Ettore, is too heroic for a man let alone a boy. Since such heroes invariably prove irresistible to the ladies, I half expected a nymphomania-cal McDowell to overlook convention concerning his age. My depravity was bred out of boredom. There were all sorts of extra cast members whose roles and motives were difficult to establish. The nuns called to mind the witches of Macbeth, but the suggestion of occult, if intended, also led nowhere.

This is a film which has no real drama. The end is the only relief.


A nice film to look at but otherwise a real piece of trash which I avoided up till now. The characters all seem to be from different cultures & from different eras which really is jarring, particularly in the 1960s - 1970s laid-back style of Carradine. The Stein/Toklas salon is a one-dimensional embarrassment. The Hemingway portrayal is a disaster on every level. The principals on this film must have really hated him. Only John Lone & Linda Fiorentino give the film any tension or dimension. Even Genevieve Bujold, an otherwise fascinating actress, is totally wasted in this pathetically boorish Rudolph effort.


This is sheer torture. Pure trash. Genuine idiocy. Absolute pretentiousness.

I cringe every time the characters lapse into theatrical dialog in French. I seethe with unbridled rage every time the characters deliver philosophical pieces of crap. I switched off the player after 15 minutes of uncontained stupidity of characterization, plot, and amateurish film-making.

You have no budget for authentic 1920's French backgrounds? Throw in the smoke machine. Ninety percent of the film is drenched in smoke to hide the fake settings.

I can go on and on explaining what is wrong with this movie but my patience has run out.

Gpo see your nearest lobotomist.


This movie seems to pick up where "Creature From The Black Lagoon" left off. We all know that the Gill Man wanted some hot, steamy Amazonian sex with the pretty girl in the white bathing suit...but no way were they going to show that happening back in the 50s! Well, along came 1980 and the Gill Man is either high-fiving his amphibious descendants, or he's rolling over in his watery grave.

A bunch of salmon (yes, salmon!) exposed to pollution, mutate into some pretty cool looking monsters and go on a rape and murder spree in a small Pacific Northwest fishing village. There's also a subplot concerning Native Americans protesting the pollution of their waters, but it seems like an afterthought, as no one could really stretch a story about horny monsters out for an hour and a half. Young, sexually active women in bikinis beware! The monsters are determined to procreate, and do so in a couple of nasty, icky rape scenes. There's also an infamously gross-out climax (no pun intended) in which a rape victim gives birth to a monstrous fish baby. And she didn't reach for a coat hangar earlier because why?

Yeesh, now I know why Lovecraft hated fish so much. These guys are nasty! The rubber costumes are great, giving us icky slimy fishmen with giant exposed brains, nasty little piranha teeth and incredibly elongated arms. There's lots of bare, jiggling breasts and really stupid people getting their guts clawed out, so if you like naked girls and gore, don't miss this one.


neat little horror/exploitation flick about mutated frogs/salmon ?! the monsters are cheap ripoffs of the Alien creatures but were done by EFX genius Rob Bottin, clearly an early effort. lots of jiggly young thangs pop up throughout the flick and the monsters serve as a good excuse to rip off their bikinis. furthermore, there is a small raft of established b-list actors/actresses that make it interesting. good for late night viewing


This would have been a wonderful B monster movie. It has the cool monsters, the camera moving through kelp, the silly teenagers, and the 'concerned townspeople.' It even has the subplot of the typical oppressed individual wanting to protect his land/house/insert item here. However, a problem would be that at least half way through the flick, we still don't know where they've come from. Not that I care too much, but when it's in the tagline that they are failed experiments, wouldn't you expect to see more of that? Just pointing it out. And, the most grievous problem is that as noted in the 'trivia' section, the producer added more sex scenes because he wanted to make it 'more sexy'. And while, yes, gratuitous nudity is common in these sorts of flicks, the kind they added here is just offensive. The first real sex scene is of one of the monsters raping the woman. I can ignore a lot of things, but this isn't one of them.


Imagine my excitement: having searched for this notorious exploitation item for years, I finally track it down whilst on vacation in San Francisco. I spend the rest of the vacation itching to get home to watch it. Then, when I finally get home I discover myself lumbered with possibly the worst, and easily the sickest of all the many JAWS rip offs that have ever been made. Even on an unintentionally funny level, it doesn't work. Rape and wanton carnage are not amusing matters.

The wafer thin plot is about some over sized fish monsters that rise from the ocean deep and bring mayhem to a West Coast fishing community. According to the scientist in the film (a miscast Ann Turkel who pronounces most of the scientific language incorrectly) they are evolving rapidly and need to mate with human women in order to take the next step in their evolutionary process. This is the excuse for some graphic rape sequences, involving naked women being mounted and abused by men in rubber suits. At the end, the monsters attack a seaside carnival, and seem to mysteriously forget their desire to rape and just start ripping off arms and legs and heads of anyone they can find, regardless of gender. The blood spurts out all over the place, but is totally the wrong shade of red to be convincing (it looks more like spare paint from London double decker buses!)

There is a sense of humour to this film, which prevents it from becoming too offensive, but isn't obvious enough to make it a fun experience. The acting is pretty bad, but I suppose if you're going to watch a Doug McClure film you expect that before it's even begun. The logic of the film is left generally untouched.... indeed it is hard to figure out how anyone could make such idiocy logical. This is a bad film and I'm saying that from the point of view of someone who was eager to see it. If you're just watching it because it's a rainy day and it's something you taped out of general curiosity, you'll probably enjoy it even less than me. Seriously: don't bother!


Or "Horny Fish-Men From the Deep". A very silly monster film, about twenty years BEHIND its time. What can you say about a film that drew its "inspiration" from such silly crap as "Creature From the Black Lagoon" and "Horror At Party Beach". About as scary as a five year-old wearing a vampire mouth-piece. Quite stupid, too. Dogs get butchered, people disappear, a boat blows up - and yet nothing seems to wake up this small (and probably quite jaded) fishing community. Only when bodies start appearing all over the place do brains start activating: "Hey...! There's something fishy here!". And even then they conclude that it was probably just the fish. Some very stupid dialog. The creatures are your typical zombie-like amphibian fish-people, with the difference that they like to rape women; the idea that mutated fish have the "urge to mate" with human females is just too much - even for a dumb horror film. The absurd set of coincidental circumstances that lead to the (first) boat's explosion are an early indication of the dumb things to follow. The last scene is a shameless 1:1 rip-off of the (in)famous belly-burst scene from "Alien".


I was a bit disappointed in this film. Based on some of the amazon reviews I read, and Roger Corman's stellar reputation I thought that I would be seeing the creepiest, grossest most graphic `amphibious monsters killing the men and mating with the women' type movie imaginable.

I had a few problems with this film. First of all the whole sub-plot of the conflict between the Indian who wants to preserve the river and the redneck fishermen who want the cannery to be built was completely unnecessary and boring. C'mon, you have salmons mutating into humans and terrorizing a town, isn't that enough? The other problem is that you have a director who gives the whole thing a made for TV look, with absolutely no atmosphere. What you wind up with is a good premise that was ruined with poor execution.

There are some fairly graphic rape scenes between the monsters and the women, although they really just consist of a guy in a fish suit laying on a naked woman as she struggles and screams. What they could have done to make it grosser is have these mutant salmon-men with their ugly fish faces French-kissing the women, or, if they wanted to add a more perverted twist, show the women as enjoying having sex with the mutant fish-men. Anyhow they really could of made much more of that aspect of the film then they did.

The other area for improvement in my opinion, would have been if all the fish-men were about four feet tall like the one shown in the finally. There was something really viscous and scary about that one as opposed to the man size creatures.


This film has some scary, funny, and naked chick moments. Doug McClure gives a great performance with his limited ability (no offense Doug). The sea monsters, also known as humanoids, are guys in cheap costumes like the Godzilla movies. This film is not really graphic. If you can stand some blood and some guy in a sea monster suit pretending to hump a lifeless naked female for a second, then this is your film. I encourage all fans of eighties B movies to watch this one. Overall I give the film a 4/10 fair rating. The acting and plot get lame sometimes, but it is still fun.


and I thought there'd be some humor to its stupidity. I guess I got what I expected, not much more. Wouldn't watch it again, don't recommend it to anyone to watch for any reason. Only reason I watched is because my Guide said 'killer salmon' and I couldn't pass that up! 4 out of 10


This is a really, really bad movie. I'm watching it right now on TV 'cos it's too hot to sleep (typical Aussie summer, wouldn't ya guess), and, it being the summer "silly season", the networks have pulled out their big guns - namely, lower-than-C-grade movies, which basically constitutes the entire Aussie industry.

Even by summer non-ratings standards, this is pretty horrific. Simply, it's another victim of shoddy Aussie writing, bad, bad direction, and normally very good actors doing a damn fine job of being terrible. I don't even remember this film being released commercially, so it's probably some commissioned TV movie that somehow got the green light and is now languishing in the perpetual darkness of a station's archive.

Oh well, maybe we can hope they're only going to screen it once every silly season. The world can only be a better place if it never again sees the light of day. Bonza.

And that is my two cents on another sterling Aussie gem. Chuck us another shrimp, because this one's well and truly over done.


Ridiculous things occur through the film which is enough to warrant a 1 even if (and it wasn't) the acting/directing/camera work etc was top notch.

I must admit the most amusing part was when I correctly guessed the little doggy had something to do with he whole thing, I couldn't believe I was right, I was laughing, that was the first time I have ever laughed at a movie! THere are other random crap this movie tosses around, though I must admit the final scene did have me 'like wt?' for a couple of seconds thinking 'oh god this movie just hit the absolute pinnacle of stupidity' however soon I realized that it was just a twist like ending.

If you care to find out the ending read on (you wont be upset if you watch the movie afterward since its going to be hard enough to hate it more than you can).

******* crappy spoiler *********************

Well basically the bad guy is on top of a train with the protagonists daughter suddenly his sister who died (as you find in the opening sequence) appears, which was pathetic, I mean for a while we thought he was some ghost then we realize he's really a man but now the movie has gone back to ghosts? Thats the part I meant was pinnacle of stupidity, however straight after that you discover its the protagonist with a wig, that caught me off, perhaps i was laughing too hard to notice?


I almost thought this movie was supposed to be a comedy. The terrible continuity, the bad fake American accents, the weird inconsistencies with the cars, the haircut that never was and the stabbing in the back but no injury...

How embarrassing!

I understand that it was a low budget movie, but some things don't cost money to get right. For instance, how much extra would it have cost to put the headrest in the Range Rover in the right way around instead of backwards?

Why make a movie set in the Australian countryside and populate the towns with Americans, and if you are going to do that, at least make sure the accents are credible.


This is meant to be a thriller, but the audience laughed in way too many places at the ridiculousness of the situation.. If you like seeing a naked Sigrid or Peter O'Brien 6 pack this is the movie for you.

It almost got to the point of saying "Watch out -He's behind you!" And why oh why didn't they use the line "Oh my god - I've killed Kenny!"


Joan Crawford should had broken into the vaults at M-G-M studios and BURNED this film. Not only is she TERRIBLE in it, but the production itself is laughable. Joan even attempts to sing and is often off-key.


Anything usually associated Deodato's original Cannibal Holocaust will conjure up images of severe violence, real animal cruelty, and pure visceral shock.

When Cannibal Holocaust 2 reached the shops here in the UK (released by the 'weak' VIPCO label) it seemed like a rather intriguing title. Having only been cut by a few seconds (according to the BBFC) I was expecting something rather extreme, to say the least.

This film is simply incomparable with Deodato's. Again, no cannibalism is shown whatsoever and what exists is, to quote my title, extremely diluted. The acting and (alarmingly) bad dubbing makes this film seem emphatically laughable. There is nothing worth analysing here and the only reason to review this film is to shame it. A hyperbolic blood-bath would have done the trick more than this!

Protagonists driving around in 'monster' trucks...stealing amphibious aircraft...playing trumpets while canoeing down the amazon...sound terrible so far? The problem is, it continues to get worse by the minute. Anyone expecting a crescendo of violence at the film's 'climax' is going to be very disappointed. It makes you question why this film was given an '18' certificate. Blow-darting monkeys...fish swimming up natives rectums...getting worse...and the cherry on top: a vomit inducing 'happy ending' whereby all characters seem to find some form of happiness after parading around the jungle like a prize set of ignorant s**ts! If only I could have returned this and got my money back. It is fair that this sub-genre of film is a marginal one but this is, without a doubt, absolute garbage.


I didn't come into this movie with high expectations. I knew it was essentially a spoof of the cannibal genre, I knew there was no actual cannibalism, and I knew that the violence and action was incredibly low. Upon watching it, I realized that those missing elements were the only things that could have saved it. I couldn't believe what I was watching. I was more than disappointed; I was dumbfounded. Antonio Climati, a man notorious for Mondo cinema, which has some of the most disturbing and violent images ever put to celluloid, makes a movie that some high school kids could make. There's hardly any worthwhile action in this movie. It's not toned down; it's non-existent. I've seen more from a PG movie, let alone from the cannibal genre. Not to revel in the violence, but that's what you expect from these movies, and it at least makes for an entertaining movie experience. This, however, leaves you watching a movie with people rowing down the river, laughing, in no real danger (for the most part), strutting in Amazonia with the most clichéd plot and events. Even worse, Climati seems to be attacking Deodato, the same way Deodato attacked him with Cannibal Holocaust, by insulting him for his treatment of animals! That would make more sense if he wasn't a Mondo man!

The whole ordeal opens with Jemma getting Pete, Mark, and Fred to come down to the Amazon, because she has a good hunch that some Professor Korenz, who was believed dead, is still alive. They come down to this small town looking for a guide. When he refuses, they go on the search for gas instead. This is where Climati starts his awkward, "animals are our friends" stance. When Pete resuscitates a monkey for a monkey trapper, the trapper decides to give them gas if they get him monkeys. Pretty dumb, but I've seen worse in better movies. Well, once they catch some monkeys, the natives get ticked and decide to "torture" them by making them pretend like they're monkeys and see how it feels. So they offer the natives a tape recorder if they let them go (Cannibal Holocaust, anyone?). When they finally reach this native village they're looking for, they find that gold hunters have been through and tortured the natives for information about the Imas tribe and their treasure. Of course, they must put a stop to this. On the way, they meet a horny river fisherman and child smugglers until they finally face off against the treasure hunters when they find the professor and his tribe. They leave the jungle feeling proud, like they found really themselves in the whole adventure. How incredibly corny can you get?!

I'm not going to analyze the faulty animal rights and cannibal genre morality, as it's so self-evident that there's no more discussion needed. That said, if you come into this movie with any expectations at all, you're going to be horribly disappointed, because there is so little substance to this film. As already mentioned, the plot is very cliché, and it's easy to figure out the main characters make it through. What isn't cliché is the array of completely random and confusing events that show up throughout. Instead of sticking with the actual story, you get lost in unnecessary and extremely boring side plots of different struggles and sequences cropping up, and by the time it gets back on track, the movie's almost over! They seem to be looking for this professor, but all the while they encounter child smugglers, gold hunters, and other bad-boys ruining the natives' way of life. These random events makes there very little action at all, because every ten minutes there's something new to focus on. There's no time to gain any interest. As a result, it's a very boring movie experience. A corny one, too, as it has the same set up of an inspiring children's movie. Being the "good-guys," our group has to take a moral stand to stop the "bad-guys," following nothing but their conscience. They're personality consists of everything right, and whatever could be misconstrued as bad they completely avoid. It makes them the stereotypical, happy, and extremely annoying do-gooders just because they have to be (and they're all best friends, how nice). There's no character development or any attempt at twists or turns, and it leaves a very bland aftertaste.

Even if Climati was trying to take a jab at Deodato and his genre, he could have still done it by making a better movie. Besides, he'd be attacking Deodato by using the same tactics Deodato was condemning! This anti-animal cruelty act would make a lot more sense if he didn't make Mondo films that the highlight of the movies was animal violence. The only way this could insult Deodato is by associating his film with it by naming it Cannibal Holocaust II. Maybe that was the point: he was trying to make the cannibal films look so damn bad that it would destroy the genre, like Deodato was able to annihilate Climati's Mondo world with Cannibal Holocaust. In fact, this wrecks any adventure movie by forcing them to share a genre with it. Besides the technical problems in morality, the movie itself is awful, as there are no noteworthy aspects what-so-ever, and the plot couldn't get any sappier or cornier. What's most disappointing is that it's very obvious that this movie has great potential. New decisions, such as better actors and different events were needed to pull it off. You'll be bored to tears (and frustrated as hell) with Cannibal Holocaust II, so only see it if you're a cannibal completionist (though this isn't a cannibal movie, per-se) or are incredibly curious beyond belief.


Unfortunately, there are no "Cannibal", no "Holocaust" and actually no "II" in this movie. The story is something like BBC documentary supplied with poor and, in fact, unnecessary acting. It can't be compared to Deodato's "Cannibal Holocaust", the title of the subject is just the exploitation of Deodato's movie success.

Even some rather natural and, frankly speaking, amazing scenes, for example, with strange fish crawling in aborigine's fundament or the reanimation of a monkey with the help of rubber tube can't save the movie from total failure, at least in my eyes.

And I am sure that it will be completely useless and pretty disappointing for all Italian (cannibal) horror movies fans and for all that violence-lovers. And, for certain, it is not a must see movie for true cinemaddicts.


While it's not universally acclaimed as such, Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust is a masterpiece. A lot of the other cannibal flicks hailing from Italy (and elsewhere) aren't masterpieces, however and this is certainly the case with The Green Inferno a.k.a. "Cannibal Holocaust 2". Quite why this film gets to be called Cannibal Holocaust 2 when many better films get stuck with thinking of their own title is beyond me, but there's no way that The Green Inferno deserves to be associated with the Ruggero Deodato film. The film is a sort of cross between an adventure film and a nasty cannibal flick, though it's not as nasty as the genre's "big" films, and the adventure side of it doesn't work too well either considering that the film is completely boring! Nothing that Cannibal Holocaust great features here; the jungle setting is not well used, the natives never really feel like they're posing a threat and the film doesn't manage to be disturbing in the least - something that can never be said for Cannibal Holocaust. There's really not much else to say for this film; if I could go back in time to be before I saw it, I wouldn't see it. If you're looking for something like this that does work  see the brilliant Massacre in Dinosaur Valley!


This is one of those shows that deserves it's own drinking game. Every time the host shrieks or cries, take a drink. Every time Derek says "Slaughter", take a drink. Every time they say that a place isn't haunted, drink a whole fifth of Everclear.

Where does one begin to unravel how stupid this show is? Yes, they go to interesting places. Yes, the UK is filled with spooky places to investigate, but it's amazing that EVERY site they travel to is chock full o' ghosts.

Yvette Fielding is about as scientifically minded as a carnival barker at the freakshow. She flips out as soon as the light are off, and every bump or cobweb is a sign that someone is trying to contact her.

Derek Accora is ridiculously cheesy, especially when he goes into trances that supposedly lead to him "channeling" an evil spirit. And his "spirit guide" Sam, Derek's imaginary friend whom he thanks profusely throughout the show always manages to give him half-correct clues that lead them to another room where Yvette will nearly pee her pants.

Be sure to take a drink whenever the disclaimer at the bottom of the screen suggests that there's no proof to back up whatever Derek says. It happens often, so you'll probably be toasted after one full episode.


this show from the UK fallows "ghost hunters" many are interested in ghost and the paranormal but these people are just wacko, they scream run and get poss ed a lot, i cant decide if they are just crazy or if they deserve a award for best actors playing screwed up people! American shows such as ghost Hunters on the Sci-fi network is a much better and realistic show, as the REAL Ghost hunters on (ghost Hunters) are out not to prove that every thing could be paranormal they try to prove some things are not solid evidence and the evidence left and cant be disproven 100% is worthy to be looked at but not at all to be consider real proof, for they know you need solid evidence and they are looking for it. to sum this up if you like watching people be stupid and run at a flash of light or a odd shadow then watch Most Haunted.


I like Van Damme, but this movie really stinks! It tries so hard to be a mix of Mad Max and Highlander with a pinch of The Terminator, but throwing in some characters taken from that Michael Jackson's video called "Thriller" with obvious paintings in the background.

The only redeeming feature is the roundhouse kicks in slow motion... Even the fights are pathetic, with stupid overuse of knives while they have big guns hanging in their backs. Oh, and guess what? The movie is called Cyborg but Van Damme is not a cyborg, nor his opponents! The only "cyborg" here is a second line woman who actually does not behave as a cyborg at all. She is actually a woman with some kind of electronic implant in her head, and she does not have too much screen time anyway. The title for this should be "Zombies" since most of the characters look and act like that.

More about women... The Van Damme's buddy is an ugly whiny woman I hated from the start. I found myself cheering the moments she seemed to be killed. I didn't hate her because she was ugly, but because she was annoying as hell. Not even her gratuitous nudity is enjoyable. And what about that girl who is supposed to be Van Damme's daughter or step-daughter? She is about 12 in the flashbacks but later she is in her 20's and Van Damme looks exactly the same! What the hell? Van Damme doesn't age in the movie or what?

You will enjoy this movie only if you take it as a comedy. In any case, it is quite boring and slow.


Look, I can enjoy a mindless Van Damme action flick like anybody else. I liked a lot of his movies like Hard Target, Sudden Death, Kickboxer, Bloodsport, Death Warrant, Universal Soldier, In Hell etc but if there was one movie I had to single out as Van Damme's worst it would have to be Cyborg.

Story: Gibson(Jean Claude Van Damme) is out for revenge after a gang of punks lead by Fender(Vincent Klyn)killed his family. He ends up having to look after a cyborg that holds a cure for a disease that has wiped out half of the world.

We could talk about how bad the acting is but that's preaching to the choir. The sets look like crap and the whole film reeks of low budget. The villain Fender(who looks like a rejected Garbage Pail Kid) wins the ham of the year award in 1989 hands down. He is some cornball that beats up on people and is used to spouting silly lines like "take you to the murder show" and "I like the pain, I like the misery, I like this wooooorrrld!". The fights scenes(which are usually the bread and butter of JCVD movies) suck horribly and top it off the movie is boring. Everybody looks like they've been mud wrestling all day and for a hero of the movie, Gibson spends most of the time getting his butt kicked. The final battle between Gibson and Fender is downright cheesy(and not in a fun way I might add). In short Cyborg is JCVD's worst movie and yes, I've seen, The Order, Street Fighter and Universal Soldier: The Return. Even JCVD most cheesiest films have an entertainment value to them but not Cyborg. Its a boring mess that is quite possibly the worst post-apocalyptic film of all time. I guess I shouldn't expect a decent film under the same director that gave you Adrenalin: Fear The Rush.


When I first saw the title of Cannon's 'Cyborg' and the name Jean Claude Van Damme tagged, I thought of a cyborg Van Damme. Oh yeah! Well I couldn't be any more wrong. Well Van Damme's acting is robotic, but he still gets to kick butt in human form as he goes after a cyborg woman carrying vital information that could cure the plague that affects civilization in the 21st century. However in his way and holding the cyborg hostage is Fender, the barbarous leader of the 'Flesh Pirates' that roams the vacant cities carving out a hellhole.

There's rawness to it, but it's efficiently staged. What I had trouble with was how unexciting and emotionless the film was, despite its comic-book edge and choreographed action being superbly executed although director Albert Pyun could've cut down on the over-cooked slow motion. Nonetheless it was good to see Van Damme wipe the floor with those kick-boxing skills, but it did give me a snicker during the sloppy flashback sequences which has Van Damme in an awkward looking blonde wig. However the most pitiful aspect was the over-the-top, try-hard performance of Vincent Klyn as Fender. Boy I could only roll my eyes, especially when he opened his mouth and got into his posing stances. Sadistic far from it. Deborah Richter was the opposite, with a lively and feisty turn.

The use of junky special effects works out. Being set in a desperate wasteland born from apocalyptic symptoms, Pyun does an exemplary job bringing that out the chosen locations. Some impulsively neat visuals caught by expressive camera-work and rapid pacing go onto add more to a blotchy narration without much of a story in this cheaply produced sci-fi outing. Although there's an odd inclusion of Jesus on the cross in some scenes in the background and then you another sequence with Van Damme. Is his character seen as society's true savior?

Passably average.


A slinger(?) from the future looks to take revenge on the group of pirates who killed his family in a post apocalypse wasteland. Also on board is a cyborg who has the cure for a plague and holds the key to the survival of mankind. Of course she must deliver the information in her head to Atlanta and she needs a hero to deliver her from the pirates. I must admit that Cyborg is one of those movies I found extremely funny. Where as I can give other action flicks a higher rating because they actually do a few things right, Cyborg manages to do practically everything wrong. The action sequences are decently choreographed but the ridiculous nature surrounding them and interminable grunting and screaming which accompanies them make this a laughable effort. Plus the movie is often times hard to follow coherently and Pyun tacks on far too many pointless flashbacks to beef up it's (thankfully) scant running time.

Also why on earth does the main bad guy wear chain mail when he's in a hot climate half of the time?

* out of 4 (Bad)


As a rule whenever I run into a movie that has music created entirely using a synthesizer my brain flashes on the word "CHEAP". Add to that the tired post-apocalyptic settings, and a cast you never heard of (except for Van Damme, of course), and you've got a reason to leave this one in the bargain bin. It didn't help that this was the last film from the nearly dead, and already bankrupt, Cannon Films. Sadly, they went out with a whimper instead of a bang. Wander through the credits and there are signs everywhere that money was tight. There are several people listed for multiple positions in the production team, and Van Damme is even took a turn as a Film Editor.

The movie itself is trite, and the plot is very basic: Main characters go from here to there in a world where civilization has crumbled, surviving attacks from savage gangs. Said travel includes flashbacks for The Hero to an earlier time when he suffered heavily at the hands of the same savage gang. Strictly formula.

The character development is extremely basic, and could have been handled better. Watching this movie one gets the impression that the idea was just to cash in on the Van Damme mystique and spend as little as possible doing it. So, this one is heavy on fighting, albeit poorly done, and light on everything else.

Calling this movie "Cyborg" was a lie as that particular character has a minimal part in the movie. So if you're looking for an action flick involving a Cyborg battling humans, don't stop here. As a matter of fact, don't stop here at all. There's nothing to see.


The main problem I had with this movie was its shocking lack of slow-motion roundhouse kicks to the face. Sure, it suffered from bad acting and a poor plot, but that could have been redeemed with another, say, thirty slow-motion kicks to the face. That would leave the movie with maybe twenty minutes of plot, which could be boiled down to someone saying, "Oh. I guess Jean-Claude doesn't like those guys." This script is terrible. Jean-Claude is in a movie called "Cyborg" that features him NOT being a cyborg. Instead, the cyborg is a woman. A kick-ass woman? That would be cool, but no. She's merely a plot device.

This was originally supposed to be a sequel to the "Masters of the Universe" movie, but was so bad that it was decided not to sully that franchise's good name and simply release it as "Cyborg." Dolph Lungren has gone on record saying that he hates this movie so much that he would be willing to kill 200 pounds of cute puppies just so he never has to see this movie again. Or wait ... I'm sorry. I got myself mixed up with Dolph again (!).

On the bright side, it is amusing to see Jean-Claude handled by a totally inept director. I can imagine Albert Pyun thinking aloud right before filming this movie: "You know, there are a lot of flashbacks in this script, but I don't want to do anything cliché. Black and white photography would be too obvious. Changing the music or adding graininess to the film would just be dumbing it down for the audience. I know! To signify a flashback, I will just have Jean-Claude stare blankly for a few seconds! And I'll have him wear a mop head to kind of sort of look like he really has long hair! Brilliance! Now, how to get rid of earwax? I think I have a gun around here somewhere..." The villain in this movie has a ridiculous voice, but is certainly ripped enough to handle Jean-Claude. So, if nothing else, Jean-Claude fights someone who looks pretty tough. Score one for the filmmakers.


If you're a real cinema expert, looking for a great scenario and nice shooting techniques, then you can avoid watching this film, it will make you mad for sure !

But if you like 2nd degree humor, if you love stupid fights, sounds, sets and so on, then this film is definitely worth the try !

I really enjoy such stupid films because it's so crappy that you can't stop laughing during 90 minutes ! I even wonder how could such films be released in the 80's....The first time I watched it, I couldn't even say any single word, I was amazed and astonished by this incredible movie, I couldn't believe they made that for real !

Make your choice !


Okay, before I even delve into the horrors of this film, I'd just like to know what the heck is with Kitty Chalmers obsession with guitars?? Couldn't she come up with some more original names? Gibson Rickenbacker, Fender Tremolo, Marshall Strat, Roland Pick...GIVE ME A BREAK!!

Okay, now that that's out of the way, this film is pure cheeze. Non-stop cheddar from beginning to end. The thinnest of plots, the background is so shallow you need a helmet to wade through it...and the acting is *horrible*!! Not that I expected much from a Van Damme film, but COME ON!!! Vincent Klyn can barely put two syllables together! It amazes me that he could even get through his lines! (And what's with that outfit? The sunglasses were bigger than his head (nice contacts, btw...) and that chain (?) mail was odd-looking...

Anyways, the plot is cheezy, the acting's horrid, the effects are worse (even for 1989!), the costumes look like they were from the Mad Max rejection pile...in fact, this entire film is like one giant Mad Max outtake!

Overall: I can't believe I actually ever almost liked this film (I saw it in the theater in '89 and thought it was fairly good). If you want to see Van Damme that's even *close* to worth watching, skip this one and rent Hard Target (GO JOHN WOO!!), Kickboxer or Bloodsport. 3/10.


As an avid fan of JCVD, I was devastated after watching this film. It broke my trust in Van Damme as an actor (only to be renewed after watching Bloodsport-immediately after). This film was obviously before JCVD had any authority in the production of movies as HE would not put out such a poor movie. There were no cheesy comments, no little guys getting beaten up, no training montage, no solid soundtrack...all in all there was nothing. If you are a B movie advocate than you MUST watch this as a learning experience, if you are a Van Damme fan, then you MUST watch his for nothing else but to greater your JCVD knowledge. I don't even recall a token ass shot.


The film, Cyborg was a relatively unimpressive movie. I explored that the realism within was quite lacklustre, with reference to when Van Damme's character escapes from the crucifiction cross - then began a mighty fighting scene, which was highly disappointing to the viewer.

The antagonist was also quite disappointing on appearance and acting skills. His fighting technique was quite pitiful, and although so was Van Damme's, the slugfest was rightly won by the 'Muscles from Brussels'.

To recommend this film to a friend, would make them believe that i was the enemy. The film showed glimpses of hope, but nothing progressed from it. A very disappointing film.


Good fight scenes. Deborah Richter looks pretty good, especially when she's at the beach stark naked. Also later when she briefly shows her boobs. If anybody but Cannon had produced this movie, it would have been better. The best thing that ever happened to the movie industry was Cannon going bankrupt. They ruined everything they touched (Superman IV, Death Wish 4). In this movie they also totally blew away any believability. The stupidest sequence was when Van Damme gets crucified (hanging by ropes with nails in his wrists). He hangs there for at least a day, then gets angry and kicks the cross down he's hanging on. It falls, Richter finds him and frees him. Then, they somehow catch up to the bad guys and he's in better fighting shape than ever. Yeah right. Fiction is defined as the willing suspension of disbelief. I don't think anyone can willingly suspend that much. I have seen worse movies, and I didn't fall asleep watching it. That and Deborah Richter's nudity are why I give it a 3 instead of a zero.


Jean-Claude Van Damme stars as Gibson Rickenbacher (!) a soldier seeking revenge for the murder of his loved ones in a post apoclypse setting, where "Flesh Pirates" rule with an iron fist. Poorly made actionflick, stumbles from one pointless scene to another without any real plot to fall back on, hits a nadir when Van Damme is crucified on the cross. However many people might not make it that far.


this is a masterpeice. well it would be a masterpeice if it was supposed to be a comic look into the future. everything about it jusst makes me laugh from the way rickenbecker runs to the cheesy flashbacks and the un-needed nudity of the lets face it ugly lead female. if ever you feel like a good laugh watch this film.


Albert Pyun's Cyborg (1989) stars Jean-Claude Van Damme as Gibson, who is a lonely avenger in the post-apocalyptic future world in which sadistic hooligans kill and torture people in Mad Max tradition. Damme's character is after the bad guy who killed his family and the film follows his quest to capture and vengeance the ugly baddie and his thugs. What follows is the usual Damme action with plenty of kicks and hits.

This film is technically occasionally interesting, but for most of the time just stupid and unintentionally trashy. The editing in the action scenes is irritatingly restless and pointless as the film tries to show many things with these fast edits, but manages, in fact, to show only less by these too plenty edits. The cinematography is occasionally almost great, and the long segment at the abandoned storehouse offers a great opportunity to use camera with space and thankfully Pyun can use his camera and make his films look professional and interesting, and that storehouse segment is definitely among the more interesting in this film. Otherwise, the acting is the usual Damme level and the baddies are very irritating as they yell and scream without any point like some drunken indians. As an action scifi, this is grade B, but fortunately directed with skill so it is pleasant thing to watch, if one can stand the stupidities and hollowness of this film.

There's plenty of violence in forms of kicking, hitting, punching, slashing, snapping and so on so this is no less violent than your average Seagal/Damme/Norris vehicle which always tend to share these same no brains elements but also sometimes something cinematically noteworthy and interesting. Cyborg gets 4/10 from me and I would've given it much more if it had at least some point and less stupidities in it.


Jean Claude Van-Damme has made a few good action movies and more that are not so good. This is not only one of his worst but one of the most horrifying movies I've ever seen. Together with Kickboxer this is Van-Damme at his most brainless and the director, Albert Pyun who can never make it right (Adrenalin, Nemesis 1, 2, 3 and so on) made one of the most low grade movies ever. Some movies may be bad and still have good scenes in them and sometimes one of these scenes may acctually make the whole movie better but here thoose scenes are abscent. There is no acting, there is no action, there is no good scenes and I could even question if this is acctually qualifies as a movie. Enough with the critic. One word: Worthless.


My friend and I went to see this at the dollar theater. I thought it was SO bad that I wanted my money back. Yes it was only a dollar but I thought the whole thing stunk that horribly. In general I enjoy a good mindless Jean Claud flick but PEE-YOU! It stunk.


Van Damme made a couple of terrible movies after the success with "Bloodsport", and this one is without doubt one of them. Although this is said to be a sequel to "Masters of the Universe", I really don't understand why, because I have problems in finding any connections between the two movies. Then, over to this movie. In fighting movies, I usually don't care about story at all. But here, I just had to. It was so bad that I just couldn't believe it. Things seem to happen without a specific reason. For example, I never could figure out why the bad guy (Bender) was bad. He just did what he did, without proper explanation. The fighting is bad too. Many of the fight scenes include use of knives, it was too much of that in my opinion. And when it comes to the final scenes, that was so typical B-action. It was also so extremely bad that i sat and laughed through it. That's really not a sign of quality, especially in a movie that totally lacks self-irony.


Ten years ago I loved this type of movies; Action, SciFi, Van Damme. It should have everything an 18 year old would love in a movie.

But even back then this particular movie stroke me as not being a very good one.

Yesterday I watched Cyborg again, and oh my god...... this is by far the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen quite a few.


I saw this movie again on Sky One last night, I had not seen it since it first came out on video (did it even get a cinema release?). I could not believe how badly made it was! The acting, even by Van-Damme standards was woeful. The special effects (if you could call them that!) were as bad as an episode of Dr.Who and the costumes were really bad. The scene were all the bad guys beat that guy up near the beginning of the movie is hilarious-they look like something out of a Michael Jackson video!! It is such a poor rip-off of far better movies like the Mad Max movies and Terminator. I found it very hard to sit through this movie, it was really an insult to my intelligence! Did the people who made it not realize what a pile of rubbish it was? Could they not see that? This has definitely got to be one of the worst movies ever made!


..why the heck are you reading the user reviews?

Timecop is the only VanDamme film that I've seen that ever should have been released. Yes I watch at least parts of his films to see if it can possibly be as bad as the previous one.. this one is the 2nd worse.. cant remember the name of that one. J.C. must thank providence every day that the VCR had been invented in time for his "Career".

But I have to differ from other reviewers regarding Pyun's direction... when you accept the given that the set production cost about $1.98, I think the direction is the only interesting part of the film.

BTW: 1. The street fires are ridiculous... supposedly it has been years.. but there's still refuse fires burning. 2. NOW I know where "Whhaaa--a-a-aZzzzzUUUUPPPPPP!" came from! (the Atlanta street fight)

I guess this film and others like it may fill the time between WWF pay per views.

I dont see how you could even give this a 2 without skewing the curve.


Well that is interesting that this was supposed to be a sequel to that movie, though it most definitely does not play out like the famous cartoon at all. Looks like they had to have rewritten the script because this movie quite frankly seems to be a little dark to be a follow up to that movie. That and the fact it goes in a total different direction. What we get is a rather bad Jean Claude Van Dame movie with the same old stuff you would expect with his movies, and a few differing things. Such as the future setting, the bolt guns, and the plot which has some originality in it. Still though, in the end it boils down to a fight between Van Dame and the bad guy, in the rain. You can expect lots of kick boxing action, and the cyborg you ask? Almost a needless part of the plot as she is a rather weak cyborg with no fighting skills or anything that would even indicate she is any different than a human. The only special about her is that she has a cure to some disease. So you may want to check this little movie out as I do believe it was a theatrically released movie, just don't expect much. Another funny part about this movie is that they give the main villain a handicap...you are not supposed to give the villain a handicap that would make the good guy look like a wimp when he wins.


I liked this movie simply for its imaginative action scenes.hardcore JC fans will eat up the non stop action which only runs at about 82 minutes.It has this terminator/Mad Max kinda feeling to it.Yes there was a lot of rip offs(nailing in the desert)but all are tolerable with a mix of Van Damme and slow motion.The chase and final sequence are great and filled with cool stuff. The speech in the opening sequence was used in the song "Judgement day" by method man,so i know i'm not the only one that scene this.This one opened the door for JC and sci-fi,later he would star in 2 of his best movies Univesal soldier and Timecop(which was critically acclaimed as his best role.)A guilty Van pleasure. Van Damme 7.5/10 Van story 3/10 Van Damage priceless