There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.

The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.

The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.

Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.

Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.

None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.


To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.

"When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.

How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.

I guess it's too much work to do good editing.

Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.


I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.

Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...

In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.

I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.

I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.

It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.


Curse is a standalone movie, which is part of the problem. You got this wacked out scientist who got hold of Toulon's puppets, and who obligingly let him know they're alive and willing to help him. Why they're willing to (initially) kill for him isn't clear.

George Peck's off-key performance is another problem: he acts like a thirty-year old in bad aging makeup. Maybe he is 60-70 like he is supposed to be, but he looks and acts really odd. And why does he have a 25 year old daughter?!?

There are very few people to like here, which also hurts. The romantic leads are vaguely sympathetic, but the scientist, the obnoxious town sheriff, the local town bully, etc., are all very unlikeable, making them slaughter-fodder.

The worst problem though, is the end. The movie just...stops. run credits! Whaaatt? Who knows. Catch the sequel, #7, when it comes out, I guess.

The uninteresting human characters mean that the puppets have to hold center stage. They're pretty much relegated to the odd gory slaughter or two, though. Even they seem somewhat confused as to what their motives are here. Jester and Leech Woman are relegated to the background as always, Blaze is missing (despite, as noted, his appearance in the opening credits), and the only new puppet we get is the new TV/Tank puppet, which appears for about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.

Definitely the weakest entry in the Puppet Master series. Even at the worse of time, the others in the series have had something to contribute. But Curse... just hangs there with nothing to support it or recommend it.


Curse of the Puppet Master is set in a small American town where the ever so slightly dim Robert 'Tank' Winsley (Josh Green) works as a lowly gas station attendant for $30 a week, that is until curio collector & owner of a museum of oddities Dr. Magrew (George Peck) & his lovely young daughter Jane (Emily Harrison) stop for gas. Magrew notices that Robert is an extremely skilled carver with an exceptional imagination & offers him $35 a week to work for him, with the $5 a week pay rise too much to turn down Robert accepts. Dr. Magrew show's Robert various living puppets made by puppeteer Andre Toulon that he brought in an auction some years previous & ask's Robert to carve the perfect puppet which Magrew hopes to inject with life & recreate Toulon's success...

Curse of the Puppet Master was the fifth sequel to the rather splendid killer puppet flick Puppetmaster (1989) & apparently had the working title Puppet Master 6: The Curse but by this stage it was probably a wise decision to stop numbering them & thus try to fool a few unsuspecting buyers. The first three Puppet Master films were really good & I think they are all great although Puppet Master 4 (1993) & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994) were pretty bad apart from some impressive stop-motion animation effects & the nicely atmospheric Bogeda Bay Inn setting which are both absent here from Curse of the Puppet Master as the ambitions of the filmmakers & the budget gets increasingly lower with each new entry into the franchise. Directed by David DeCoteau under the name Victoria Sloan one of his many pseudonym's he had actually directed Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) but there's no repeat of his earlier magic & Curse of the Puppet Master is pretty dire stuff & even at a paltry 75 odd minutes in length the script feels padded & uneventful. There's no continuity to the earlier films at all, there's no mention of the green life giving serum & Curse of the Puppet Master changes the whole central concept to animating the puppets with a human beings soul which is transferred into the puppet thus giving it life instead of the serum from the previous films. To be honest it's a lame story which is supposed to unfold as some sort of mystery but it's pretty predictable & the single worst aspect of Curse of the Puppet Master is that it relegates the killer puppets to no more than bit parts who do virtually nothing the entire film. There's no explanation of why the puppets obey Magrew or why they suddenly turn on him at the end & like the previous two films they are nowhere evil enough. Another thing is while Magrew makes Robert carve a puppet out of wood the puppet Magrew uses at the end is actually made out of metal is some awful looking tank like creation with a couple laser guns for arms. The ending is awful too & is one of those occasions where the film just literally stops dead & your left thinking 'is that it?' or 'what happened?' or 'did my DVD player just skip a chapter?'.

The puppet special effects are the worst of the series so far too, there's a few seconds of stop-motion by the vast majority of the effects work is simple poorly operated rod puppets which look still & have very limited movement. The opening credits have a montage of special effects shots from the previous five films & they beat anything else seen in this. For some reason the puppet Torch is ditched even though he appeared in Puppet Master 5 while Leech Woman makes a reappearance for the first time in the series after having been burnt in Puppet Master II (1991). The film is gorier than either parts 4 o5 although two bloody murders don't make this particularly good, there's some slashing & bloody cuts & Tunneller sticks his drill into some guy's groin & his wedding tackle. The whole film & production just looks cheaper than the previous entries, the moody setting & lighting have all but gone & there's a bland visually flat & dull look to it.

With a supposed budget of about $250,000 the budgets were getting lower & lower & it show's frankly. Apparently shot at Canoga Park in Los Angeles. The acting is forgettable from no-one I have ever heard of before.

Curse of the Puppet Master is worse than the five previous Puppet Master films & to be honest they should have stopped making them after Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge while the series was on a high. The only Puppet Master film I have left to watch in the series now is Retro Puppet Master (1999) which I can't say I am particularly looking forward too.


The "Curse of the Puppet Master" has a good premise that is undermined by unconvincing puppet violence and the usual weaknesses of low-budget films.

The direction was good, moving the story along.

The eye candy was limited to underwear/gym shorts scenes with the hero and with the bully, separately. There was a tasteful suggestion of a sex scene. The goriness was in line with expectations, not overstated.

Unlike other reviewers, I found the action straightforward enough.

SPOILERS

The new Puppet Master, Dr. Magrew (George Peck) is experimenting to discover the methods the original Puppet Master, Andre Toulon, used to create semi-living puppets. Assistants, who first carve the 444 wooden pieces that go into a puppet, can be transformed by a lightening-like effect into the inner workings of a puppet. (The director used this idea later in his "Voodoo Academy.") The movie starts with Dr. Magrew disposing the results of a failed experiment and finding a new person, Robert "Tank" Winsley (Josh Green), to be the new carver. The problem is that Dr. Magrew's daughter, Jane (Emily Harrison), takes a romantic interest in Robert. Bully Joey Carp (Michael Guerin) wants his way with Jane and isn't too fond of Robert. Meanwhile, the police are wondering why Dr. Magrew's former carver has disappeared. The threads all move along to their conclusions.

END OF SPOILERS

I can't say how this movie compares to the others in the Puppet Master series, but on a stand-alone basis it was entertaining enough. The big thuds for me were the victims' inability to get away from attacking puppets and the leap of insight which allowed Jane to find some evidence of earlier activities. Lightening effects were too pervasive. Say, 4 out of 10.


Based totally on the interesting looking cover I saw, I decided to see this movie. I had not seen any of the previous sequels, so I started from scratch. It starts out strange as a man is burning something and tells whatever it is that he was sorry. This man turns out to be Dr. Magrew, an old tinkering man that appears to be a scientist or something. There are these dolls, strange looking ones that move by themselves. One with a knife, a top's head, pinhead, and a cowboy with six arms. I assumed that they were evil, but they only seemed to kill humans that seemingly deserved to die. Two sheriffs and a bully were the victims. The most evil of the beings turns out to be Dr. Magrew who is turning an innocent man named "Tank" into some puppet. Jane Magrew is also innocent and for some reason loves the "Pinhead" doll. This doll loves her more than the human Tank whom she falls in love with. A very strange ending as Tank's anger gets the best of him with Dr. Magrew receiving his wrath. Poor Jane just survives but with many questions to answer with all the dead bodies laying around her house. If you like strange then this film is for you.


Dr. Magrew (George Peck) strives to give human attributes to expertly crafted wooden puppets. Emily Harrison who plays Jane Magrew is the bright spot of the movie. But the puppets themselves are the real stars. The killer puppets do away with the bad guys. The action scenes are good, but there are too few to get excited about. Even with the finale slamming the door on you; this mild horror movie is still fun to watch.

Peck is less animated than the puppets. Also starring are Michael Guerin, Josh Green and Jason Dean Booher.


This was not one of their best movie for puppet master and why was it called Curse of the Puppet Master if the curse didn't even happened but at the end. And why was this movie rated R, because only one person did in a not so bloody way and not so much cursing in this movie. And what bothered me the most was two things, one was why was their a doll under that girl, it was a useless scene that needed to be deleted. And why was that old guy trying to get his worker in a toy, up to know I don't understand both of those things. Al I'm saying is don't make more Puppet Master movies because after part 4 if was boring, stupid, and pointless.


Honestly, I have no idea what Gregory Peck was thinking when he decided to make this incredibly awful movie. Now I have seen ALL of the Puppet Master movies and besides the first and third episodes the rest were pretty much crap.It's interesting however to see the Puppets start out as evil slayers for their master Andre Toulon, but then become more as heroes fighting evil in the 3rd & 4th movies. Still, this movie is just plain BAD. The acting is horrible and the little bit of special effects is below "B" movie quality stuff. I'm not even going to go through what the movie is about, as other reviewers have already explained it. So much more could have been done with this series. Instead of it advancing to higher standard, it has actually sank way below what we'd expect. Stay far away from this movie. If you must see it, definitely rent it for the cheapest price possible. You've been warned though.


I rent horror flicks all the time, the campier the better, even such stinkers like Blood Diner... but this... I think that if they had used this film on Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange, he would have gone homicidal again. Full Moon begins to crash and burn, leading to the ultimate craphole, Puppet Master Retro. The kills are so retarded, and at the end, which made me wish to commit suicide... Tank spends the whole movie carving this puppet out of wood, when he is transferred into it, there's a TV screen? And a laser? Did I miss something? And then the way he zaps the scientist... I've seen better special effects in the Power Rangers tv show. What I realized is that if you read the back of this video box, it tells you the whole story... Seriously, the whole thing. Damn you to hell for making this movie, Full Moon, and may God have mercy on your souls.


About 95% of the Puppet shots were patched together from other Puppet Master movies. This produces the interesting effect of having someone from the present chatting face to face with a puppet in 1940's Germany. Did they think we wouldn't notice? It just shows you what these film makers think of their audience.

Then there's the scene in which Tunnler drills a guy between the legs. Where are the guys hands? Flailing around! I think I see a way out of this. Pick up the puppet that is drilling into your balls!

Idiocy. This was the beginning of Full Moon's death.


What's Mung you ask yourself, I DON'T KNOW! And I really don't know what this movie was ever made for, boy is it bad. Andre Toulon is abandoned for a new rich owner. Basically the maintenance man on the grounds is dim witted, and a bunch of guys make fun of him, so the puppets kill them all. At one point 2 of the puppets are walking side by side and the camera shows them down to the tops of their shoes, the legs were not moving! That is bad film making! You can almost see the stick connected to the side of their leg that they used to move them forward. BAD, BAD, BAD. Then the rich guy uses the dim wit to build a doll, so he can try to transfer a human soul into a puppet body. The daughter is a bad actress, she doesn't even get naked, which is a standard in bad horror movies. The puppets role is once again down played, so with bad human acting, it kills the movie. BASICALLY IT STINKS START TO FINISH.


There aren't very many movies where after I've watched them I've wanted my time and/or money back, but unfortunately this was one of them! After having endured the other 5 in this series, this one I was holding out for maybe a slightly different story twist or some more character development or something, but no, heaven forbid that'd happen!! Sitting through this felt like more of the same with some lame plot being given and then surprise, the dolls kill somebody! Oh sorry, I gave most of the movie away. The only major highlights of this movie were the underlining suspense throughout the movie, the top-notch animation of the puppets, and a rather nice surprise presence from Emily Harrison, who plays Jane carried my interest somewhat. However, the ending was probably the most abrupt and confusing ending ever, certainly leaving the door open for No. 7, heaven forbid that comes to light, which it probably will and I'll probably sit through that too.

Overall 2.5 out of 5


this movie sucks and is in no mean entertaining. the only cool thing is the killer puppets!! and the creepy music. i hardly know the names of the characters because they were barely mentioned.

the horrible plot: a country boy working at a gas station starts working for a puppet master while Toulon(the puppet master) plans to turn the boy into a puppet. the acting is outrageously pitiful. the boy seems half asleep throughout the movie. it is not scary! spare yourself the 90 minutes and watch a good movie. avoid at all costs. this movie is so boring too. i don't know how/why i finished it. it looks so good on the DVD cover but it is so bad. i hated it.1/10. i haven't seen any other movies in this series but i'm sure they are somewhat better. at least waist your time on those or good horror movies like Clownhouse by Victor Salva.

Rated R for Some Strong Violence/Gore and for Some Language


ok, Tank is under the curse, and he is making a puppet, which is going to contain his life essence... I understand this part. what I don't understand is why is he carving a humanoid body, when he ends up as a TANK!?!? I Don't get it.... also the use of old footage for the puppets is just bad. I usually enjoy full moon films.. . I did not enjoy this.....


The Puppet Master series is comprised of really awful movies featuring really cool puppets. The puppets, who sometimes are shown moving in stop-motion animation (very cool), are neat little killers each with their own little gimmick. The series' best entry was part three ("Toulon's Revenge"), but the following two installments were undeniably terrible, so it should've come as no surprise that I hated this, the most recent film and sixth part of the series.

Despite the fact that this is directed by the same guy who directed part three (the best) and was edited by J.R. Bookwalter (I've never seen it, but apparently his film "The Dead Next Door" is pretty good) it is really, really boring. The characters are uninspired, the sets are run of the mill, and the killings are non-existent (despite one okay moment when Tunneler drilled a guy in the crotch. I guess the only good part of the movie was inspired by America's Funniest Home Videos).

Worst of all, the puppets hardly ever make an appearance, and when they do they are obviously being held up by just-out-of-the-frame stage hands. There's hardly ANY stop-motion animation. I was also disappointed that Torch, one of the cooler puppets, was not in the film, even though he appeared in the credit sequence (which was a montage of footage from the previous movies).

In short: Don't see this movie. It stinks!


Once again Jerry stinks up the big screen with his hyperactive sthick. Here he offers the ultimate in corny jokes along with a 'hoods become angels with the right kindly influence' story. If you really like Jerry then you'll most likely go for this one, otherwise it will bore you senseless.


This is a pretty poor film. An overt enthusiasm for poor lighting (no, everything in high contrast red, or black& white isn't clever, its just difficult to watch). A slooooooow script (not a aged wine, but a bottle of gone-off alco-pop) A script that makes no sense. The twist (of which about 3 tolerable ones were discarded for the most inconsistent). Don't waste your money or your time.

***SPOILER***

He goes back from the past to stop himself falling in love with a beautiful woman, who'll make him rich, but due to his own stupidity, tells himself she's bad and gets him burnt (and still gets the girl, the love and the money !!) If he'd had said, done stand near the caravan he'd have been OK. Oh, and he makes a girl kill her boyfriend and Aleister Crowley think he's a magician (those last bits tagged on to be 'clever').

Its "Donnie Darko" / Butterfly effect, but without a coherent script. A real wasted opportunity.


Most commentators seem to like this, but I didn't. It seemed to me to be 90% of nothing happening and 10% denouement. The photography was laboured and unnecessarily monochromatic (mostly red/black). I guessed the identity of the disfigured man fairly early on and I think that most people will manage that. I love supernatural films but this was a real disappointment. I thought that there was no suspense and no character development. Also, I did not 'get' the ending. In fact, I couldn't engage with any of the characters at all. I've had to pad this out because of the rules but my summary would be: Quite boring with no resolution (yep - I'm one of those who likes a real ending! :-)


I think most of the reviewers on this site must have seen a different film to me as this is just a lame film noir tarted up with the odd mention of Hawksmoor and Crowley (mispronounced in the film). The Alan Moore/"From Hell" comparisons are totally unjustified, except in the rather simplistic thinks-it's-much-clever-than-it-is ending.

The film is far too dark - almost everything is shot in red and black - the characters are dull and the story predictable. I had high hopes for this as a genuinely uneasy and different Brit flick (hell - just give me anything that doesn't have gangsters) but all the occult stuff is just window-dressing for what's actually a very straightforward film. Yes, it apes the mise-en-scene of "From Hell" - dabbles with its themes of cyclic time - and even has a lead character who could be Constantine from the "Hellblazer" comics - but it has none of the sophistication of Alan Moore's writing. Like I say, it wasn't lousy; it just wasn't a patch on how it had been advertised...


The Matt Helm series never quite had the class that James Bond did. 007 is still going strong with many actors who now have done the role and it shows no signs of slowing down. But the locker room type humor that typifies the Matt Helm series was definitely wearing thin when The Ambushers came out.

Dean Martin is once again intrepid secret agent Matt Helm whose cover as a fashion photographer takes him to Acapulco in search of a satellite that was captured. By of all people, a Mexican beer baron who is considerably more than that. Try and imagine August Busch or Jacob Ruppert in the spy business as well and you have the part Albert Salmi plays.

Salmi did vile and disgusting things to pilot Janice Rule upon her capture because, well he's Albert Salmi. She's traumatized and only in the company of Dean Martin with whom she shared some tender moments back in the day will she go back and try to find the thing.

Oh by the way, they need Rule because the satellite can't be flown by a man. Something in the atmosphere when the switch is thrown kills all members of the male species. The bad guys don't find this out until too late.

Dino walked through this one as did the rest of the cast which looks bored, but also eager because the Matt Helm films did make money back in the day.

Well at least we know that the hormonal kinks must have been worked out before July of 1969 when Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins went to the moon


This Helm flick should be ranked slightly lower than THE SILENCERS or MURDERER'S ROW, but definitely better than that final train wreck - THE WRECKING CREW (great babes though). The Ambushers sports Janice Rule (great actress from the 60's - check her out in THE CHASE with Brando) and Senta Berger, a European beauty with exotic looks and voice. Beverly Adams is on hand again as the sweetheart assistant, Lovey Kravezit.

A 4 out of 10. Best performance = Janice Rule. Give this one a chance. It's not THAT bad! Dino is starting to show a lack of energy by the end of it, but the girls hold him up. If you're not a complete spy-spoof snob, this is a perfect way to waste 100 minutes.


The third Matt Helm film - and easily the weakest up to this point. Though Maltin's BOMB rating seems a bit harsh - it IS watchable, after all - it's hard not to notice the drop-off in quality from its predecessor, "Murderers' Row". The villains are nobodies, the gadgets are not as cool as before (levitating gun < delayed / reverse firing gun), the climactic vehicular chase has worse rear projection than the Abbott and Costello movies, and the entire enterprise is slow, unexciting and drab. Bright spot: Janice Rule, who is the smartest Matt Helm assistant so far, and also closer to Dean Martin's age than Ann Margret or Stella Stevens, which makes their (professional and romantic) partnership more believable. Senta Berger has an interesting character, in the sense that you are not sure for a long time whose side she is working for, but ultimately she is underused. The movie's two best bits actually come at the very start (the catchy title song), and the very end (a funny Frank Sinatra gag). *1/2 out of 4.


A bizarre looking Mexican dude (Albert Salmi in very, very strange garb) steals a flying saucer built by the good guys. So, it's up to Matt Helm and a crazy lady who thinks she is Matt's wife to go to the rescue. However, the film does have a happy ending. The lady actually realizes that the perv she thinks she's married to isn't her husband! Oh, and they stop Salmi and save the day.

Okay, I'll admit before I go any further that I don't particularly like the Matt Helm films. Part of this is because Dean Martin appears to be sleeping through the pictures. I have heard of giving an "effortless performance", but here Dean-O doesn't seem to try to break a sweat or attempt anything other than a walk-through sort of performance. Part of it is the cheapness of the film itself, such as the scene where he slides on a rail, the obvious dummy falling off the roof or the poor use of stunt doubles or the obvious wires suspending the woman near the end of the movie--they're so obviously bad yet no one seemed to care. Part of it is that the films are one sexual double-entendre after another--the sort that put 12 year-olds into hysterics but non-brain injured adults usually can't stand. And, part of it is the utter smarminess and crappiness of the films. They just didn't try very hard or have decent production values in this film.

Amazingly, however, this film comes off almost as an Austin Powers film--and it's obvious that they inspired this later series. The problem, though, is that while the Powers films were sleazy, they also were funny in an undemanding and crude way. The Helm films are just sleazy and crude--and the single joke that is the film wears thin very fast. And, believe it or not, the Helm films had many, many, many more crude lines and sexual references--coming so rapidly and poorly that you cringe at the terrible writing. Because of this, Austin comes off as a joke while Helm comes off as a boorish pig...an old, alcoholic and boorish pig.

It's pretty obvious that I didn't like the movie very much. So the question is, is the film bad enough to have been included in the book "The Fifty Worst Films" by Harry Medved? Harry obviously thought so, though I am inclined to say no...just because there are more than 50 worse films out there--probably several hundred, actually. However, I could see why it was included. For spy films, it might just be the worst from series films--though individual spy films such as THE NASTY RABBIT and LAST OF THE SECRET AGENTS? make THE AMBUSHERS seem like Shakespeare!! Oh...the music was pretty good. There, I COULD say something positive about this film after all!!


This movie is bad even by Matt Helm standards. It's as incomprehensible as the previous movie, "Murderers' Row", but lacks the ambiance of a French locale or the flamboyant villain that saved that one. The action sequences are totally lacking any credibility whatsoever. It's a shame that this one chased away so many movie goers that they decided not to turn out for the splendid (by Matt Helm standards) "The Wrecking Crew", the last and best of the series.


The hoariest old relic of the sixties spy-spoof boom, 'The Ambushers' is an extremely poor film dragged lower by what may be the single laziest performance ever given by a major Hollywood star. Everything has been laid out for Dean Martin in this film - it is written specifically for him, constructed for his screen persona to allow him to capitalise on his strengths. All he has to do is deliver the one liners, punch the bad guys, and kiss the girls. Unbelievably, he can't seem to work up much enthusiasm for any of these tasks. His delivery of the gags is appalling - he's so laid back he sucks them dry, draining them of what wit they have, and throws them away. It may not be comedy gold, but a good comic makes even bad jokes tolerable. Martin isn't even trying, but worse, he seems to be winking at the camera, inviting the audience to collude in his sloppiness. His very presence seems to be meant to be enough. It may be the ugliest display of star ego before Sean Connery got his hands on 'The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'.

His female co-stars are much better. Janice Rule really seems to be trying to find something in her character, but the script doesn't really know what she's playing, so it's hardly surprising that she doesn't either. She goes from crazy woman to able spy to helpless damsel over the course of the film, and she isn't helped by ugly hair and costumes. The real star performance in this film is Senta Berger. She's truly funny and sexy in exactly the way the script needs for the film to work. Unfortunately, she's maybe too good - everything else seems dead without her (in Martin's case, you may occasionally suspect that he's actually expired on screen). The film-makers prove themselves incompetent when her bad-girl character is killed off towards the end. It isn't just the mistake of dispatching their most talented performer, but the casual way she is strangled and thrown off a platform by a none-too-interesting minor villain. It isn't even clear that she is dead, until she simply fails to reappear. This is terribly off-hand treatment of the character - and actress - who come closest to making the film work. Killing off such a fun character in such a light-hearted comedy feels like a total mistake anyway, as though Jessica Rabbit had been bumped off during the final reel of 'Who Framed Roger Rabbit?'(and as she's just helped the heroine escape from a lecherous villain, it doesn't even make Hollywood-moral sense).

On the whole, this is a profoundly bad film - I've no idea if the other Matt Helm films are any better. The casual sexism, however, is a worthwhile reminder that by Sixties standards, the Bond films actually border on the progressive. Those much parodied big-band Bond themes sound a lot better, too, when compared to the irritating sub-surf-pop theme that opens the film. Couldn't Dean Martin have recorded something himself, or would that have been too much effort?


Perhaps the most negative thing I can say about the James Bond franchise is that it gave birth to a welter of cheap imitations . In the case of the Matt Helm series it was obviously a still birth

THE AMBUSHERS is an awful movie not only because of its Bond wannabe format but because it`s woefully made . Check out the title sequence that insinuates there`s going to be hot killer bimbos in the movie . Actually there is but they only appear for one short scene to get Helm out of a tight spot then are completely forgotten about for the rest of the movie . There`s also other serious flaws to the script like the terrible lines that belong in a CARRY ON movie , lines like " When you said uncover the agent ... " and watch out for the obvious revealing mistakes like harnesses attached to the actors as they float in the air and the laughably bad back projection

One final thing I couldn`t help noticing is that several of the cast seemed to have consumed a large amount of alcohol before filming . If this was the type of movie the cast were being offered at the time you can`t really blame them and I guess everyone involved had a great time , just a pity the audience didn`t


There are bad movies (ones with poor acting, writing, etc.) and then there are BAD movies (stinkers which haven't one ounce of inspiration). "The Ambushers" falls into that latter category. The third (and worst) Matt Helm spy-yarn, it is offensive, stupid, witless, and--worst of all deadly sins--boring. Matt Helm may be tracking a lost U.S. saucer to the jungles of Mexico, but Dean Martin is fast asleep at the wheel. His attractive co-stars can't even rouse him from his mumbling stupor. This film is truly rank, poor in every conceivable department. It's hard to fathom it, but Martin was once a pretty decent actor, yet everything at this point was slipping: his talent, his looks, his focus, his patience. NO STARS from ****


That was Then,This is Now. An awesome book,but TERRIBLE movie. I mean you take a novel like That was Then,This is Now which is so good and made it a terrible. Hollywood truly did not understand the point of the book. Why? Because they changed the freakin ending! The sad ending of That was Then,This is Now is why the book is so popular and yet they replace it with a happy ending. And dear god, Craig Sheffer is plain horrible as Bryon. He doesn't even try to do good. He just plays the Character and acts all bored and stuff. Frank Howard as M&M,okay he has the look,but also doesn't even try. Jill Shoelen hardly makes Angela Shepard look like the bad girl. Honestly, the only good acting is Emilio Estevez as Mark Jennings, Kim Delaney as Cathy Carlson and Barbra Barbock as Mrs.Carlson. Morgan Freeman has a good act for Charlie Woods,but in the scene when Charlie comes out with his shotgun, honestly your suppose to be in the scared moment,but the way he walks in with the shotgun makes you laugh.

Now for the ending:

Book ending:M&M takes LSD and his head gets messed up. Bryon finds out Mark had been selling drugs and thinks he gave M&M the LSD. When Mark comes home,Bryon tells him he called the cops. Mark just stands there and says,"Why are you doing this to me buddy?" The police take Mark away. Bryon hurts Cathy which causes their break up. The doctors say M&M will never be the same. When Bryon visits Mark in jail, Mark tells him the only reason he wanted to see him is to make sure he hated him and that when he gets out of jail he will never go home.

The terrible happy ending:M&M takes drugs but it is unknown what he took and his condition is unknown. Bryon and Cathy break up because Bryon calls M&M a F**king retard. Instead of Bryon calling the cops on Mark, he tells him to leave and never come home. Mark takes the car and gets arrest for a speed chase. Bryon and Cathy get back together. When Bryon visits Mark, instead of Mark saying I hate you, he says,"I'll be fine. Everything well be alright." After Bryon leaves,he hot wires a car,drives it around and tells the owner,"Chill dude" just like Mark.

The more problems with this film is how Ponyboy Curtis and Mike Chambers{yes Mike} are cut from the film. Mike should have never been cut from the film. Mike told a story that proves revenge is pointless and it was cut. Ponyboy may have not been important,but at least his role would have made the movie better! In conclusion,That was Then,This is Now is a terrible film adaption. We demand a remake!


This movie was really bad. If it would've been directed by Francis Coppola, it might've been better but, this movie was really bad. It didn't even end like the book did. Emilio did a good job acting but, it doesn't make up for the many other mistakes made. They made Emilio the center of the story when, the bond between Mark and Bryon was supposed to be the center. This movie really should've had S.E. Hinton involved and Francis Coppola should've directed. I loved the book, but this movie really depressed me at how much better it could've been. The casting was decent but again, couldn't save the movie. The ending is what really made it bad. If it would've ended like the book, it could've been a little better but not by much. See the movie for yourself. You might come to different conclusion than I did.


....should have stayed as one of those things that are always on the back burner! You know, that one kooky dream that just never materializes? If that was the case, I could see giving good 'ole Emilio a pat on the head and saying "That's it kid...keep reaching for the stars! Someday...just someday...you'll make it"!

However, the sad fact is that Emilio made this movie. Hinton sold the rights, and that's OK. Emilio took the project and added his unique "brat-pack" qualities to it. So, the time frame is different. From 70's lifestyles to 80's. Crashpads to break dancing. Blue jeans to neon spandex. Harsh language is added. Mark and Bryon now swear like sailors.

I can't say anymore about this film because my head is starting to hurt and I'm afraid my brain will explode. The class I work with will be posting their replies soon, so I now give you their unjaded opinions.


This was the worst adaptation of any S.E. Hinton novels. The Outsiders was fantastic, Rumble Fish was great and so was Tex. This didn't keep to the book at all really. There's so much more to this story. It seemed like Estevez just wanted to camera hog and write a movie for him to show off. But, in actuality that wasn't the character at all. There was so much more depth to Bryon and Marks friendship/brotherhood that was not even touched on. Same with the relationship with pretty much every other character. And what was with that ending? Completely false. It does not stay true to the book at all. Don't bother with this, read the book. And let's hope for a remake.


First off, someone needs to teach Billy Zane what a Canadian accent sounds like.

His character is supposed to be from Windsor Ontario, about an hours drive from where I grew up. I don't know anyone who speaks in such a manner.

When he does research for his parts, he should go visit the "hometown" of his character to learn the way people speak. He uses the typical "Canadian" accent you see overdone on bad comedic TV.

Rest of the movie is standard good guy/bad guy/hero/villain/bungling henchmen movie set in WWII.

the special effects are OK for most of the movie, except for the airplanes in the first half of the movie. Should have used real planes instead of CG ones.

4 out of 10. I didn't turn it off, but it's not something I'd go to the theater to watch. Good to fill a bored late night, or slow afternoon with.


I saw the last drop yesterday, and within a few minutes knew that i would be disappointed. The acting, on the whole was sub-standard, as was the script. And don't get me started on the score...whoever thought putting 80's style guitar rock music in the background during one scene should really be looking for another job.

The action, to be fair, had it's moments. There's a nice shootout near the beginning, and whilst there's no real 'gore' as such, the level of violent realism is fairly gritty.

I suppose the crux of my dislike for this movie is based around that fact that it seems to present ww2 in a light-hearted way. There's too many attempts at one-liner humour which just don't come off, or might be better suited to a romantic comedy. World War Two was many things. Horrific, heroic, gruelling, disgusting, wasteful...but funny it most certainly was not.

4/10


The U.K. has a strong tradition in making decent WWII movies. This, is NOT one of them! The acting, script, storyline, accents, special effects,... you name it, are just so awful. Mr. Madsen's appearance on the DVD cover drew me in but I was not rewarded with his capabilities. The same could almost be said of Mr. Zane who at least was capable and almost mildly amusing at times. It seemed he knew the film was rotten so he walked his way through the "action."

Mr. Tod (I do hope it is not Todd), I am sorry to see your money spent on this film. I do hope you will see the return of it due to rentals so that you can invest again in future UK films. In the meantime, I STRONGLY suggest avoiding this film at all costs. To see how a WWII film can be done in England, rent The Dambusters,


This filmed sucked from the start. Its just as well the guy in command at the beginning of the film got shot coz his accent was so indescribable and annoying. And what chances did they have with a dim wit medic like that. Who ever did the music hadn't a clue, especially when Mr Madsen appears and its some sleazy late night bar jazz music going on and as for the lame rock music in parts..well not exactly on a 1940's theme are they. I can understand the makers were trying to be funny but it was as funny as dying of dysentery in a muddy trench. Also were the black & white cut scenes really necessary. Yes war really did happen. In fact they were probably more interesting than the rest of the film. For the few good actors it starred it could have been a great film but alas the script was weak. Worst war film I've watched since 'We were Soldiers'. Madsen was in it purely to boost the sales. I feel raped of my time watching this. Harsh I know but what a disappointment. Give me Kelly Heroes any day.


An insult to the Dutch, this film.

Bad acting worries no-one, even though this movie is full of it.

But look at the scenery. It doesn't even *half* look dutch. At any time. What is that contraption they bring into view repeatedly to act as different "Dutch windmills"??? Have the makers of this movie ever even seen a real one? I don't think so.

Had the makers of this movie delved slightly deeper into the material that this movie pretends to be about, I'm quite sure they would have been able to make a real good movie....

The story of the various treasures stolen by the nazi's is still actual, and it should not be told by people who do not know how a real Dutch windmill looks.

Forgive me for not going into the "bad acting" part. I have never seen worse.


THE LAST DROP could have been a better WW II film had the writer and director decided on the focus. The directorial choices vary from very fine (mixing black and white grainy shots from war footage with stagy though competent settings in color) to questionable (allowing a musical score including steel guitar music and contemporary sounds to intrude into a time when such instrumentation was not even known) to mediocre (allowing the actors to be caricatures instead of players in a tense drama).

Essentially the story is set before Christmas with the dropping of troops via gliders into Holland to secure a secret mission involving looted Nazi treasure. The Germans are fast-driving to capture it and send it to Berlin before the Allies land. The British team is determined to maintain custody of the goods until war's end. And then of course there is a group of self-promoting Germans who simply want to capture the treasure for their own reward. Not a bad set of conflicts, but the film's problems are centered on some bad casting choices that prevent the momentum from being as relentlessly forward as good war films should. Some of the cast members look so much alike that it becomes difficult to determine just who is who: in one case this is intentional as the plot reveals in its ending, but in most cases it is a problem due to cramped dialects, stiff acting, and over the top parody. With the exception of Billy Zane and Michael Madsen there are no big names here and in many ways that is a good thing because the two stars are the weakest characters.

Though the plot outline has possibilities - what is war but greed under different names - the mixture of ribald humor and gut-wrenching realism fail to make the story work. Grady Harp


This was sad. The plot & apparently interesting characters made me hope for a Kelly's Heroes redux but instead ended up with something of a Bad News Bores. All the accents were horrible, be they German, Canadian, or some British varieties. The plot assembled a complex finale that was not only impossible to follow but it looks like it was impossible to shoot as well! Neither was it clear what everyone's motivations were so you had to just put your faith in the director & screenwriter but without any reward.

Interesting characters: the mysterious British paratrooper, the Canadian pilot (he had potential), the "dutch" partisans, and the pair of German ne'er-do-wells. But as in some Greek tragedy, they're left to flounder by the gods.

Operation Market Garden did exist. It was smart to put that event as a backdrop but difficult for the producers ($$) to convincingly place Operation Matchbox in this context - apart from the special effects involved in the gliders (I hope people know that this actually happened). As a result, the collection of oddball soldiers and this plot needed to work harder than they did to make this film shine. Sadly, nothing came through.

What I liked is that many characters were not black & white - something that reflects true wartime conditions when the very best & worst in men & women comes out. Regardless, this was supposed to be an entertaining film, not what it ended up being.

Some would question why I would see or review such a film. I do believe in diamonds in the rough and look for charm, lucidity, and originality but not at the expense of wasting my time.


This is my first comment on IMDb. I am a big fan of WWII films, so when I saw this one at Blockbuster I picked it up. The plot summary sounded interesting. Unfortunately, the plot summary on the DVD case was the best part of this production.

I can't really comment on the quality of the acting, because I think it is impossible for an actor to turn in a good performance when he/she is given nothing to work with. The plot was muddy to begin with, there was no clarity as to why Operation Matchbox was so important for the British. The viewer was left in the dark as to what was going on. The rationale of the SS goons did happen to make sense, but the characters were so stereotyped as to make them seem like cartoon characters with no believability at all. Finally the motivation for Vollner's character was never make clear. He and his friend Beck just seemed like a couple of refugees out of a Three Stooges movie out to make a score.

Have I mentioned the cartoon like aspect to the writing yet? Madsen's character ( the American Colonel ) was straight out of a comic book. What American military man did the writers have n mind - someone from Hogan's Heroes?

This is the first time I have given a 1 rating to a film. But this one was so horrid it deserved it. It also deserved it for being an insult to the intelligence of WWII genre fans. This was a real stinker of a movie. There is no excuse for this sort of amateurism.


Bad acting, Bad accents, Bad dialogue. Terrible music the score is suppose to accompany the film but the bar brawl 80s electric guitar grates against you're very soul. I turned it of when the SS officer in full uniform runs through a British platoon to get to a truck and gets away with it just after he says to his side kick we will use the artillery as cover, because artillery good for that. Stupid film that try's to by putting in real footage in the hope of paying homage but the hole film seems to be taking the Mickey out of it. It's such a shame because with today's special effects they could make a great WW2 film as special after Band of Brothers think of all the different places the battles took place.


Amazing that money is still being spent on making such rubbish. Full of clichés and one-liners, it is one of the cheapest WW2 movies i've seen. Build a farmhouse out of a heap of timber, use the leftovers to glue a tower together with a propeller on it so that it vaguely resembles a windmill and... presto, we are in Holland! Take a Russian Antonov biplane, delete the top wing, glue a pair of (bicyclechain driven?) engines on the wings and put it on pontoons... a nazi seaplane! Life can be so simple. Let some men in a mixture of uniforms run trough a deserted forest making a lot of noise. And whatever happens, whoever shoots who, make sure the black ss uniforms stay in pristine condition... who's funding this?


I did not know whether to laugh or Cry and i was only 5 minutes into the movie. I am still trying to recall if i have seen acting, direction and storyline all that bad in the same film.

I had to admit i had my reservations when i saw that Michael Madsen had a cameo role, that usually consists of him strolling around just thinking of collecting his paycheck and as for introducing David Ginola !!!! He is a football Player and as a Tottenham Hotspur fan i say a great one but if his football skills were as wooden as his acting skills he would have never scored a goal.

Billy Zane, Billy Zane, Billy Zane what can i say, you do have Kelly Brook but yet since this has happened Jason Stathams career has gone higher and higher and i don't think you can go any lower.

On a final note the Nazis were made to look like good guys....can i say any more, please don't subject yourself to 90 minutes of torture DO NOT WATCH THIS for your own sake.


This film supposedly takes place during the first few days of Operation Market Garden, which was one of the biggest Allied assaults of the Second World War. In that attack, British and U.S. forces moved north into Occupied Holland, both by land and air drop, and this tale begins with a small British parachute unit being diverted under orders to a remote location behind German lines. In fact, the first ten to twelve minutes of "The Last Drop" are really well done.

Or to be charitable, the first eighteen minutes, are quite good.

And then this supposed tale of British derring-do and their nemesis, an S.S. Major appointed by Adolf Hitler to steal priceless Dutch artworks and artifacts, comes unhinged. The first flaw in this rickety fictional adventure is that it has three flaws: 1. The British detachment is led by a fascinating character, a Scottish captain, who is killed in the fire-fight following their crash landing in a glider ( off course, of course ). For the rest of the film the rest of the British soldiers quarrel amongst themselves over who's the real leader.

2. The National Socialist S.S. officer is clearly an important character to the plot development but we never learn much about him, until almost the very end of the story. This is a serious flaw, as it erodes the otherwise natural dramatic tension.

3. Three renegade German soldiers -- who somehow know about the treasure trove of Dutch artifacts and artworks -- are introduced in the crudest possible way, i.e., as they interrupt an S.S. bureaucrat while he's in a dalliance with courtesan. Who is really a part of their plot, only the S.S. dunderhead is too stupid to figure it out.

4. Oooops, there's a fourth flaw !! This kind of a film -- the "caper behind enemy lines movie," was done with such superb dramatization and excitement in "Kelly's Heroes," that any film auteur who wants to take it up again had better get himself or herself the current equivalents of Donald Sutherland, Carroll O'Connor, Don Rickles and especially a world-weary Clint Eastwood as the central player or leader. This was not done here, despite the fact that the budget for this film enabled wonderfully accurate costuming, equipment and weapons, accurate replication of tactics and lingo, and some exciting battle scenes.

They had the money to do a great film and they muffed it. For some wholly unknown reason they drafted Michael Madsen for a meaningful cameo role and he gave them less than a cameo's worth of value !! The plot is an intriguing one and based on many known historical facts but the execution, directing, music and the very ending itself fail miserably. By the real end of this film I was very glad that it was the end of this film. It's not a spy movie but it has espionage elements, it's not a buddies at war film but it has buddies at war, it's not a cultural and political statement about war, but it has cultural and political statements about war. Yikes. What a mess. Unless the reader can get this film on DVD for free .... forget it !!


What an awful shame ... with a cast like this and and a basically sound overall plot this movie should be a good watch, but this movie fails to hit the mark - it's films like this that put a downer on the British film industry. The film completely fails to build any character empathy until far too late and there appears to be whole chunks of key story line left on the cutting room floor and they've thrown in some inappropriate music where they probably couldn't afford a proper score. In places the acting was not up to mark that some of these actors have previously made. Poor accents with low budget special effects and scenery also disappoint - I had to watch the film twice just to make sure I hadn't got it wrong!

Kelly's Heros does a much better job of the WWII bank robbery story with the bonus of Clint and Donald!


The plot itself is not bad. A treasure with the interest of more than one party. The way things are going are very bad. Michael Madsen is not a bad actor, but his role in this movie is just overdone. All these people that change clothes, like Mission Impossible, but here is not really convincing. All German speak English, without any accent. Even in Allo Allo it is better done. It is not that easy to speak German, but please, speak English with a some kind of (German) accent, if you cant speak German at all. Some scenes are so stupid. Walking around in German army clothing during a shelling and stealing a car. And nobody sees you? ? Get real. Oke, it is an adventure movie. But this is a little bit to much. Overall the movie is(was) a waste of time, 4 Me!! 3/10


This could have been a good film if only people had taken it's production a bit more seriously. We see several clips of a Horsa Glider being towed over to Holland. On take off it is towed by a 4 engine Short Stirling, then its being towed by a twin engined DC3 Dakota (C47). As they cross the Dutch coast it is being towed by a Handley Page Halifax!

The CGI is poor compared with other recent films, and continuity is a joke. The glider in the air has RAF roundels which on the ground become French! The glider in the air has RAF roundels which on the ground become French! How can so much money be spent on films only to have such stupid mistakes? It doesn't stop there what with a very modern looking truck being used in one sequence and later a very poorly disguised Antonov AN-2 trying to look like a JU52 on floats. The countryside and settings look very little like Holland...its almost an insult to our intelligence and sad when you realise that it wouldn't have taken a great deal to get it right.

Lastly, is it meant as a gritty heist movie, a gritty war drama or a bit of a romp? I got the feeling that the makers of this film changed their mind on a daily basis. If they had only stuck to their original idea I might have found it more believable.


Watching this movie is a bit like eating cardboard. You can do it, but what is the point, no flavour and no nutrition.

The problems are vast, but it comes down to one thing, there is no real story. Sure it is an interesting caper...Nazi treasure in Holland that several different people are after. But the problem is that you don't get into the motivation of some of them, and certain parties really don't contribute anything to the caper.

There is no suspense, action is as pretty boring. The characters don't develop and there is no relationship between any of them.

My advice, is if you want to kill a script editor and get away with it, just lock them in a room with this movie and a gun. There is so much potential in the movie that any decent script editor will kill themselves after watching this movie.


Honestly one of the worst movies i've ever seen in my life, truly horrific. Definitely the biggest insult in the history of war films. I really don't know what else to say about this movie other than don't watch it, the acting is absolutely shocking, the combat scenes seem as if they were without any expertise on infantry tactics and or training and it is just generally very cheesy. I personally take it as an insult to the cap badge of the parachute regiment that this rubbish was allowed to be filmed under there name and can't believe certain actors that have worked in cult classics such as reservoir dogs would have ever considered working on such a project. Save yourself from a truly painful experience and don't bother with this movie.


I know in the war and post war years the concept of the war-comedy genre was popular - and given the grim times the world faced in those times, it is understandable as to way - (i.e - think of the film one woman went to war). However the last drop is the most terriblest film I have ever seen.

For starters the story line was not strongly thought out, the acting in it was just and well the whole premise of the film was just too unbelievable. Clearly today's film makers have the ability to make decent war films but to have this sort of ridiculous story was almost making fun of war and its horrors and making fun of the resources that are offered to film makers today.

To have the characters chasing after treasure in the middle of war time - come on please! I know a lot of looting of priceless artifacts did take place by the Nazis but the fact that it was made out in the film as that was the entire reason why they were in the war was not realistic. The way the screenwriter and director portrayed the two female resistance workers was terrible - and making out with the sniper out of gratitude - excuse me but I don't think so - and not in the situation that they were. And the English actor who played the Nazi - he should stick to better movies like Gosford Park where he showed off his acting ability.

The other day i watched the war film Sophie Scholl - and even though it didn't have half the 'big' name actors in it and was foreign produced and acted it was the most brilliant film I have seen for awhile and the fact that stupid stupid films such as the last drop (more like the last war film for these film makers) are made, do not do justice to the real stories and real suffering that the occupied countries went through when the Third Reich was in power.

DO NOT SEE THIS FILM.


Script and Plot - Juvenile and clichéd.

Acting - Incomprehensible - The worst ever Welsh accent starts it off, and it only gets worse.

Direction and Editing - Awful.

If you're tempted to watch this on rental - please don't. It is truly, truly awful. Nothing more needs to be said. Sorry.

Well, it appears that IMDb needs ten lines to make this valid. OK - the plot is invented (in spite of the back of box blurb), and it involves a caper to run after German loot as a side operation to operation "Market Garden". We have English actors running around with silly fake German accents and it's terribly stupid and tiresome.


I could see a train wreck coming so I didn't bother to watch the ending of this piece of trash. Given an intelligent editor before the script was finished, there might have been a good movie. It rambled all over, and when everyone came together I could tell it would get worse. At least those of you who haven't seen this won't have the ending spoiled by me! The people who reviewed this movie and said they liked the effects and the props were clueless. I was seriously annoyed when I saw that idiot US Paratrooper officer (played by Michael Madsen). The paratroopers were elite troops. Clowns just didn't make it that far. Also, I noticed that his second in command had 82nd Airborne patches, while his superior had 101st Airborne patches. Every time I saw the US paratroopers together they were wearing a mish-mash of uniforms.

I imagine the Brits who know a thing or two also detested the poor props.

Anyway, don't bother with this stinkeroo.


Okay first I will give you a little run down I first rented this movie because I thought I heard good things about this movie. Later on in the night I started to watch it. I decided to smoke a little reefer before then started to watch at first I was thinking to myself okay not the best but maybe it will get better. I was really wrong. Who ever it was idea to put rock music on the movie you have to be out your mind I was high and thought to myself I must be out of it so I still continued to watch and sat through the whole movie. The story line sucked I could not believe this was allowed to be written I have seen some not so good movies but this got right to the top of the list.

I decided I had to watch it again sober to make sure I wasn't on a trip. I tried to watch it last night but I fell asleep twice.

I decided to watch it again today and I have to say I wasn't on a bad trip but I did rewind the DVD to the beginning of the music to make sure I was hearing what I was hearing. They only thing I liked out of this whole movie was the fact that the fat book keeper said 2 funny things and the German thieves kept acting like cowboys.

I still can not believe this movie I was looking for a great World War 2 movie to watch and I get this. I feel very ashamed to even say I watched it.


If you want to see a humorous movie about the hijinks of an odd group of characters looking to enrich themselves during a WWII battle, see Kelly's Heroes, instead of this movie. The Last Drop tries for humor and misses... or misfires.

On the plus side, the movie flows fairly quickly and the action sequences are decent. There is a plot which might be interesting if some other pieces had fallen into place.

However, the script is weak and the acting is wooden. There is a very inauthentic feel to the movie, from haircuts to background music. The last 20 minutes are somewhat confusing and in some ways, leave huge gaps of logic.

All in all, not an utterly horrible movie, but a premise done much better in Kelly's Heroes.


This was like a bad, bad dime novel come to the big screen. What utter crap. It's obvious they did not use a military consultant, or if they did, the producers were taken for a long ride, because there was next to nothing accurate about the portrayal of things military. The inaccuracy list is far too long to go through, but just looking at the American paras, they weren't wearing jump gear, the 101st lt. colonel had a leather flight jacket and a class A officer's cap? Almost to a man the Americans are armed with Thompson submachine guns? The rock music only adds to the schlockiness of this movie, I'm surprised there wasn't a chase scene on skateboards or bmx motorbikes. I think the producers were trying to emulate "Kelly's Heroes" but fell so far short, it's pathetic.


I've just seen "The Last Drop". Honestly, I had to watch it twice to see the whole film, for it failed to pull me in like other wartime-movies usually do. Having seen so many excellent wartime-movies, my expectations were at the beginning fairly high. Unfortunately, I was left disappointed for "The Last Drop" is no match for great movies such as "The Great Raid" or "Saving Private Ryan". The film lacks tension and suspense, as it shifts from one scene to another, as well as professional acting to carry out a good quality performance. I agree with the rest of you who claim the accents being indescribable and improper for everyone seems to speak with his own variety of British accent. That's just weird. To my opinion, the whole production of the movie is bad as the storyline loses thread and a viewer is thus left confused and rather disturb. On the other hand, putting in real footage makes the film a little bit more plausible and somehow makes up for the weak script reflected in excruciatingly poor dialogue. There is some ribald sense of humor to spice things up, yet not enough to bring characters into life. All in all, the scriptwriter and the producer of the film provide a viewer with low budget special effects, bad scenery and a sort of a mish-mash of old (jazz) and modern (rock!! :S ) soundtrack music. So, if you really do want to watch a wartime-movie, try to avoid this one and pick the miniseries "Band Of brothers" or one of the above mentioned movies instead.


This plays like a long situation comedy, except that after the first few minutes any basis in reality, no matter how exaggerated, is lost. Bill Murray, as Bob, suffers from multiple phobias and, after an initial brief interview with psychiatrist Dr. Leo Marvin (Richard Dreyfuss), he becomes so dependent on him that he pursues him to where the Marvin family is away on vacation. To set up the premise of the movie Murray plays Bob initially as mentally disturbed, but his personality quickly changes into that of an irritating, socially inept child. Bob ingratiates himself with Marvin's family while in the meantime driving Marvin nuts. Unfortunately I came to view Bob pretty much as Dr. Marvin did - his behavior was totally inappropriate and I wished he would just go away. It is beyond me why Marvin's family did not also feel this way.

In an era when the work of Freud has been greatly discredited this movie seems compelled to propagate the stereotypical image of a psychiatrist as one who worships at the feet of the master, having busts of him in his office and in his vacation home, and even naming his children Sigmund and Anna.

Things turn absurdly silly toward the end.

Outside of its contrived humor not being particularly funny, the reason I really dislike this film is its portrayal of mental illness for humorous effect. Anyone who has known a phobic person understands the pain and suffering caused by the illness and knows that there is no cure by taking a few "baby steps" over a period of a few days, as implied in this film. The same criticism goes for making fun of Tourette's Disorder.


"What About Bob?" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Sure, Bill Murray did a good job, but the humor was low and the plot very untasteful. Someone earlier said that this movie "must be seen and not analyzed." That right there was enough warning for me not to see it, but did I listen? No. I just had to see the star of "Groundhog Day"--a far, far superior film--in another so-called comedy. If you haven't seen this movie yet, don't. Spend your valuable time elsewhere.


A wretched, wretched film that I recommend NOT seeing. I hated it. Bill Murray is capable of much funnier stuff! I'm not sure how this script was ever approved by movie execs, but someone must have been feeling drunk that day. I'm also not sure how they got Richard Dreyfuss or Bill Murray to star in the film. Maybe they had some really good blackmail on the two of them, or they just needed some beer money?


This one is maybe the worst movie ever made about the eternal legend of Camelot and the King Arthur. Bad direction, a cast who seems lost and trying to live a distant experience. The main lines of the legend are equally mistreat here and the relationship between Queen Guinevere and Lancelot goes against the common version. A great waste of time. Anyway, Donald Pleasance is always a delight to see. I give this a 3(three).


I was excited when looking on this site I saw that there was a movie made based on the books by Persia Woolley, I have been a fan for a long time. However, this movie in no way reflects Persia's wonderful books, not even close. Guinevere is some tomboy out fighting, Arthur is some frat boy idiot and Lancelot is some angry boy. They leave out almost all of the story and barely have the other characters. The acting is boring and not that great. The only thing I can say that was good was the scenery was nice and the overall feel of the time. There is nothing that fits the books or even a decent view of the Arthurian legend. The story doesn't showcase the wonderful character Persia wrote and that is a shame, they had great source material. The movie is boring and forgettable. My advise is to read the three books Persia Woolley wrote, they are great and much more entertaining.


I was coming down from a hangover state when I saw this movie ... and it still couldn't satisfy me. I thought it would be good. The cast looks fine, and the story was one that I could of gotten very interested in. Instead I get a piece of low budget junk used to fill in a rained out game slot. Bad acting, an even worse script, and enough British ethnical slurs to start a war. Though I gave it a 2/10, because this is probably the most accurate movie ever made that was based on the story.


This movie didn't make sense at all. My rule is if it's not a comedy and it's move funny than dramatic then it's not serving it's purpose. It was like Gilligan's Island gone horribly wrong. First of all; why couldn't they get one person to take them away years before the daughter became grown. The first mother came their with her husband but couldn't get out, that was kind of understandable. The daughter grew up and had a child of her own, a girl, and she couldn't get anyone to drive her into town. I don't get why the plot was about her 59 years like her mother didn't exist. The daughter/grand-daughter was a trip and she gave the movie it's comedic edge but there's were the problem comes to light.Everything she did was wrong and wouldn't have been fun if the movie was good and made sense. It hurt the film when the lady that first played the Grandma was used to play the mother and the young woman used to play the daughter played her own daughter.


Brazilian Andrucha Waddington began his career a wunderkind director of publicity and video-clips in his early 20s. By his late 20s, he'd made a fine transition to movies with his medium-length "Gêmeas" (1999, based on a short story by Nelson Rodrigues), and especially his heart-warming feature "Eu Tu Eles" (2000). These two visually striking films had powerful plots, something his third fiction movie "Casa de Areia" (House of Sand) has only a frail thread of.

This film's pretentious, abstract, non-sequitur plot was probably inspired by the importance of Northeastern Brazil in Einstein's confirmation of his Theory of Relativity. Waddington and writer Elena Soarez seize the opportunity to tell a story about 3 generations of women, played by 2 of Brazil's finest actresses: Oscar-nominee Fernanda Montenegro ("Central Station") and her real-life daughter, Cannes winner Fernanda Torres ("Eu Sei Que Vou Te Amar"). But the plot is as thin as the fine sand of the jaw-dropping desert lunar beauty of the region of Lençóis Maranhenses in Northern Brazil, filmed as a collection of slow, grandiloquent and vacuously exhibitionist shots. "Casa..." is a visually-oriented director's dream: it's all images -- landscapes, sand, storms, clothes, water, faces, bodies...like a National Geographic documentary. The music is sparse and under-used so it won't compete with the images (Waddington opts for a Fellini-like wind-blowing soundtrack). If the premises of the script weren't so esoteric, ambitious and pseudo-metaphysical, and the direction less on the exhibitionist side (there's a completely gratuitous love scene between Torres and Seu Jorge, for example, devoid of any dramatic purpose; it's there just as an aesthetic exercise), the film might have been more likable.

Wonderful actresses Montenegro and Torres (who's married to director Waddington) try with all their heart, but they seem embarrassingly aware that their characters are as fragile and inconsistent as the shack they built on the dunes. The rest of the cast appear in primary rough sketches of characters, with Enrique Díaz and Camila Facundes particularly contrived in their artificial roles. Waste, waste...

You can sit through "Casa..." with the sound off and it won't make much difference -- this film was made to inspire awe for director Waddington and his excellent DP Ricardo della Rosa, who fail, however, to convey genuine emotion or maintain our interest throughout the (seemingly endless) 103 minutes. This film particularly hard to endure on a TV screen, as it fully belongs to a big one. All things considered, it's a waste of talent for everyone involved, and a letdown by writer Elena Soarez, who implodes the philosophical ambition of the story with pedestrian dialog, and director Waddington, who favors technique and aestheticism over vibrancy, passion and emotional investigation of his characters.


To say this movie is inert is much too great an understatement. It makes the dictionary look like an explosive dramatic novel. Critics would have you believe that great cinematography and scenery can substitute substance. Such a belief is akin to touting grass growing as breakthrough cinema just because it's being broadcasted in HD.

The movie establishes from the beginning that the true star is the scenery. There are but a dozen words in the first 20 minutes of the film, a trend that continues throughout and grows weary if you can manage to stay up. The sound of the wind and crashing waves are terrific for putting you to sleep. But they hardly constitute a gripping drama.

For reasons that are never explained, a very stubborn man takes his wife and her mother to what amount to a sand dune. What follows is a very long depiction of the most uninteresting lives in the entire continent of South America. If the premise is not absurd enough, we get treated to three generations of insignificant characters and a whole lot of desert nature. A desert that's much too kind in my opinion. A real desert would've killed the first generation in this boring movie and spared me 90 minutes of garbage.


If you believe that film reflects who we are and are becoming and you linger on shock stories in the news then this movie and writer are for you! It is an avalanche of senseless male testosterone with only one conclusion--a dead and dying landscape full of corpses and people who are dead inside. If you believe that people are no damn good, this movie does just show how little there is of worth in life. I do believe that this world and all worlds would be better off without us. If men were bred out of life, there might be a chance for a future but that isn't yet possible. This movie could have been made by a 12 year old boy and other teenage boys who refuse to grow up. I've never seen such selfishness vomited up on an audience at such a rate. I only hope that all the things I saw happen in this film happen to the writer, director and actors involved. It is only right and good karma that that occur. The fact that someone like this gets money to produce such crap makes me realize the world has already been flushed.


How can you mix slap-stick/Laurel and Hardy comedy and mean Pusher/Bleeder

violence? That simply doesn't work for me! Ole Thestrup and Fritz Helmuth are simply too stupid and pinheaded - especially Ole Thestrup. The hunting scene along with the final get-even scene are just too stupid and unrealistic... Apart from that, I like the story, the acting (especially Mads Mikkelsen) and the the dialog. Still I can't quite figure out how it's possible to get lost in a forest near Frederica when driving from Copenhagen to Barcalona? It's motorway all the way!? I'm looking forward to seeing the Hollywood version...


Just to counter 'some' of the reviews here on 4400 that have titles like 'Awesome' and what more; this show is beyond terrible.

I just finished the first 30 minutes of the pilot. That may not be a lot, but it was quite enough. First off I see a bunch of actors delivering what appears to be script. The Cliché-ridden dialog ranges from "I'm worried about you Tom" and "Is it supposed to be that bright?" The latter referring to a fastly closing comet as if the character already saw the episodes of this series and suspected it may not be a comet at all but rather an extra-terrestrial 'Ball of Light' made by a wannabe CGI-expert who normally does the catering.

The Intergalactic marble is counter-measured with ballistic CGI missiles. In clear sight we see the missiles hit the object somewhere beyond the moon. Not only did it take these missiles just a few seconds to get there, they must have been the size of a small African state to be visible that far away. Despite their gigantic size, the SGI-Missiles have no effect and the Ball of Light conveniently descends in the back-garden of our protagonist's Observatory of Stray Alien Objects. It must have had a map.

After the Ball of Light delivers a couple of thousand CGI produced actors, the contest for the Worst-Wooden-Dialog-Award continues. Some of the CGI-actors turn out to be real people and they are held hostage by Homeland Security for 3 weeks being thoroughly interviewed while none of the returnees remembers a damn thing of their trip in the ball of Light. I'm sure this made for excellent conversation during those interviews.

Eventually the returnees are set free. One of them is a woman who's been gone for 10 years and thinks it would be a good idea to visit her daughter and husband after so long. When she gets to the house where her husband and daughter live, the screenwriters truly run out of inspiration and quickly down a six-pack of tequila flavored beer. Seeing his wife return after being gone for ten years, being abducted by aliens no less, the husband, in no more than 4 lines, tells her that 'alas things have changed for him' and adds a hasty 'sorry' as if he was sending some kids away who tried to sell him cookies. Without a single real-life emotion, the woman turns around and departs.

I don't know what the people that find this show even remotely enjoyable are on, but I wouldn't mind trying some of it.

This is considered good TV? Astonishing.


The idea is interesting, and it's refreshing that people from future are in game, and not aliens again. And also, music, title sequence and effects are very well done.

But story is not believable and neither is acting.

I can't believe how unrealistic and incompetent American government and her officials are displayed. Well, except the part about acting all morally righteous, especially with people from other countries (Rwanda).

It's a shame, because this could have been a great SF.

Have you noticed advertisement?


Just finished watching Taken and was surprised to see Joel Gretsch and Michael Moriarty again. The plot of the 4400 is very cool. No aliens, but people from the future.

It's just too bad that the story doesn't make me wanna know more about the characters. I do wanna know why all of those people were taken and why they were changed, but it wouldn't be a disaster if I never find out (which will be the case, since the show has been canceled...). Most of the actors were good, but even they couldn't take the story to a higher level.

I still give the show three stars, because of the soundtracks. The theme song is very cool and relaxing (like most of the songs they use).


I just finished re-watching the entire series on DVD a few days ago, and it gave me a definite impression of nausea this time: to be more specific, I think that seasons 1 & 2 had potential, interesting ideas, but the problem is that from season 3, the series went completely off-focus, and should have been renamed "Waiting for the new Messiah", because the plot evolved endlessly around two things: Jordan Collier and his f*****g promicine, and how "great" the world would be with the possibilities it could provide. But here, I said: STOP! and asked me two questions: 1) How the hell would anyone think of such an idea, considering the fact that our world is far, very far from being perfect two thousand years after a Messiah whose name I do not need to mention preached his gospel. 2) Why should humans have to take a shot, as if it were some kind of miraculous cure, to be better, instead of changing their MINDS? Then, those who are familiar with the series should also bear in mind that, although the series ended with a cliffhanger, this one was very badly done, ridiculously showing images of people performing so-called 'miracles' and that stupid thing of Seattle being renamed 'Promise City', and completely evading one fact clearly emerging from that pile of garbage: even if at the end of the series, they found a way to make a test to determine who could or could not take promicine without danger,the fact remains that this 'new world' would be divided between two classes of people: those with abilities and those without, in short, practically two species of humans. Our world is divided enough with one human species and definitely doesn't need one further division: I cannot help but thinking that this crap of a TV series is finally somewhere extremely right-wing, or even racist/fascist in its conclusion. So,I just put my DVD's of the series, after having delightfully scratched them, to where they belonged: to the WASTE DISPOSAL.


I only managed to watch the first 30mins of the first episode of this drivel, before I turned it off. Yes, I know I stand to be accused of not letting the characters & the plot-lines build, but come on people, I've seen Guthy-Renker infomericials with better narratives than this tosh.

In the 30mins that I managed to watch, they managed to cram nearly every sappy cliché' ever written into the storyline. It almost seemed that the writers were having a cliché' competition, after spending a bonding weekend at a Hollywood cliché' convention!!! If you've seen any of the 5 seasons of 24, or the 3 seasons of Lost, the characters are all there, just rehashed & regurgitated back onto our screens as 'must see' TV.

BLAH!!!! At least the wonderful Jacqueline McKenzie has been able to keep bread on her table by participating in this drivel & has been able to do some serious acting on the side (Opal Dream & Peaches) with the money she has made here.

If you are craving for decent sci-fi TV, the current series of Dr Who is miles ahead to this rubbish!


Before I saw this film I read all the reviews on this site. And then I saw the movie...and I was wondering what all those other reviewers had been taking... The film lasts about 85 minutes, and that's too long by half. I always hated Chevalier's awful accent (half the time you're straining to try and make sense of what he's saying), but as a rule his lighthearted acting makes it bearable. Not here. Hopkins as the princess and Barbier as the king are worse than caricatures and there are some very xenophobic remarks here and there. But the worst is...Claudette's performance. I love, no I adore Claudette Colbert. She's by far my favourite actress of the first half of the 20th century (Michelle Pfeiffer took her crown in the latter part). But what she's showing us here, is shameful. She's overacting as if she's in a (talking) movie for the first time. For example when she's leaving Chevalier's apartment, and she's leaving the key. Her facial expressions are way too pathetic and remind me of the silent movies, when everything had to be over the top to convey the meaning. This is a movie to see once, then quickly forget about. 2 stars out of 10.


Since this seems to have been largely unnoticed by most of the previous commentators, I will just add a paragraph here to point out that this movie is an adaptation, of sorts, of one of the major hits of the Viennese musical stage during the first decade of the 20th century, Oscar Straus' Ein Waltztraum/A Waltzdream. The characters' names and some of the situations are kept, as are a few of the original numbers, mostly used as background music. (Most of the actual songs are new, and not from the operetta.) You might say "So what?", especially if you have no interest in silver-age Viennese operetta. But this factoid is of interest in that, 3 years later, Paramount would try the same thing, once again with M Chevalier directed by Ernst Lubitsch, on another of the major hits of the Viennese musical stage during the first decade of the 20th century, and that time the result would be a smash success: The Merry Widow. (Replacing Miriam Hopkins with Jeannette McDonald helped a lot, as did Lehar's music, which is a lot better that Straus's.) This movie didn't do much for me - neither does A Waltzdream, frankly - but it's interesting to see a first attempt at something Paramount, Lubitsch, and Chevalier would soon do so much better.


People are reviewing this movie as if it was the John Woo masterpiece "Hardboiled". It is NOT. The cover art is misleading and so is the back. This movie is as some have pointed out a boring no action light hearted 80s HK cop film. There is almost no action and I don't think there are 2 guns in the movie let alone in his hands at one time. The movie HardBoiled that most people are referring to with the hospital gun battle, etc. is awesome. This movie is far from it and video stores should be ashamed as displaying this movie for anything other then it is. My friend rented it thinking it would be hardboiled, it of course wasn't, even though the clerk at the store assured him it was and said he had rented it before. IGNORE the high rating on this site ppl are reviewing the wrong movie. This one sucks bad, avoid at all costs.


This film is rubbish don't get it confused with Hard Boiled it's a light comedy with light gun play and the cover does not reflect the contents of the film. Only watch this film if you are a die hard Chow Yun Fat fan and even then you will be disappointed.


Some previous reviewers of this movie have either mistaken it for The Killer or Hard Boiled. It isnt too hard to mistake them when the people who released this movie retitled it and put some pictures from these movies on the cover. In truth this movie is titled Police Sir (or Be The First) a slapstick comedy more like the keystone kops than a John Woo film. It begins with Chow Yun Fat, a newly graduated officer coming on to his first day on the force. Because he is new he doesnt understand the right way to do things. This leads to all sorts of silliness and humor based in the Hong Kong? culture. There are some hints about corruption and incompetence on the police force that run through the movie. These might have been meant to be funny though at the time I was expecting a serious Woo action film. It is filmed poorly, my copy had huge objects on parts of the film and whole scenes are unwatchable due to dust and hair. Stay away unless you love eastern hong kong comedy and can find a great copy but dont be mistaken that this is a very silly movie.


This movie starts off with the main characters talking and introducing the plot. Fair enough - so does any movie. However, this goes on for over an hour (during which they do nothing but talk), by the end of which you'll most likely be asleep. This is made worse by the absolutely awful English dub, making it almost unwatchable.

About halfway through the film, the scene changes dramatically to a hospital, which is cue for an hour-long gun-fight. Now, there's nothing wrong with a gunfight in a film, and some of the scenes are very stylish - but the sheer length of the thing means that you'll be struggling to stay awake near the end. Since all the characters are wearing similar clothes, no-one really knows who is on who's side and it ends up as a all-on-all deathmatch, with people randomly shooting each other and the civilians.

Worth watching the second half for a laugh, but don't try and take it seriously.


What a disappointment! This film really doesn't honour its title or the original movie where it's based. The main topic of the plot is similar to the original, but all the rest is terribly different, on a bad way! The first 45 minutes are not so bad, but after the point where LUTHER (one of the robbers) becomes a vampire it really goes down! The plot ends right there, because it turns just into a "killing vampire festival" with awful special effects and no great interest, at least for me! But worse than the low quality special effects was that cheap imitation of PSYCHO's bathtub killing scene! Yes, the famous scene of PSYCHO is imitated but this time the killer is a bat! Ridiculous!

The links to the original film are very small and insignificant. The major one is when LUTHER goes to the "Titty Twister" Bar and becomes a vampire, but even that one was terribly short and spoiled.

Besides, there're some humoured wannabe lines that just end being very stupid, like that one near the end: "  Tell me something Buck. What the hell were vampires doing robbing a bank?  You got me! I supposed vampires need money, just like anybody else!". Of course I was wondering myself why they still want robbing the bank after they become vampires (LUTHER and Jesus). I found it a bit absurd, they still want the money; but that "explanation", even trying to be humorous, is really ridiculous and unnecessary!

Overall, I was expecting something much better! I have to say it has a nice soundtrack though, especially in the first 45 minutes.


Regardless if you like it or hate it I'm pretty sure this movie will leave an impression.

This is the kind of movie that leave you befuddled, not knowing whether you should laugh or cry.

Horror sequences are predictable yet utterly stupid. There are major gaps in the plot, one of them being: Going to Mexico to rob a bank. It's basic movie trivia that you commit a crime and then you go to Mexico to escape the long arm of the law.

The dialog makes clumsy attempts at being clever, Tarantino-ish if you will. Unfortunately it all just falls flat.

Action sequences are horrendous. Vampires and cops alike line up in order to die in a gruesome manner.

I think this movie is a bit of a hit and miss. I got the sense that they tried to create something failed. If you watch it, try to think of it as a movie that doesn't try to be anything.

In the end however this movie is probably best remained unseen.


When I saw Quentin Tarantino`s and Robert Rodriguez`s From Dusk Till Dawn I was around 12 years old. And even today I think that that movie is one off the coolest ever made.

But in 1999 I rented From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money, Directed by Scott Spiegel and written by Scott Spiegel and Actor/writer Duane Withaker.

The first film is so cool because the first half is a gangster film, and then it just changes into a vampire film. This sequel also tries to do the same thing. But it fails.

The original had George Clooney, Quentin Tarantino, Danny Trejo, Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis and Salma Hayek. The most knows actor in this film is Robert Patrick from The X-files. Also the crew is nothing like the original. Tarantino and Rodriguez is Exec. porudcers, but nothing more. The man at the helm is Spiegel most known for....well nothing.

The SFX? THERE IS NO SFX. I mean the blood is so bad in the film, the could just as well used red paint.

The direction is some of the worst I`ve ever seen. The camera angels is so f***ed up. They have placed the camera inside the mouth off a vamp. The script is so bad that I laugh out loud. Some of the dialouge is so bad, it coould be of been written by a ten year old.

I mean really what can you expect from a film where the main cast consists of Robert patrick and Raimond Cruz?

0/5 - Stay away!!!!!!!!


...that utterly fails to live up to its quirky progenitor, "From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money" is only worth the time spent watching it to vampire geeks, of whom only the most indiscriminate will be pleased, and/or Tarantino/Rodriguez completists, who will remain bemused as to whether or not these renowned auteurs even bothered to read writer/director Scott "Evil Dead 2" Spiegel's script before bankrolling this mess. And I can assure you it's a mess.

From its opening fake-out with Bruce "Evil Dead" Campbell to the final boredom of its closing reel, "FDTD2:TBM" fails to add anything of note to the genre whatsoever. It's only stylistic flourish, if you can even call it that, is camera shots from oddball perspectives, such as the inside of a decomposing vampire skull, none of which add anything to the lackadaisical storyline. I promise you, the less said about this abortion, the better; it practically defines the word "fodder." I'm sure everyone involved had "fun" making this dreck, but I'm equally sure that they all knew they were just taking a paycheck, and I'm also pretty sure none of them are bragging about their participation.

Do yourself a favor, gentle reader, and pass this one by. You won't miss it for even the briefest of seconds.


I'm a real dusk till dawn fan, since I first watched it on the big screen. And when I learned that there will be one prequel and one sequel, I was very happy. After that, I learned that Bruce Campbell will be in the cast, that also made me happy 'cause I love Bruce. But when I watched the movie this Saturday, I was totally disappointed, I mean, this is the most meaningless, plotless and unnecessary sequel I ever seen. I think Dimension films made a great decision by NOT releasing this crap to the theaters. What's this movie trying to tell anyway? The vampires can easily rob the banks? We know they can kill people easily for sure. And for God's sake, how in the earth that the vampire from the first film (the barman) resurrected after the melting sequence?

And for the last, if you still want to watch this thing, watch it like something else, not the sequel to the Big Smash Hit. I hope the prequel (Hangman's Daughter) will be much much far from this...


Terrible. None of the wit, charisma, or surprise of From Dusk Till Dawn. They should be ashamed to use the same name. Not even a good "bad" movie, and I appreciate decent "B" movies.


After seeing From Dusk Till Dawn, I was looking forward to seeing the second film, I knew it had a crummy rating, but I figured to give it a shot. Who knows? I thought since it had Robert Patrick and Bruce Cambell, that it might have potential. But I just watched it and I'm hoping for that hour and a half back because this was a pretty sad movie. First off, it wasn't anywhere near as good as the first From Dusk Till Dawn film and it had a bunch of shots that the director was trying to impress people with but it ended up making the film look cheesy. The plot was just ridicules, it could have had something, but instead it was pretty stupid. I mean, who knew that vampires needed money so badly? That they too can rob banks? How did some of the characters who supposedly died in the last film come back to life? How did the strip club come back? I don't know, but this was just a bad idea.

Buck, his brother, and his friends are in Mexico to rob a bank for millions of dollars. But when a friend of their's, Luther is running late for their meeting. His car breaks down on the road and he heads for the same club as the first film and of course is turned into a vampire and then comes back for his friends. Buck is unaware of what is to happen when his friends take him to the bank and he finds out that maybe he'd rather just go to jail then be with these blood suckers.

From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money has extremely pointless moments, like the beginning sequence with Bruce Cambell and Tiffani Amber Thieson, it never had anything to do with the story. The acting was bad and the action wasn't really that exciting. They also kept cutting to an edit of the boys watching a porno movie, so it was like they were trying to have some sex in there the cheap way I guess. I don't know, I just really feel like my time was wasted with From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money. I'd rather just stick with the original and I suggest you do the same.

1/10


OK, Quentin is a great director and writer. He usually has good judgment why would he want to Producer this stuff. He should have taken his time and reviewed the script. He would of known that it was smutt. He should have written a version of it get George Clooney and Julia back and get rid of Danny Trejo's character since he died in the first one and then he would of had a sequel worth seeing in the theater and not video or DVD. I would love to see another sequel to From Dusk till done just to ignore this whatever this is. You could do it Quentin. George has said he would love to play Seth again if you asked him. The original was truly a great film. The Prequel wasn't bad, but this one sucked.


One of the worst sequels I've ever seen. I loved the original FDTD and was thrilled at the idea of a sequel, but this movie was pathetic.


When i watched the first FDTD, i thought it was far from a masterpiece but an excellent movie. Then i couldn't wait to watch the sequel. I didn't believe what this site was saying about this gruesome sequel so i bought it for 13 dollars. I couldn't rent it because they didn't have it, probably because it was so terrible! The special effects are laughable and the acting is worse. Scott Spiegel has no idea of how to direct movies and his camera angles? What is up with that. All in all don't waste any money on this movie... It is TErrible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on a 1 to 10 scale i would give it a -500. Don't watch this and don't be like me and but it.