Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the theatre, there's Jack Hammer.

A movie about a Jack, whose drug addiction leads to homelessness, weakness, and murder.

He lives as a security guard in a abandoned machine shop after losing his cushy day job to drugs, when his best friend OD's and dies on the street in a bad part of town.

He had it all, nice car, a yellow Viper, I wouldn't have gone with yellow, but okay - the great job, but he lacked self esteem, his ego being a little too big for his britches syndrome if you will. He had no real direction. So far it seems a pretty realistic approach, but soon the movie flails like a fish out of water - to become a cliché, and unredeemable display of stupidity so profound, I am ashamed for the actor who had to play Jack.

I'm just gonna get real nitpicky here a second and say - JackHammer was one of the worse movies I have ever seen in my entire life.


Yes, people, the summary above is true. If you took a crap and it came out disc shaped and you put it in your DVD player, you'd have The Jackhammer Massacre. I'm not kidding in the least, bruh. This movie is one of the worst pieces of crap I've ever seen, and I like a lot of crap movies. I don't like to bash movies because it makes me look like an idiot who probably couldn't make a better movie if my life depended on it, but I could film myself sleeping for two hours and it'd be more entertaining (and plausible) than this turd.

Let me start off by commenting on the acting by giving a witty analogy: If someone told you to eat a burger filled with cat turds and then act as if you enjoy it, you'd eat it, and try to act like you enjoy it. Of course, you're acting would be horrible, but in comparison to this, it'd be more believable than anything you'd see in here. The movie is about a junkie, so naturally, the guy should be able to look like a junkie. Instead, it looks like the director messed up his clothes and told him to act like he drank about a dozen cups of coffee. Because that's what it looks like, it looks like the main actor is perked on coffee.

The story. Let me tell you something witty and funny. The writer of this movie probably wrote this movie on a typewriter. If he did, which I like to believe, I commonly refer to the typewriters which bad movies are written from to be TRIPEwriters, HA-HA! Okay, back to the story. The story is about a man, named Jack (I smell irony and witty writing with that name!), who has a good job, a cool car, and lots of money. But, underneath the high paying job and cool car, Jack has an addictionan addiction to DRUGS! One day, he and his buddy go to a rundown part of town to get high (this also happens literally five minutes into the movie; I guess these movie makers never heard of CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT!). They do get high, but Jack's friend overdoses and dies. Jack, being a narcissistic idiot, lets him die on the road. Then suddenly, from that one bad experience, he loses everything. Mind you, we never see him lose everything, we just assume that he has because again, he's wearing dirty clothes. But whatever. Now, after his downfall, he works as a security guard in a garage, and is still a junkie. He owes some bad people some money, so here's what they do: They go to him, kick the ever loving s*** out of him, and pull out a syringe of some kind of drug that's supposed to kill him. Now, even though this stuff if supposed to kill him (and was probably supposed to kill everyone they shot it into), one of the thugs says that he's heard some 'bad' stuff about the drug, that it can make you really strong. Yes, this makes sense. A drug that's been made to kill people has supposedly made people strong, even though it's made to kill them. How did the people who were injected even alive to exhibit these super powers if the drug's made to kill them? Exactly. Because this movie sucks. Jack is injected, he gets ridiculously powerful, and starts to kill everyone with a jackhammer. I smell an Oscar! Oh, wait, no, I smell a crap story, my bad.

Someone who likes this movie can argue, "Well, this movie is supposed to show the horror of drugs, are you stupid, LOL(!)" I would have to agree with this statement. As much as I hate this movie, I do agree that it shows what comes from drug use. It's obvious that the people who made this were on some kind of drugs, and made this piece of misery. Now kids, if you're reading, when you do drugs, you make stupid movies like this, so don't do drugs!

That's my two awesome cents on this movie. This movie's stupid, boring, and stupid. For a movie that's supposed to discourage drug use, it sure does make you wanna take something afterwards to forget that you ever saw it.

Score: 1 out of 10.

Wait, I take that back.

0 out of 10.


The reign of Edward VI of England would be little remembered if it not were for the writing of this story by an American of all people, Mark Twain. In point of fact Edward Tudor ascended the English throne in 1547, the son of Henry VIII and died six years later, not even reaching his maturity. His reign, such as it was, was marked by a struggle for power by several factions of nobles. That story can be seen in the films Young Bess and also in Lady Jane. There was no happily ever after endings for young Tudor.

At first glance it wouldn't seem possible that Samuel Langhorne Clemens of Hannibal, Missouri could write a classic tale about medieval England. But thinking about it, is the poverty and young Tom Canty's dealing with it in Offal Court all that different from Huckleberry Finn? Is his father, a coarse and brutal man beautifully played by Barton MacLane, all that different from Huck Finn's pap?

Twain knew his characters well and it he had any trouble with getting the idiom just right he need only have looked to Charles Dickens who was writing about just such people a generation before.

The story is simply that Tom Canty, a beggar boy from Offal Court in London gets into the palace of the king and meets up with young Prince Edward. They look alike enough to be twins and in fact they are played by twin brothers Billy and Bobby Mauch. They exchange places and the switch works only too well.

Top billed in the film is Errol Flynn who plays the fictional Miles Hendon, soldier of fortune just returned from the continent. Flynn was the biggest name in the cast, but the film is half over before he makes his appearance. In point of fact, he's really in support of the Mauch twins. It's Flynn's third appearance with sword in hand for Warner Brothers after Captain Blood and Charge of the Light Brigade.

This film also marks Flynn's first film with Alan Hale who appeared in eleven films with Errol. A film wasn't official at Warner Brothers unless either Alan Hale or Frank McHugh was in it. Jack Warner kept both those guys real busy.

Also in the film are Henry Stephenson and Claude Rains who play competing nobles vying to be top man in their minority monarch's reign. As I said unfortunately that marked Edward VI's entire time on England's throne.

But we have Mark Twain in his classic story and the brothers Warner to thank for bringing Edward VI's story to life for generations to come. I wonder if during his short life, young Edward might really have wished to escape what he had, even if it meant a place like Offal Court.


Mark Twain was a man who sometimes could not get a notion out of his head. He loved the issue of twins and switching births. It pervades much of his fiction, and few seem to comment on it. In one of his early sketches he tells an inquisitive reporter that the tragedy of his life was the strange death of his twin - the boy had one only one mark on his body that differs him from his brother - Twain shows it to the reporter on his own person, and says that was the boy who supposedly died mysteriously and was buried. The reporter leaves after that tidbit.

Of course the novel (which became the subject of this film and several others) is the one that people think of as Twain's "twins switching" story. It isn't. He would write (in the 1880s) a piece called "Those Amazing Twins" about a pair of Italian Siamese twins. The piece (which is not one of his best) became part of the germination that led to his last great Mississippi novel "Pudd'nhead Wilson". He separates the twin Italians into two twin brother Italian counts who turn up in the Mississippi town where the action goes. He also takes the "switched at birth" motif and uses it in the main story of Chambers the slave switched by his mother Roxey with young Tom Driscoll the wealthy heir.

Twins pop up too in "Tom Sawyer Detective" - which was based on an old 17th Century Danish murder case involving twins.

But it's "The Prince And The Pauper" (1876) that is recalled as Twain's "twin story". I think it's because the other pieces are minor or (like Wilson) full of other interesting small matters - like the business of the use of fingerprints to settle the mysteries of the plot (a first in 1894). Here it is central to Twain's looking at an appalling, inequitable social system in Tudor England.

Henry VIII is dying and his son Edward, Prince of Wales is aware that he is going to soon lose his wise father and take over the reins of government. Of course the truth is he is still too young (in 1547 he is only 11) and he really can only rule in his own right when he reaches adult age (presumably 21). He will need a "Protector" and the Duke of Norfolk and the Earl of Herford are the leading contenders.

In the film wise old Henry Stephenson is Norfolk and crafty, power-seeking Claude Rains is Hertford. Henry (Montague Love) appoints both to the governing counsel, but does not name Norfolk over Hertford (or the reverse). So Rains starts jockeying for position in a confrontation with England's premier Duke.

In reality it was more complicated. Norfolk was on the outs with Henry in 1547 (he was facing execution - his son the Earl of Surrey was executed the year before - but Henry's own death saved Norfolk). The two contenders were the Duke of Somerset (Edward Seymour), blood uncle to Edward VI through his mother, and John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who dreamed of placing the Dudley family and the Tudors permanently together by marrying the three Tudor heiresses, Princesses Mary and Elizabeth, and Lady Jane Grey, to his sons. One day this plan would blow up in his face (see TUDOR ROSE). Somerset's doom was tied to a similar hair-brained scheme of his brother Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour regarding marrying Princess Elizabeth (see YOUNG BESS).

Edward, in Twain's story, while waiting for the sad news, meets Tom Canty, a boy who looks almost exactly like him (here played - for a change - by the Mauch Twins). As a lark they change clothes so each can see how the other half live. Tom is soon over his head, causing his cousin Jane to question his sanity, and revealing enough to Hertford to realize that the false-King is his own key to power. Edward is unfortunately forced to endure the poverty of Tom's social class, but also the brutality of Tom's father John Canty (Barton McLaine) who is a professional thief. But Edward is soon helped by a young squire, Miles Herndon (Errol Flynn) who is trying to return to his ancestral home to regain his possessions from a greedy brother.

The twisty plot did show much of the underside of English Tudor living that many of the other early Tudor history films barely touched on (except to show the intrigues at court). It also had plenty of humor - look at the business about the usefulness of "the Great Seal of England", which is typical Twain humor. I feel this version of the story is quite good - possibly the best of the different versions of the novel that have reached the screen.


Mark Twain's classic tale of a pair of look-alike boys in 16th century England is given the glossy Hollywood treatment in this very entertaining effort. Billy and Bobby Mauch, 12 year old twin brothers, star, one as the heir to the throne of England and the other as a street urchin. By accident, each is mistaken for the other and when the king dies, the pauper may be crowned instead of the rightful prince. Claude Rains is his usual steady self as the traitorous wretch who realizes his chance to seize power with the pauper in charge. Errol Flynn may be billed as the star, but he does not appear until halfway through the film. He becomes the prince's protector. Of course, he does not know that the young beggar is the prince. Flynn is good as always in this fun filled film.


Bobby Mauch and Billy Mauch are "The Prince and the Pauper," a 1937 film based on the Mark Twain story. The film also stars Errol Flynn and Claude Rains. When Tom, the pauper, is caught by the guards, the young Prince sees a playmate in him and invites him in. They change clothes so that the Prince can go and get his dog from the kennel for their next game, but he's caught by the cruel guards who think he's the pauper. This leaves the hapless Tom stuck in the palace as a prince who is about to become king any minute. He has a protector forced upon him, the Earl of Hertford (Rains), who does not have the best interests of the English people in mind.

While he's in Tom's world, Prince Edward gets a good look at the horrible way the English people are forced to live because of bad laws. Eventually he meets Miles Hendon (Flynn) who saves him from Tom's wretched father. The question is, once Hendon is convinced that he's in the presence of the true King, can he get him to the coronation before the beggar is crowned? This is a wonderfully fun movie, filled with the meanest of the mean in Alan Hale as a palace guard, Barton MacLane as Tom's father, and the diabolical, unfeeling Earl. All are very convincing. The twins are delightful. As for Errol Flynn, he's as dashing and charming as ever as he wields a sword and rides a horse. A great cast and a marvelous film for the whole family. Highly recommended.


I love "The Prince and the Pauper" and Billy and Bobby Mauch. When they laugh together, I can't help laughing, too.

I wanted to comment on their enunciation -- a charming idiosyncrasy.

They pronounce every "to" with unusual emphasis -- like Bette Davis, who was at Warner Brothers, too!

I was imagining -- sheer speculation -- that Bette Davis and the Mauch twins had the same vocal coach who encouraged them to over-articulate.

I also was amused when one of the twins pronounced his family "TU-TOR" instead of "Tudor."

Still --the movie is delightful.


In the slums of 16th century London, young Billy Mauch (as "Pauper" Tom Canty) makes the most of his life as a beggar; though, he is beaten by his father, and thrown in the mud. Meanwhile, royal Bobby Mauch (as "Prince" Edward VI) lives a life of luxury; soon, he will replace father King Henry VIII on the throne. One evening, Pauper Mauch takes refuge from a storm on Prince Mauch's palace grounds. The look-alike boys meet, and strike up a friendship. Prince Mauch invites Pauper Mauch over to the palace, where the two become intrigued by their different lifestyles, and identical appearance. After they exchange clothing, they become separated, by happenstance. When nobody believes their stories, the boys are forced to assume each other's identities.

This is a well-produced version of the Mark Twain classic. Sadly, the unevenly paced scenario does not produce the film classic which was, evidently, possible (considering those involved). The "Mauch Twins" and Claude Rains (as the Earl of Hertford) are especially strong in their portrayals; and, Erich Wolfgang Korngold's soundtrack should be noted. Don't expect to see top-billed Errol Flynn (as Miles Hendon) until later in the film, as a supporting player. Alan Hale, Barton MacLane, Henry Stephenson, and Montagu Love are also worth noting; but, the film's main strengths are Mr. Rains, Mr. Korngold, and the "Mauch Twins".

******* The Prince and the Pauper (5/5/37) William Keighley ~ Billy Mauch, Bobby Mauch, Errol Flynn, Claude Rains


"The Prince and the Pauper" is based on Mark Twain's novel of the same name. The story is a hypothetical situation where Edward VI exchanges places with a beggar that resembles him as he is about to become King of England.

The Mauch twins, Bobby and Billy, skillfully play the roles of Edward VI and the beggar Tom Canty. Errol Flynn is well-cast as the dashing hero Miles Hendon, who comes to protect Edward when he's taken for a beggar. Claude Rains was a perfect choice to play his oft-reprised role of a conniving man grasping for power which he plays so well. Also notable are Alan Hale as the captain of the guard, Barton MacLane as Tom Canty's despicable father and Montagu Love as the counseling Henry VIII.

The story is not meant as history, but rather an examination of social disparities. Twain's social commentary is, as usual, mixed with his clever humor. The story moves along well with this mix as well as the machinations at court. The only part that seemed somewhat drawn out was the coronation ceremony.


The Prince and the Pauper is a charming and witty film. Errol Flynn, although appearing a little late in the film, gives a great performance as an adventurer who protects what he believes is a delusional boy. The Mauch twins, Billy and Bobby, are perfect foils for Flynn, who's interaction with the Prince of England is touching, warm and comedic. As usual with Flynn's films Erich Wolfgang Korngold's music is brilliant, weaving a childlike main theme with an undercurrent of adventure. Every time you hear the score one almost picture a child giggling, while playing hide-and seek. It is one of Korngold's least known scores, but it is a gem. Flynn was a tragic figure, a larger then life adventurer and lover who 's reputation, after death, naturally, was smeared by a several books, now proved to be false. Truly, a man born in the wrong century. There is no actor capable of pulling off what Flynn did in his hay day. He has been largely ignored by Hollywood. Hypocrites, I think might be an appropriate term to attach to today's Academy moguls. A rake, drunk and scalawag? Yes. But he was the guy who has a least a half dozen classics that have stood the test of time. Unfortunately, the Prince and the Pauper is rarely seen on TV nowadays. A shame. Where would we Walter Mitty's be without the last of the true swashbucklers?


Those who hope to see a lot of Errol Flynn in this movie will be disappointed ... it is a good hour before he makes his appearance as Miles Hendon.

The novel by Mark Twain looked at what might have happened if the future Edward VI was swapped for a beggar boy who looked identical, and what that might mean for the (simplified) political situation on the death of his father, Henry VIII.

As Edward and the beggar, Tom Canty, identical twins Billy and Bobby Mauch are charming. Much better than the split screen versions in later remakes of the 60s and 70s. They were both good little actors as well, which helps in this story.

Claude Rains excels as the villain of the piece, while Alan Hale, Eric Portman, and others make up the cast. Flynn himself is fun as Hendon, swashbuckling with the best.

After 70 years this film has not dated one jot - highly enjoyable.


This is a very likable and well-made film for the entire family. And, although Errol Flynn gets top billing, Bobby Mauch as both the prince and the commoner gets the lion's share of the time on screen. The story is probably very familiar to most people. A poor boy in the 16th century turns out to be the spitting image of the young prince. However, the prince hates life in the palace and longs to escape and see and experience life. When the two accidentally meet, they decide to temporarily change places. Unfortunately, this results in many complications--the biggest of which is a conspiracy to use the fake prince as a dupe and do away with the real one! That's where heroic Errol Flynn comes into the film. The movie is a well made and well acted costumer--employing all that is best about Warner Brothers films of the era. Fun and entertaining throughout--it almost makes you believe this story is TRUE!


This is a great film! I first saw this movie at age 8 and still love it and keep it in my personal video collection. The twins are well cast even though they are from illinois and Errol Flynn is always entertaining as the swashbuckling hero. Well directed with great music. A must see for any classic movie buff. 9/10


Dennis Hopper makes this movie worth the viewing, and the pretty cars and Nadine Velazquez certainly help as well. The similarity with Carmack's character and any number of recent "speed" films is obvious. He drives a modified Mitsubishi and thinks he's all that. But Hopper's character (1969 Pontiac GTO Judge) throws a wrench into that formula, and is one we haven't really seen in this kind of modern car flick. Hopper brings the legitimacy of a little known 1970's "Bonnie and Clyde" type art house flick mixing it up with the new & flashy "tuner" style.

Kinda like Two Lane Blacktop meets 2 Fast 2 Furious.


I watched this movie because my husband wanted to. From the trailers, the website even the promotion it looked as though it was definitely for guys. They sold Dennis Hopper, the good looking young guy and of course the "sexy" girl... big surprise. And when we watched the movie, from the beginning I thought "here we go again, another bang em up, chase em, over the top action movie".

But I was pleasantly wrong. The movie had a story, a plot and some good acting. While it was obviously still produced with men in mind (plenty of the actress in her red underware), it still kept to a pretty emotional story about a disfunctional family trying to find each other. I wasn't surprised that they were brought together by a car. And I wasn't surprised to see that there were bang em up and chase em scenes. But they were fun and a bit surprising. My expectations were very low but my opinion of this movie ended up very high. To be honest I didn't pay close enough attention in the beginning because I wasn't expecting much so I ended up watching it again. There really was something for everyone in this movie. I would watch it again.


This was really a fun movie that had some great car action. The trailer I saw on TV looked pretty good but I didn't have much expectation since it was a cable movie. I ended up pleasantly surprised. The old and new GTOs looked great in the movie and the autoshow scene was pretty cool. I really liked Dennis Hopper's character and really liked the younger talent. The ending was a big surprise! I didn't see that coming. There was a nice development of the characters while still maintaining the action that I was looking for. The creator of the "Fast and the Furious" and "XXX" didn't disappoint for this cable flick. While, it may not have been worthy of the big screen, I would actually watch it again. For a made-for-TV movie, I gave it a 9. I usually won't bare to sit through made-for-TV movie. This one was worth it.


Forget "The Last Ride", just watch the historic GTO video, and then return or throw away the DVD. Dennis Hopper and Fred Ward are totally wasted in this preposterous, convoluted high tech nonsense of a film. Starting with the ultra ridiculous scene at the car show, the movie deteriorates with each passing minute. The entire paper thin script seems to have been wrapped around an 85 minute commercial for the 2004 Pontiac GTO. You can hit the fast forward button until the quarry scene, near the end. Then watch for the second best part of the film crashing off the top of the stone quarry. Immediately following is the best part of the film. It's called the credits. - MERK


I have just seen the movie and i think it's really cool The thing i liked the most is the plot I wouldn't change a thing about it it was perfect But the thing's i didn't think were all that great Was the color of the 2000 Mitsubishi eclipse silver They should have gone for something like red or blue How ever the underground lighting kit was cool But that's not the end the other thing i did'NT like was The 2004 Pontiac GTO with the 350 horse LS1 under the hood It would have been better to have used the 05 model with the 400 horse LS2 THAT WOULD HAVE BURNED SOME SERIOUS RUBBER Also the should have used NOS nitrous instead of ZEX They should have of raced the GTO at least once to see what kind of power it had the thing that would have been really cool is to have battled the eclipse against the GTO Another thing that stumped me was how did Dennis hopper know about The drift trick with the hand brake when he was driving the eclipse


The movie had a great plot and moved at a fast pace that kept me on the edge of the seat. I loved the action and the driving I thought was kept realistic.

Dennis Hopper proves he still has it. He was a perfect choice for this movie. The grandson of a ex-con and his sexy girl friend "JJ" made a good balance. The choice the writer had for keeping the secret on the car was so unique. My hats off for this choice. The whole time while watching this I found that I couldn't predict the next thing and I like that in a movie. Hopper made me remember "EasyRider" and why he became popular. I hope to see him choose some more roles like this one.


This is a movie about fast cars. Yes, another movie about fast cars. You thought we were done with those didn't you? Well, apparently we are not. And of course, this movie has some young stud that can really ride a car. And what else can we put in this movie, yes, one young hot girl that is a car mechanic. Not only a car mechanic, but a car mechanic that wears as little as she can, while SHE WELDS. Yes, I have heard that that is a really good idea. If you look away from the small plot holes and stuff like that, this movie isn't as bad as the Fast and Furious movies, but it is still not good. Don't really know what Dennis Hopper is doing in this movie, but I doubt that he is proud of it. But if you are a car nut and about the age of 18, you will probably enjoy this movie. If you don't like movies like Fast and Furious and Biker Boyz etc, stay as far away as you can. I rate this movie 3/10


Leave it to Bruno Mattei to hit the cannibal subgenre 20 years after its highpoint. This entry, filmed as CANNIBAL WORLD, shows that he still has that special touch to make xerox cinema as this is almost a scene by scene remake of CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST. Reporter Grace Forsyte heads into the Amazon jungle with Bob Manson and their crew to capture images of cannibalism for the TVN Network. Naturally, the civilized people end up being the savages as they burn down a village and kill natives to stage entertaining television. Intercut with the jungle adventures are the arguments of two TV execs, one who loves the ratings bonanza footage and the other who loathes it. In case you forgot the point, the dissenting executive turns directly to the camera and asks, "I wonder who the real cannibals are." Bruno hits all of the CH main points from the "stop smirking" bit to the rape scene. Unfortunately, he also felt it necessary to include a real animal killing as well. Also on the downside, the characters are never consistent in their views. One minute Bob is chastising Grace for being exploitive and the next he is going hog wild in the staging of a burning village. The same thing happens with Grace. Ah, whatever. The movie is gory and has nudity. Plus, Mattei shows he still has a knack for making the funniest dubbed dialogue. Filmed on location in the Phillipines.


Alright I heard something was going around claiming to be Cannibal Holocaust 2 and I found what I was looking for. Bruno Mattei known for many exploitation gems of low quality but high entertainment ( at least for this person) unleashes probably as good a cannibal movie you could put out today. Every trick is pulled out from animal torture, rape, victimization, nudity, exploited locals etc.. .It follows the same type of format as the classic Cannibal Holocaust without the visceral feel of the Deodato classic. This appears to be shot on video and everything seems to have that rushed feel to it, but regardless, I have not seen any modern film try to harken back to the cannibal heyday. Say what you will but this is an enjoyable ride just don't expect the same feeling you may have gotten the first time you saw a film like this. If this is your first shot at the genre you will find it much easier to locate Cannibal Ferox, Cannibal Holocaust (with a beautiful new release by grindhouse), or even Jungle Holocaust. They can all be bought at Suncoast and the like. I only found this available as a Japanese import. Enjoy!


If you've already exhausted the entire series of Italian cannibal films from the 70s and 80s and are hoping this 2003 effort from Euro-schlock director Bruno Mattei might breath new life into the subgenre, think again! CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST 2: THE BEGINNING, the title I saw this under, is actually less a sequel to the first film than an almost scene-for-scene remake of it. Unfortunately, it has almost none of the impact of the original film, which makes it a bit pointless. The print I saw was dubbed into English. I would have preferred subs because the dubbing here is beyond awful. I don't expect the dialogue to match the lips or anything, but most of the voice actors sucked and the dialogue itself was so awful and unnatural-sounding (especially the lead actress' to-camera monologues) it was a constant annoyance. Furthermore, literally everything about this effort is toned down from the original. There's less gore, less nudity, fewer shocks and much less technical competence on display here. While the original had a haunting soundtrack and some fantastic grainy camera-work, this has a generic score and a very flat TV-movie look. They didn't even bother sticking with the "found footage" concept either, as many of the camera shots are obviously not taken from the perspective of the characters. One plus, at least from my perspective, is that there's far less actual violence directed toward animals. This being from 2003 and with certain laws now in place, I actually didn't expect to see ANY real animal violence, so I was surprised to see one scene here where a lizard has its throat cut and is gutted. I suppose they felt compelled to do that to somehow tie this in to the original, but I thought it was unnecessary.

The plot is almost identical to the original film, with a group of five people (the original had four, but they added a big-breasted blonde to the proceedings) setting out deep into the jungle to do a documentary on cannibal tribes. Led by ruthless, fame-hungry female reporter Grace Forsythe (Helena Wagner) and her reluctant-at-first former lover Bob Manson (Claudio Morales), also a reporter, the crew and a guide eventually resort to violence to spurn a reaction from the docile natives. Just like in the original, they push around, shoot, burn and rape the poor natives to try to get some "good" footage. Of course this ends up backfiring in a big way and one-by-one they're hunted down and killed off by a tribe that the dubbed dialogue refers to as "The Invisible People." The framework is about the same as in the first film, with the footage being intercut with people at a TV station viewing it all. One slight difference is that the footage is coming in via a live satellite feed instead of someone finding film cannisters and viewing them later. The material, and the format, actually could make a perfect comment on the sudden boom in "Reality TV" and how desperate it is becoming to try to shock viewers, but this film isn't ambitious enough to even attempt to exploit the obvious possibilities there. It's much too busy trying to poorly clone its source material.

Now the film does have some blood and some nudity, I'll give it that much. The two leading ladies appear topless one time, but the men don't even remove their pants during a gang rape scene. The gore isn't nearly as effective as most other films in this genre either, though there's plenty of blood being flung around. Remember that female shish-ka-bob from the original CH? Here it's replaced by a woman merely tied to a pole, which isn't too shocking, though the film crew acts as if it is. The cannibal feasts look a bit ridiculous here, with the tribesmen behaving like mindless zombies who make sloppy messes of themselves as they chow down on guts and brains. They did manage to one-up the "abortion" scene by having the freshly removed fetus getting stomped on by the ladies who cut it out. The ending is a carbon copy of the ending of CH, though not nearly as effective. Philippines shooting locations were acceptable, as were the native villages and costumes, which might make this best watched with liberal use of the mute button.


A 2003 sequel/prequel/remake/ripoff of Cannibal Holocaust? Directed by Bruno Mattei?? OK, sure, why the hell not? It's not like it was shot on video, right? ...*sigh*... Alright, let me start over.

Cannibal Holocaust: The Beginning. Mattei's remake of the undisputed King of the ever traumatizing, Italian Cannibal sub-genre. Now, when first hearing about it, and possibly even sitting through it, one word that may or may not come to mind is pathetic, or possibly desperate, maybe even typical. The truth is, this day in time, with big-budget super-hero/Fantasy movies ruling the world, and most Exploitation sub-genres being dead and buried, we should consider ourselves lucky to have access to authentic, modern-day, Italian Cannibal Gore, and yes, I realize that Vincent Dawn made it, and I'm fine with it.

A nearly Identical story. Sadistic film crew, in the "Amazon", looking for proof of a primitive tribe of cannibals for shock TV, to further their careers. Everyone's desire to keep on shooting, no matter how banged up they get, is exaggerated to humorous levels, and this version is every bit as brutal and unflinching as the original, or at least close enough.

Unfortunately, the whole shot -on-video thing is pretty much, the only difference. nothing too original or thought-provoking, just the same old impalings, rapings (real) animal killings, Cannibal's burning, "let's get the hell out of here" and, I wonder who the real cannibals are. You know the drill by now.

One has to wonder how bad, financially (or mentally) things were for Mattei, for him to pull something like this, (once again) this day in time, but I'm glad he did. It's like Herschell Lewis's Blood Feast 2, from a few years ago, it just gives you that warm, fuzzy feeling of nostalgia for a long-forgotten era, and for that alone, this piece of garbage is A-OK in my book. Not quite on par with Mattei's earlier work, like my favorite, Hell Of The Living Dead, and not quite as real as the ones from the golden era (minus Cannibal Terror), but a rare treat, no matter how you look at it. Bruno Mattei is dead now, which probably means that this was it. So, don't be too hard on it, in fact, try to enjoy it, try to overlook the many, many flaws, and accept it for what it is, the last of the Italian Cannibal Gore epics. 7/10


awful......just awful. For a start the digital video camera is not a steadicam, and even if she was joking ITS NOT FUNNY!! the script consists of stolen Cannibal Holocaust lines and images with the main part being a swamp of incoherent crap that only the most messed up mind could comprehend and think is slightly decent. this film also contains some of the lamest picture in picture effects I've ever seen. with its token 80's porn soundtrack and English dubbed over English this film has made me realize that some movies need to be sunk below a 1 grade on the voting scale. and for some strange reason everyone keeps talking to the camera even the people that aren't in the jungle i.e DIGBY. this film makes no sense what-so-ever as the start of the movie portrays the jumping of time between past and present-i mean seriously WTF?!?! to make it even more awful is the 2minute appearance of the German priest that introduces us to the guide Garcia. (with the wonderful crash zoom intro). the acting was great..............for a low grade cheesy basement porno. to sum this movie up in a few words let me travel back "3 mouthes ago"

awful.....just awful!!


I have always loved Herman's Hermits, and I really liked this movie. I don't suppose that I would have liked it when it first came out because it would have been bunched in with all of the other `rock' musicals of it's time, trying to compete for the `young' in-crowd. Nevertheless, as I look at it now, I see it as a charming film from another era.

The plot itself is very interesting and different. It is not your typical `garage band goes to the big city and gets discovered' type of film. They are looking for fame and fortune by way of the champion Greyhound, Mrs. Brown. The rock band thing was just a side interest in this film, much different from other rock musicals of its time. Other `rock' star films of that era were used merely as a publicity showcase for the band to play their music. This film actually had a decent story with some music in it.

The cinematography was fabulous in this film. If for anything at all, you should watch it for this aspect alone. I enjoyed the whole film, but the ending was a bit vague. I was able to figure it out after a while, but it jumped from scene to scene without smooth transitions of ideas.


As bad as this silliness was it still outshone The Beatles "Help" by a wide margin. It was, however, not in the same class as "A Hard Days Night" by the Fab 4 which was a masterpiece - well, sorta. In Mrs. Brown we have the 5 cute Hermits running around England trying to become big time dog racers, making time with cute birds, grinning like blind apes, playing their abysmal songs, and proving their talents lie not in acting. I enjoyed the film very much because it showcased one of the original 'invasion' groups, not because it was an award winner; although it really wasn't all that bad either. Is it possible the Hermits popularity waned because at the time of this filming most rock groups has gone beyond the squeaky clean, suit and tie, short/mod hair Herman and the boys were sporting? These blokes looked like advertising men when compared to Big Brother or the Dead.


I was ten years old when the British Invasion reached the shores of North America in 1964, and I was fourteen when the Hippie Revolution took-off in 1967-68. I think this Herman's Hermit movie was a bridge between the two time periods. It reminded me of how the Monkees attempted to jump from the mod to the flower power era during the second season of their TV series.

I was crazy about the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Gerry & the Pacemakers and the Dave Clark Five, but I always looked down at Herman & his pals as an overly cutesy girl band. My sisters, Pat & Barb, loved them. However, I found myself rather enjoying this film for many reasons. One thing that stands out is that it is moodier than one would expect from Peter No one. I also enjoyed the scenes with the lads trying to earn money as construction workers. Most of all I liked seeing the Hermits (without Peter) getting down with some semi-hard tunes in a London night club). It seems to me that the Hermits toured my native Wisconsin in 1977 as an instrumental group.

After all of these years I have come to have more of an appreciation for Herman's Hermits and their calmer, happier brand of British Invasion music. This movie could very well be the swan song of a cooler time before we got caught up in Viet Nam, Norhern Ireland, campus demonstrations, drugs, race riots and the rest.

I wonder if any our British counterparts out there have any idea where I could get a copy of Gerry and the Pacemakers movie, FERRY ACROSS THE MERSEY? Thanks, mate


Five lads from Manchester, England have inherited a greyhound who proves to have prowess on the dog-track; to raise the money for the racing entrance fee, they decide to form a music group. Inoffensive piffle, brightly-made against '60s London backdrops (with curious but not entirely misplaced fashion lay-out interludes and musical montages). Herman's Hermits are not an exciting nor formidable pop band--buttoned-down and squeaky-clean, they barely have personalities--but their acting is better here than in 1966's "Hold On!" and the hit "There's a Kind of Hush (All Over the World)" is prettily performed. The older folks in the cast, including Stanley Holloway, are given room to shine, and the script has some heart and appeal. ** from ****


I'd never heard of this film before TCM started screening it as a late night filler - and initially woke up in the middle of it when Holloway and co were singing the poignant and totally unexpected The World is for the Young. I actually couldn't get the song out of my head for several days.

After that I kept stumbling across bits of it on different screenings and each time I said to my wife "I kinda like this movie" Tonight I finally managed to watch it from the start and although as a film it doesn't really amount to much it's such a good natured, sweet and enjoyably off kilter movie that it just makes me feel good to see it.

I wanted to see what other people thought and it seems a few reviewers do get it - whereas some others seem to get strangely vindictive and offended.

Yes it's completely out of jaunt with it's year and the Hermits were anachronisms by 1968 but Peter No one (I tried to make his surname come out correct) is perfectly fine in the lead, the supporting cast is great, the brightly coloured widescreen is a pleasure to the eyes.

Guilty pleasure or not I've really warmed to this.


I really don't see what the bad reviews are about. I loved this movie and I've seen it many times. The story is cute and the overall plot is not bad either.

The basic storyline is this. Herman's Hermits own a dog named Mrs. Brown. They take her out on the track one day and they know immediately that she would be a champion race dog. The only problem is that they need money (entrance fees, etc.) in order to get started. They decide to play in some small clubs for money. There are some side story lines such as Percy, the man Herman meets while watering flowers on his grandfather's grave. Percy gives them a place to stay for a few days. A few day's later, Mrs. Brown gets lost and she turns up with Percy, who brings her back to Herman. Herman finds out she's going to have a puppy. The puppy is a female and at the end of the movie, Herman goes into the house and as he's watching the puppy, he starts singing "Mrs. Brown, you've got a lovely daughter".

This movie is not geared toward someone who is looking for a movie with some sort of deep meaning. This movie has to be watched for what it is - a regular, cute story with a happy ending.


Much as I love Herman's Hermits' music, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. plot was so weak it should have been strangled at birth and despite an attempt by Lance Percival to play Peter Noone's father, it was all pretty dire. The script writing was extremely poor too and it's not hard to see why Peter Noone kept to music (though he did get an early start as Len Fairclough's son in the long running British Soap Coronation Street)


In swinging 1960s England, "Herman's Hermits" - aka Peter "Herman" N-o-o-n-e*, Keith Hopwood, Derek Leckenby, Karl Green, and Barry Whitwam - get involved with dog-racing for profit. Stanley Holloway and Mona Washbourne (as Mr. and Mrs. Brown) lift the film's acting levels only slightly, unfortunately; they have a very fetching teen model daughter Judy (Sarah Caldwell), who catches Mr. N-o-o-n-e*'s eye. The other "Mrs. Brown" is his greyhound dog.

By far, the best part of the film is Herman's "There's a Kind of Hush (All Over the World)" night dream; it's a great song, and was a huge international hit for the group in early 1967. Title song "Mrs. Brown You've Got a Lovely Daughter" is also a winner; however, it is not given a full performance in this film - and, it's an even older track. Strong new material from the group (and session players Jimmy Page and John Paul Jones) might have helped this film. The "My Old Man's A Dustman" scene/song is amusing, but why wasn't a Hermits-sung performance if this song used? That might have provided the group with a film-supporting novelty hit; at least in the USA, which the Hermits seemed more able to do than Most...

* it is spelled N-o-o-n-e, but the correct spelling doesn't work.

*** Mrs. Brown, You've Got a Lovely Daughter (8/3/68) Saul Swimmer ~ Peter N-o-o-n-e*, Keith Hopwood, Karl Green


Who the hell are Herman's Hermits? Quite clearly I'm not familiar enough with all those 60s rip-off bands of The Beatles. MBYGALD shows that even bands who've got personalities as colourful and diverse as a bunch of accountants and librarians going on a fishing trip can be offered to make a movie in which this absolutely amazing collective charisma is supposed to set the screen on fire. I half-enjoyed the first 10-15 minutes solely due the nice photography and colourful 60s England, but this quickly wore off, leaving me to yawn like a walrus at the rest. The songs are mostly vomit-inducing, safe, uninspired drivel, and the dialogues even worse: whether a mouth opens to sing or talk, it only ejects vomitus. The daft humour is strictly for very young children and the Zurueckgebliebenen. I finally gave up on the film about halfway into it, preferring instead to devise ways of torture to be implemented on its demented, sadistic producers. On the other hand, the financial failure this little movie must have been during its release was probably enough punishment for them as it is...


Unfortunately for me, since I was feeling poorly already, I subjected my eyes and ears to this horrible waste of film.

To say that it was so bad that even monkeys would have brain damage after watching it is an understatement. Peter No one's teeth look like part of Stonehenge, and his acting is just as rock-like.

Holloway's talent was wasted here, and the useless frame after frame after frame after FRAME of the no talent Sarah Caldwell made it VERY clear that the dog had more talent.

Speaking of the dog, any movie that would have greyhound racing as the premise is bad enough, but with this dreck of a script, it astounds me that this movie was made at all. Not to mention this piece of dog poo(greyhound perhaps) of a 'film' gave birth to "A kind of Hush", which I am sure, if played for more than 6 hours to a plant, would make it curl up and die.

I loved the denouement, though. It occurred when the film in the camera ran out, apparently.

This film makes Spice World look like Citizen Kane. I weep for all the guitar picks that weren't made because the film was used on this horrible bit of pig vomit.

It was.............bad.


Hersey Cok Guzel Olacak is one of the best products contemporary Turkish cinema can offer, with its modest but solid direction, clever script, and outstanding acting. It is the story of two brothers living in Istanbul, with very different characters, world views, and ambitions. Their differences prove effective as the generator of the comedic effect, although -in my opinion- this movie is also a solid drama rather than a simple comedy.

Altan, played by the ever-popular stand-up comedian Cem Yilmaz, is a penniless dreamer, who has plans to open his own pub. He decides to steal some prescription drugs from his brother's pharmacy, and sell them to the mafia in order to get the capital necessary quickly. Long story short, the two brothers find themselves on a dangerous road trip to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, and adventure unfolds.

In his first serious on-screen job, Cem Yilmaz seems surprisingly able in his portrayal of Altan, and demonstrates that he can really act. Mazhar Alanson, who is the lead singer of arguably the best pop music group in Turkey, is also worthy of praise as the older brother. Not many know that he was actually trained as a thespian, and he reminds the audience of this fact with his commanding presence in the film. The late master Selim Nasit also gives his last performance as their father.

The movie is exceptionally good, clever, consistently fascinating, warm and funny. Labelling it one of the best of Turkish cinema will not be an exaggeration.


This movie is the first one by Cem Yilmaz, unquestionably the most popular and funniest stand-up comedian. He portrays one of the funniest characters in the recent Turkish movie history and the on screen chemistry between the two main characters (who by the way, are also friends off camera) is amazing.

It appears as if all the movie was taken in one shot, since all the characters are genuinely sincere, and they even do some mistakes especially in some 1-1 dialogs. These imperfections make the movie truly unique and enjoyable.

It's worth watching over and over, since all the dialogs are marvelous and thoughtfully written by Cem Yilmaz, himself.

Deserves a **** (out of 4)


This is the best Turkish movie ever. I advise everybody to watch it if you can find a subtitled version, of course. Perfect dialogues and a perfect scenario. Funny and adventurous. Cast includes the most famous Turkish comedian and one of the most popular Turkish musicians.


It's definitely the best Turkish comedy made ever. As there are lots of drama's made in Turkey, it is so nice to see comedy that makes everyone laugh till tears come from eyes. The problem about the movie, is not everyone would be able to understand all jokes. If you are a not a Turk and especially do not know anything about Cem Yilmaz (the actor), then it would even seem silly to you. The Turkey's best comedian ever Cem Yilmaz's one man show. He is just awesome that it is so surprising that Mazhar Alanson has been able to adopt him , and not pressed under the Yilmaz's wonderful performance. Alanson, who is a singer, is also starred in some other films, which were disappointments, performed well enough to made the film best Turkish comedy made ever. Thanks to both actors for shooting such a nice movie. If you wonder about Turkey and see how the middle-class life in Turkey in a funny way you should watch this film. I don't know, if some of the jokes would loose their meanings in English or some other language but I'm sure it would make you laugh even only with Cem Yilmaz's own acting.


So simple, so good. This film is a milestone in Turkish cinema. You will not see the so-called "art film" syndromes or "avant-garde absurdities" in this film. But this doesnt mean that it lacks of depth. No way buddies, this is a pretty good film: entertaining, giving cinema pleasure, and having depth in plot. Cem Yilmaz acts wonderful. Mazhar Alanson of famous band MFO which I am a fan of, is quite good together with Selim Nasit who died shortly after this film. Good plot, good acting, good songs. You'll certainly enjoy it! I give 8 out of 10.


I didnt laugh at all. there are some funny scenes, but they already put those scenes into trailer. if you saw the trailer, you can assume that you saw the film. absolutely pointless... not even funny. same jokes over and over again.. mazhar alanson has an awful performance which ruins the film most. cem yilmaz only plays his real character, he didn't act actually. only person who deserves respect in this film is Selim Nasit Ozcan.


1971's "Doctors' Wives" is a piece of vintage garbage I've waited decades to see, and it's every bit as splendidly awful as I've long anticipated. This is a sterling example of big budget Hollywood trying to keep up with the hippy era sex revolution, while appealing to suburban Squaresville tastes, and the results are as unappetising as walking in on your parents in the backroom at a leather bar. In other words, it's a vulgar abomination, and required viewing.

"God, am I horny!" announces Dyan Cannon, providing the film's tasteful opening line. She's the resident nympho of the wives in question, and they're playing bridge at their country club. She tells her neurotic rich cronies that, as a public service, she's going to sleep with every last one of their husbands, and report back to them exactly what they're doing wrong in bed. Hours later she's shot dead, while caught in the act with the first of her conquests. The conquest survives, and we're treated to endless and nauseating footage of real life open heart surgery, as the character has the bullet graphically dug out of him. This, of course, was shocking stuff for an early 70s mainstream movie, and its blatantly exploitational marketing gimmick. The rest of the film is exactly the kind of glossy soap opera that starred the likes of Lana Turner a decade earlier, but overlaid with grimy layer of smut. Not much genuine sex and nudity, mind, but an all star cast of middle aged imbeciles debasing themselves with humiliating sexual revelations.

The murder, you see, has come as a wake-up call to the various wives, who decide it's about time to "get with the times" and spice up their marriages. One WASPy iceberg has a fling with a studly intern, while another pumps herself up with an aphrodisiac cocktail of morphine and champagne. This makes her thrash around on the carpet like a cat in heat, as she seduces her bored surgeon husband fetish style, with hopes of winning back his affections. He, meanwhile, has been having an affair with his head nurse, a noble single mother of a sick little boy -- but their love dare not speak its name because she's (gasp!) black. Another of the wives, meanwhile, is an out-of-control drunk whose husband saves her from suicide by drowning, which lures him back to bed for a sympathy lay. The funniest of the lot is a frigid shrew who confesses to a lesbian fling with the murdered harlot ("It was a hot night and I was wearing no bra, under a see-through blouse") Her husband, played by Gene Hackman, reacts by swatting her repeatedly with a rolled-up newspaper.

What's actually refreshing about this numbing lunacy is how curiously free it is of cheap moralizing. With the exception of the victim and her killer, everyone screws around and are all but congratulated for doing so, as they arrive at better understandings of one another, and the ending suggests that their sordid privileged lives will be more of the same. It plays like a battle cry for the short-lived suburban wife-swapping fad of the sleazy 70s, and worse, it takes itself dead serious. Only in its intentional comedy relief, for instance, is there any mention of STDs. This involves a pretty young med student seducing as many hospital staffers as she can, and tape recording the details of intercourse while performing it, as a Kinsey style master's thesis. It turns out she's spreading the clap like wild fire. This subplot, needless to add, is the only part of the film that isn't hilarious.

As a narrative, "Doctors' Wives" really is a whole lot of absolute nothing -- dirty as a cesspool without even softcore sex; full of shrieking conflict with no dramatic involvement or resolve; and worst of all, it's perfectly set up to be a murder mystery. This, stupidly, is quickly solved and cast aside, in favour of some strange hybrid of degrading chick flick and clueless social document, with gratuitous bits of gore porn, but no suspense or violence. In other words, it's one of those true rarities that manages to miss the broad side of a barn, in terms of any sort of target audience.

That is to say, any audience of its day, since it's now a fascinating freak of unspeakably wretched period cinema, way more fun and thought-provoking for what it gets wrong, than what the same year's highly regarded, and similarly set, "The Hospital" once seemed to get right. That one, from the over-rated Paddy Chayefsky, was a deliberate satire of medical professionals that now seems smug and obvious. The accidental parody of its intellectually challenged contemporary, "Doctors' Wives", covers the same turf with a time capsule crassness that's certainly a lot less boring.

Oh, and did I mention the Carpenters-style theme song, sung by Mama Cass Elliot, about the world being a masquerade ball that goes on and on? Now there's a bit of deep and cool irony to frame the profundity that follows exactly right.


Unintentionally hilarious trash. Dyan Cannon's opening line,"God I feel horny!", Rachel Roberts confessing to a lesbian affair,"It was a hot night and I had a thin blouse and no bra" Gene Hackman's reaction, Cara Williams drunken appearance at the club,"The truth is we're all tramps", Janice Rule's outfit, Lori's funeral, Rule writhing on the floor in drug induced lust,etc... all create hilarity in a seriously intended soaper:replete with subplots and a hospital setting. Some of the dialogue is priceless. All of this is interpolated by prolonged, graphic scenes of surgery. It's "Desperate Housewives" with gore. An interesting and diverse cast adds to the fun, and for intended comic relief, there's Christina Holland(from TV's "The Courtship of Eddie's Father")as a student studying sex, and tape recording her sessions. Dyan Cannon is in good form in her regrettably brief role. And was the song "Costume Ball", sung by Cass Elliot, written specifically for this film? Check this one out, and laugh and scratch your head at the same time. DVD PLEASE!


A group of creepy monsters terrorize San Francisco.Now it's up to a group of kids to stop them."Neon Maniacs" is a fun and pretty fast-paced flick that I dug quite a bit.It has plenty of violence including decapitations,an axe to the face,a guy cut in half etc.The film ends rather abruptly and it leaves the door open for a sequel,which will never happen I suppose.All in all "Neon Maniacs" is an underrated little flick that surely needs more recognition.One of the best horror movies of the 80's-a must-see for true horror buffs!


I don't exactly know what it is that makes this film better and more amusing than the overload of similar 80's splatter flicks but it just is! The lady who sold me the ex-rental VHS copy wholeheartedly agreed with me: "Neon Maniacs" is a classic piece of trash! Maybe it's because the screenplay is a bunch of unscrupulous and light-headed nonsense or maybe it's because you have a lot more sympathy for the characters here than it usually is the case in horror films, I don't know. Fact is that you will have a great time watching it. The Neon Maniacs are malevolent creatures (they look like hellraiser Cenobites only....goofier) who prowl at night in their San Franciscan territory, butcher teenagers and leave behind a funky green kind of mucus. The ravishing Nathalie (Sarelle - she'll later star alongside Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct) is the sole survivor of one of the maniacs' nightly attacks and now they're after her. As mentioned before, the premise of this film contains no logic at all. The existence of these Neon Maniacs is briefly linked to the downfall of humanity but, other than this, no background or origin is given. No problem, though, as there are tons of other absurd elements to enjoy. The costumes and make-up effects are great! Every Neon Maniac appears to be a costume designer's wet dream and their killing style is deliciously insane. We have axe decapitations, icky stranglings and several throats are being slit with rusty knives...Yay! whatever this movie lacks in suspense and intelligence, it makes it up in ingeniousness and black humor. The story loses some of its impact around the hour, when the tempo is constantly interfered with lousy rock 'n roll concert sequences (an often-returning problem in 80's horror). The exaggeratedly abrupt ending disappoints too, especially since the obvious sequel never got made. Nevertheless, it remains a highly recommended splatter flick! As long as you've got a sense of humor, an expert eye for female beauty and hunger for gore, you're guaranteed to LOVE this junk!


My dad first told about this movie a while ago. Back then I thought it sucked, but a couple a months ago I was strolling through my video store when I decided to give it another try. Well, was I surprised! Despite its low budget, its actually pretty scary, and the violence is enough to please any gore hound. Get it if you can find it seeing as how its distributor "Lightning Video" has gone out of business.


`Neon Maniacs' begins interestingly enough. A narrator grimly informs the audience that, `When the world is ruled by violence, and the soul of mankind fades, the children's path shall be darkened by the shadows of the Neon Maniacs.' Wow. What a really  uh, bold statement. Can anyone tell me what on God's green earth the narrator meant by that? Was he portending some horrible apocalypse? Perhaps he was predicting the Olsen twins' rise to power? I don't know.

The film's plot has promise. A band of festively costumed, water-phobic monsters, living under the Golden Gate Bridge are traipsing around San Francisco brutally butchering horny teenagers. Two high school seniors and a grammar school special effects make-up enthusiast join forces to battle the murderous beasties. Unfortunately, writer, Mark Patrick Carducci never really develops his premise; too many questions are left unanswered. For instance, why would a cabal of creatures who are only vulnerable to water choose to reside under the Golden Gate Bridge? And how does a Hangman, a Samurai, a one-eyed meatball, a Bowman, a zombie Native American, a psychotic surgeon, a deformed knife-wielding maniac, a feral man-ape, a fallen soldier and a dead motorcyclist meet, decide to cohabitate, and form a pact to murder innocent San Franciscans? Did one of the creatures place a personal ad in a local newspaper? If so, which one placed the ad? My guess is that it was the one-eyed meatball.

Despite the mystifying plotline, the film has its good points. Alan Hayes, Leilani Sarelle and Donna Locke are likeable as our three monster busters. Director, Joseph Mangine manages to craft some memorable scenes of horror (the runaway train sequence and the attack at the dance are stand-outs). And the special effects make-up. Oh, the make-up! The monsters are appropriately grotesque and there's enough death and dismemberment to satisfy the most jaded gore hound of the household. Unless of course that gore hound happens to be into hardcore German zombie movies.


It has been at least 12 years or more since I last saw Neon Maniacs. I rented it on video when it came out and really enjoyed it. Despite being low-budget, it was actually very good in the gore department. All attempts to rent it again in my area have failed - and in our small town we have 6 video stores! Maybe one day I'll get lucky. ;)


While I found it ultimately disappointing, it was a nice attempt at being different. The movie had nice costumes,make up and some humor. But it was too uneven. I'm not sure the film makers truly decided what type of movie this was going to be. I disliked the music that was used for background music and I really disliked the live music scenes. The background music was largely responsible for giving the mixed messages about what type of "feel" a scene was supposed to have. i just didn't feel like the scenes that were shot, and what was put together in editing and post-production matched.

But for B-movie, Video Nasty people I think its worth one watch.


There are tons of very 80's movie out there that rock. They just give off that vibrant 80s feel in a way that just makes ya smile, and make you wanna put something fluorescent on. Then there are others, like Neon Maniacs, that are so 80s and so campy, that you can actually get a headache.

I gotta admit I was pretty pumped to see this flick. On the cover you got this slimy, special-effects weirdo, that just seems to promise you this movie'll be awesome. Eh, sh!t. The flick revolves around a trio of high school kids who have encountered the Neon Maniacs, and they seem to be on the Maniacs de Neon hit-list. Simple, stupid stuff. Add in some truly horrendous 80s songs, and you got a serious letdown of a flick.

Something I should mention is if you're a fan of bad movies, there's a good chance you may enjoy this film. I usually do enjoy crap like this, but I mistakenly gave myself high expectations with the cool special effects shots on the cover. But if you know that this movie sucks before going in, and you're down with that, you should be just fine.


This is one of those little obscure and ridiculous yet fun horror movies from the eighties.The basics.Someone is going around committing horrid murders,turns out it's a gang of strange creatures that live underneath the Golden Gate bridge.What are these creatures?Why are they there?Well that is never answered.They are either humanoid or zombie looking.You have one that looks like a zombie solider,a weird apeman looking thing,a strange Native American monster and a few others.It also just so happens these creatures can be killed with water(why would something that is endangered by water live under a bridge?)and a group of teens know this and decide to stop them.That about sums up the plot of Neon Maniacs.

The film itself has the bad acting and ridiculous plot you would expect from this kind of movie but it is pretty entertaining and pretty original compared to a lot of the horror at the time.The Neon Maniacs themselves were pretty interesting as well.It even has a few parts that will probably make you jump.If you can find it and want some pointless entertainment I'd recommend this one.


A motley bunch of garishly made-up malevolent, misshapen, murderous subhuman mutant monsters (biker, surgeon, Native American, Green Beret and other such grotesque beasties) prey upon various hapless folks in sunny, rainy sweet old San Francisco. Naive, virginal teenager Natalie Lawrence (the comely, but extremely vapid Leilani Sarelle, who went on to portray Sharon Stone's mannish possessive lesbian lover in "Basic Instinct" and married character actor Miguel Ferror, who she co-starred with in the first-rate south-of-the-border film noir thriller "The Harvest") survives a socko sanguinary park slaughter in which six of her friends are brutally butchered. Natalie teams up with handsome, but insipid hunk Steven (the bland Allan Hayes) and spunky horror movie loving adolescent misfit Paula (the perky, likable Donna Locke) to kick some serious creature keister.

This thoroughly stupid, but amusing and enjoyable five'n'ten cent "Gremlins" rip-off boasts a hefty corpse tally of 24 (!), plentiful outbursts of gory violence (a grisly gamut from disembowelment to an arrow through the neck to a throat slicing to a hanging to a decapitation to ... well, you get the basic wall-to-wall nonstop graphic bloodshed idea; this baby's anything but dull and uneventful), painfully crummy "blurt the lines and grimace" pseudo-acting from a non-star cast, many uproarious obvious lapses in logic (e.g., the horrible thingofabobbits can be killed with mere water, yet reside under the Golden Gate Bridge and live in 'Frisco, a city which isn't famous for its dry, arid weather!), righteously gruesome make-up f/x, and hopelessly inadequate direction by cinematographer Joseph ("Alligator," "Alone in the Dark") Mangine. Screenwriter Mark Patrick Carducci, who presumably wrote the senseless dead simple script in about two hours (probably with magic markers, no less), later penned the glorious "Pumpkinhead," which only goes to show that one can really get up from off the floor. Hell, this gut-bustingly asinine fright flick clinker even comes complete with plenty of cheesy rock songs and one of those oh-so-80's "it ain't over yet!" sequel set-up anti-climactic endings, but alas said follow-up never got made. Man, now isn't that just an honest shame?


This film is a ton of fun to watch. Though some lame characters that I hate make the film a little worse. It's still a pretty good movie. Pretty fast paced film with some kick ass monsters. Though after the first 20 minutes of the film the pace really slows down. Original stuff deserves a much higher rating. But still the film has some faults to it. Mainly over acting which really wasn't necessary for this type of film. And I noticed how a lot of people have a problem with the missing plot. I like how a lot of the stuff wasn't explained it makes it very unique and cool. Well I recommend this film to true b movie fans. If you need a movie with a good plot and good actors look else where.


Yep, the 80s were so cool I spent the entire decade drunk! 'Baby lied when she told me...' - 'I love the choice you made...' - The battle of the bands ROCKS man. 'We've had enough' sing the grotesque hair-metal band.

The ending ruins it for a lot of people. Many of my buddies who I forced this film upon all expressed disgust at there being no attempt at an explanation/resolution. Fair enough. Me? I don't mind.

But be honest folks - all the fuss about 'Rosebud' in Citizen Kane!!! Why do YOU think the Neon Maniacs came into being? Maybe some university somewhere will have eggheads debating in pretty much the same manner as the Welles film. :) Donna Locke was a pretty young girl who would have grown up nicely. I wonder where she is now. My investigations tell me she's out of the biz. Shame, because her acting was rather good - as was most of the cast, to be fair.

For the record: Archer is my favourite maniac!


'Neon Maniacs' reminds me of Rick Sloans awful 80s horror movie, 'Hobgoblins'. The former is not quite as bad, and hence never really popped up on any Worst Of Lists, but it is that kind of 1980s dubious horror in that, despite the urgency of the situation (hideous monsters who "live so that others may die"), the characters carry on like it's just any other day. And this happens right from the start in 'Neon Maniacs,' where the music and opening credits are more appropriate for a sappy drama than something where a park massacre occurs not more than five minutes into the movie.

The Neon Maniacs are these demonic creatures that look like a Mad Max rip off. Kind of post-apocalyptic, though it's not clear where they come from or whether there is any purpose for being there. Their idiosyncrasies sound like something out of 'Gremlins.' They don't like water. They only come out at night. They live under the Golden Gate Bridge. That's pretty much all anyone can tell about them.

Ditched by her oversexed friends in the park on her birthday, one teenager, Natalie, is lucky enough to narrowly survive the killing spree. Of course, the cops, who don't conduct any sort of crime scene investigation and are led by a detective who looks like a Jake and the Fat Man reject, and well, the rest of the neighborhood think that either the kids went missing or Natalie had something to with their death.

Meanwhile, the Neon Maniacs, forced to disappear into the night when the cops showed up and rescued Natalie that night, aren't about to accept a loss and call it a day, they take pride in their undefeated record! So they follow her around the streets of San Francisco, which definitely ruins at least one date, but thankfully puts a halt on a pretty cheesy school dance (yeah, they even find time to do normal teenage stuff!).

Enter the pseudo-heroic shy, fashion-victim soft-rocking boyfriend and a horror movie fan that is the only one who really investigates what is going on (Natalie spends a lot of time by the swimming pool when she's not going ga-ga for the boyfriend), and someone finally realizes that, oh yeah, there's these things and they're wreaking havoc on our city. Of course, even this is fleeting and it looked like Neon Maniacs might have been left open for a sequel. Luckily, that never happened since there were already enough bad 80s horror movies by 1986.

Regardless of the filmmakers never having explained the origin or purpose of the band of villains they call Neon Maniacs, nor even that the movie operates on the nauseatingly unoriginal plot of their teenage prey left to their own vices to figure out how to stop them. Even with these, a horror movie, even a dated one like this, can be entertaining. But when you combine it with the fact that half the time, it doesn't seem like anyone's reacting like their are psychotic weapon welding monsters running around the neighborhood, there's no reason to care about what goes on on-screen. It would've been perfect material for an MST3K episode.


I can't believe I missed renting this film before. I saw the cover for the film so many times at my local Blockbuster a long time ago and for some reason I never got the urge to rent it. I'm just glad I finally go to catch this excellent flick. It has a nice mix of Clive Barker's Nightbreed and a small mix of the classic Monster Squad film. It basically starts off with a group of monsters discovering a bunch of teens having a small party at a park. They decide to crash the party and kill every one of the teens except one, who gets saved by the last minute. The monsters are then set out to hunt down the teen survivor and not letting anything get in their way. I thought this film had a lot of cool stuff in it and I found myself actually enjoying every bit of it. The monsters themselves were very cool. Each one of them had their own special skill or talent. One would use an axe while the other would use a rope to hang people. The only problem I had with the monsters was the fact that they could be easily killed by water. I thought that was rather lame, but I guess you gotta kill them somehow.

Usually when there are some freak monsters running around in a horror film there is only a small few, but in this movie there was a small army of monsters. I was also surprised that this film actually had decent acting, considering it was from the 80s. The directing wasn't bad either. For a low-budget movie it had some good effects. What I didn't like about the film was the fact that there was no explaination as to how the monsters came about or why they kill people. It was just never explained. I'm assuming that since the way it ended and since there was no explaination that there was plans for a sequel, but I guess that never came about. I'm pretty sure it's because their distributor, Lightning Video, went out of business. I would have happily given this film a higher rating, but I didn't like how it ended. It left you hanging and thinking to yourself, what the hell? Other than that it was pretty damn good.


The first time I saw this movie, I sat there scratching my head, thinking: What am I watching? The movie plot is so far out with non-sequiturs that it has to be good, right? Hydrophobic (no, not rabid, actually harmed by water)monsters, who in turn are controlled by amphibious aliens. This stuff is great. Side note: I liked the nod to Ridley Scott's "Alien" on the young girl's hat, which read USS Nostromo.


Very rarely do you seriously come across a movie with no redeeming values whatsoever. I mean, there are tons of movies these days that are so bad that you say something like that about them, but it's a rare occurrence when you can apply that statement literally. Neon Maniacs is the story of a lot of creepy monsters that live under the Golden Gate Bridge, evidently for no other reason than to make people wonder why a lot of monsters who can be killed by water would choose to live so close to it. In thinking back on the movie, is there really any reason at all why they live under the Golden Gate Bridge? Is it just so they can include a couple shots of the bridge at the opening of the movie?

Not only do we never find out why these creatures live to close to the one thing that can destroy them on contact, but we also never know where they came from or why they are killing people. Maybe they're upset because they're different. This is definitely an 80s horror film, so obviously you expect the acting to be just as bad as it is, and I think that Neon Maniacs really tests your levels of belief by trying to get you to believe that teenagers in the 80s thought it was the cool thing to do late at night to park their van in the middle of some park and play football and make out in the woods. Oddly enough, as dumb as that sounds, it looks even dumber on screen.

I will not waste your time describing what kind of creatures these are, because they are little more than some make-up artists weak effort to make some disgusting monsters for a meaningless horror film and their exact descriptions are beside the point. There is everything from an alien to an ape-man, so you can just imagine for yourself what's in between, if you're lucky enough not to have seen this movie. If you've read any of the other reviews of this movie on the IMDb, you already know that the movie sets up for a sequel that was never made (my good friend and colleague Christopher Brown makes a good point in his review, that the sequel may have never been made because Lightning Video went out of business, but he also makes a shocking miscalculation of the quality of the movie itself  sorry Chris!).

It's true that the movie leaves the possibility of a sequel so open that it calls too much attention to the fact that one was never made, but this is not an uncommon way to end movies like this. Little Shop of Horrors, for example, had a very similar ending, with the grinning plant showing up in the cute garden at the end of the film. Personally, I am more concerned with the sheer lack of quality of any kind from top to bottom in this movie (there's a scene at the end, during the `climax' of the film, where the hero and heroine are hiding from the approaching demons, and decide to lay down on the floor and make-out and just not worry about the monsters that are closing in, I guess hoping that they will just disappear  as it turns out, they were right), and besides that, even if someone wrote a sequel to this mess, who in their right mind would want to direct it?


This is the worst movie I've ever seen. My friends and I actually paid money to see it in a theater back in 1985, and were laughing about how bad it was for hours afterwards. On the up side, we did have a good time making fun of it. It's worth seeing as a goof. The idea of people running around with water pistols to kill the neon maniacs was just too ridiculous. And then the movie's abrupt ending in the rain with the comment "This rain can't last forever". People in the theater were booing and moaning.


Neon Maniacs,great movie by far one of my top 5 greatest films.The movie is so great because of the great original plot and characters...have u ever seen a movie when maniacs are killed by...water?No then check this out.I love alot of movies this definetly is one of them and its also hard to get so if u ever find it get it because even if u didnt like it its one of those movies when u cant not see it and u have to judge yourself!


Title: Neon Maniacs (1986)

Director: Joseph Mangine

Cast: It really doesn't matter, trust me

Review: Oh my god. Lovers of extreme cheezyness and bad B-movies rejoice! I've discovered a truly cheezy, utterly bad film that you lovers of z-level entertainment can totally immerse yourselves into! Neon Maniacs! The story goes something like this. A group of high school kids decide to hang out a the local park, you know, the usual teenage stuff: beers, making out, bad eighties music. So in the midst of this little party they are having 12 psycho killers pop out of their underground layer and decide to kill the 12 kids in the stupidest ways possible. But wait! One of them escapes! And the killers cant have a witness running loose, so they decide to go after her at all cost! So thats where our movie begins.

When I popped this film into my DVD player, I was ready for what was coming. I knew that this movie was going to be cheezy beyond all hope and that the acting and music was going to be terrible. Yet in spite of all my mental preparation...I still could believe how terrible this movie was! And I've seen some bad films in my lifetime! And I've managed to enjoy a few of them precisely because they are so bad like for example Troll II or Demon Wind, but Neon Maniacs was just too god awful.

I thought, well its got a cool premise. Twelve different creatures killing off people left and right? I thought there were some possibilities for cheezy, trashy entertainment. Something maybe along the lines of The Toxic Avenger films or something. You know, the type of movie that you KNOW is low grade but you can have some fun with. Well, sadly that was not the case with Neon Maniacs.

First off, we get the creatures. Heres the thing about them. They look stupid! I mean, there's one thats supposed to be some sort of jungle boy and his got this little bikini on...there's one thats supposed to be a samurai...one is supposed to be a war veteran. But heres the thing, you can never really get a good look at them. It seems the budget was so low that they hid the make up and their faces in a lot of shadows.

So you can never really connect with any of these creatures or monsters. They are just a bunch of undefined shadows, and I mean this both literally and metaphorically. Heres the worst part: these villains are weak! They have absolutely no motivation as to why they kill! They have no origin story to accompany their sad existence! They are just there! And they kill! Thats it! You'd think that with such a wide range of characters appearing in a movie you'd have some sort of cool reason for them being who they are. I mean as it is, they are these crazy ass cartoon characters Samurais, war crazy veterans, Indians, biker dudes who we know absolutely nothing about! They just pop up from their underground layer with their crazy Halloween costume get up and kill people. What is this a reunion for the Village People? As far as we know, there's no mutants, no alien invasions or toxic waste being spilled anywhere...these guys just exist. And it didn't matter to the filmmakers to explain to the viewers why.

Anyhows, aside from the villains looking absolutely ridiculous and giving me a few reasons to giggle, we also get some of the worst characters in the universe! Girl survives the killers attacks, so what does she do after 11 of her best friends are murdered? She goes to school as if nothing had happened! Then, when one of the characters knows where the villains hide out and what kills them she decides to go to the local battle of the bands show instead of trying to get people to help her and kill the creatures? Come on! Where are her priorities? One of the characters is a horror movie director wannabe...and shes filming her vampire movie in a graveyard. The vampire in her little film is about to suck the blood from a virgin. But there's one little problem, shes filming this during the daylight! Heellllooo? Anyhows, there's many little things like this that let you see that a bunch of idiots were the ones in charge of making this movie.

The movie has some of the worst music ever committed to a motion picture. Ever seen one of those crappy ass wedding videos with that terrible syntheziser music on the background? Well thats exactly what they used through out this whole movie! And it really really blows! Trust me on this.

Aside from all this, I found some mild enjoyment in the 80s nostalgia trip that the movie is. It reminds you just how bad the fashion and fads from that decadent decade were. In one scene there's a "battle of the bands" going on...but just between TWO bands! One band is a Chicago wannabe (we get to hear not just one but TWO of their god awful songs!) and the other is a mix between every other hair band that existed in the eighties.

Anyhows, I found this movie only to be good for a giggle. You'll only enjoy it if your previously warned of how bad it is and you are ready for it. Or if your really into this type of bad film and enjoy watching a film thats so bad, that you just have to watch it to see where films can go when handed to complete incompetents. Watching Neon Maniacs only works if you know that this is just a huge piece of cheeze thats meant to be laughed at instead of taken seriously. You've been warned! Rating: 1 out of 5


I saw this film a few years ago and since then I have been trying too find a worse film. I have not succeeded but even though I have viewed many bad films some of which would of been to bad even for the crew of The Satellite of Love.

It would seem that a group of Power Rangers have come down from space and can't fall in water and there's a one eyed dinosaur. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this is. Its so bad I considered committing suicide with the video box.

Please do yourself a favour. DO NOT SEE THIS FILM. It is not worth your sanity.

So in conclusion I will tell you again: THIS IS THE WORST FILM EVER MADE!


This movie seemed to have quite a lot of potential. It jumped out of the gates swinging, but in the end it turns into a bit of a dud. This movie starts out with a guy finding these playing cards with pictures of monsters and stuff on them. The monsters end up being real and they go on a killing rampage. What are they and what is their purpose I don't think is ever revealed. They quickly go kill some kids and I am thinking it was better than what people said. Then comes the standard cops do not believe a thing scene that usually appear in movies of this sort and then a rather interesting dream sequence. Then there is a whole lot of nothing going on. The movie turns into a total snooze fest, as some teens try and figure out what is going on. Then the end comes and it doesn't match up to the beginning and it is just a real letdown after the brisk pace that it started out with. Also, how come these monsters are a problem at all? They happen to have a rather lame weakness that is really quite easy for anyone to use. All in all a movie with potential that falls flat.


there was no plot at all, a few badly dressed actors stumble around getting shot at by water pistols, not very scary. The only good thing about it was the box it came in which had a holographic effect (at the time this was unusual). If your scared of water pistols - get it - if not dont bother.


I bought this video from a seller on Ebay a couple of days ago and it arrived yesterday. Finally sat down to watch it today. Before I saw it I had mixed feelings about how it as I love watching Little Women. The version with June Allyson and Janet Leigh is my favourite, however, I also enjoyed the other two versions that I have seen.

This film is GOOD !!! It is very close to the book. OK, there are a couple of variations. In the book it is Laurie that sees that Nat goes to Plumfield, and John Brooke passes away at his own home, not at the school, but nonetheless, this film is a very well done adaptation.

Spookily, I noticed a few things all to do with the character of Jo. First off I thought that Mariel Hemmingway bore a strong resemblance to Katharine Hepburn who also played Jo in the 1930's film, and a number of times I thought that the boy who played Nat reminded me of Winona Ryder who played Jo in the 1990's film.

All in all a thoroughly enjoyable film and a must-see for fans of Louisa M Alcott's books about the March family.


I absolutely adore this movie. I loved the book, and the movie is a nice version of it. I saw it on TV about two years ago, but since then it hasn't been on and is fairly vague in my mind. I HAVE to buy the DVD soon, as it's a necessity for my collection. People with kids should buy this as it's a great way to introduce them to the world of Louisa May Alcott, but it's not just a film for youngsters. It even made me tear up, which is almost impossible for me, definitely a feel-good film. Lovers of the film Little Women will like this one too, they're very similar in different ways, minus the more famous actors that LW has. I'd give it a solid eight out of ten, highly recommended, and a great family film.


This is a pretty good movie, nothing spectacular but a nice family movie. I didn't much like Mariel Hemingway's Jo, she didn't seem to have much of the tomboyish fun spirit that Jo is famous for. I was surprised to see Chris Sarandon, because this role of his is very different from the one I'm familiar with;Prince Humperdink. I didn't like the Mr. Bhaer of this movie, he was too different from the book character. The boy who played Nat was pretty good, and he gave me the odd feeling I had seen him before, though I have no idea where. I most liked Dan though. There is something very appealing about those tough, street-wise boys, who act all hard but you know they have a heart inside. I thought he was very well played, and I'd like to see that actor (Ben Cook) again. Good movie for kids, adults and some teens might like it too.


My daughter loves this show. She started watching it at 10 months. Even though at that age she was too young to understand all of it, the shapes and colors made her smile and laugh. Now she is four and still enjoys the Polies.

Although I don't watch every episode with her. Most episodes contain good lessons on sharing and being nice to others. I can not understand how anyone would not like this show.

Now that my 4 year old has a little sister, she can relate to how Olie and Billy treat their younger siblings. This is a great show. I wish they had all these great shows when I was growing up.


Genre: CGI QUITE babyish TV series about robots. Very cute and sweet.

My thoughts: A family favourite TV series, I love this above every other TV series (even David Attenborogh ones) for its cuteness, its cleverness, its humour, its music and its weird but lovely CGI! The fact that all the furniture, the flowers and other things are alive and have faces, it makes this show all the more entertaining and weird. The rest of my family love this too, especially my mum, I think it's her favourite children's TV series! :O I think people who didn't like this are missing something and just focus a little too much on the not-so-good points of things. This should also be shown on more channels, such as Cbeebies, it's WAY too unknown!! :Z

I like watching episodes really often, especially like the ones with Billy, Pappy and Polly (who are side characters who don't appear in ALL the episodes). They are very cute and very clever! :-)

Recommended to: People who like friendly but strange looking CGI, people who like robots and babyish but funny and cute programs. Enjoy! :-)

What happens: In each episode, in some way, Olie, a robot, has an adventure, either on his own, with his little sister Zoe, with his dog Spot, with his friend Billy, or in some other way


There is a particular(Canadian?) gentle charm about this series that sets it above the seemingly endless dross. It promotes wholesome family values including unusually not just mom and pop but uncles, aunts and siblings. Today's episode has Zowie, the youngest member, taught the need for the words Please, Thank You and Excuse me. The clear intention is to teach those things necessary for all members of a happy family: consideration for others and tolerance but it shows that adults as well as children must follow these rules.

It is evident that the makers have put far more into it than they perhaps need have done. The most brilliantly realised character is the dog "Spot" - a non-speaking part, everything is done with body language. It's such cleverly observed dog behaviour. In one second a scolded Spot can go from excitement to rejection, to reproach, to dejection - all absolutely unmistakeably indicated by every part. It is so well observed you can see aspects of dog behaviour not noticed before.

The sofas and fridges with bulging eyes and wide mouths are a recognisable borrowing - presumably a respectful homage - from pioneer Max Fleischer's cartoons of the 1930's. There they were a little weird - here they're part of the story - fridges have feelings too!


I don't understand the many bad comments about this show. the show is excellent for small children, and my daughter (3 years old) loves this show.

I think the authors of the negative comments forget that this is a simple children's show for ages 2-5. It is not meant to win any artistic awards, nor was it meant for teens/adults.

While this isn't exactly the highest quality animation show, I've seen far worse, and the world setting is cute and simplistic, as it should be in a children's show.

I give this show an 9 out of 10 because my daughter loves it.


I lost interest in this show when i was 7.They used gibberish 24/7. I was peeved when Olie told me that the were evil toys trying to hurt me. I went into this phase and started to talk to Lifeless objects like the stove. the gram pa scared the #%$@ out of me and still does**shudder**. Rolie land gave me nightmares about Alien-Robots. So i started watching LAW & ORDER SVU. My grades went up and I started drooping cartoons and watched the HISTORY channel. But Ollie left a dent in my life witch can never be fixed. Children, Do not Watch this horrible show!!! DO NOT BUY ANY OF HIS MERCHANDISE OR WATCH HIS SHOW. But like a turd on the sidewalk, you can learn a lot from him.


THE ARISTOCATS is a brilliant film by Chuck Jones which utilizes ingenious backgrounds and dynamic cutting, via John McGrew's extraordinary layout, to create a new kind of animation. The Jones and McGrew partnership in design extablished a new rhythm of stylization that certainly led to the modern UPA work.


Well, after reading a couple of the other reviews here, I feel a little better. I thought maybe I missed something, thinking this animated short was pretty weak. Apparently, others agree.

It might have been a landmark of sorts with the introduction of Claude The Cat and the two mice, Hubie (his name wasn't mentioned in this cartoon) and Bertie, but that doesn't mean it was entertaining. It wasn't, except for some of the artwork. This was the first of seven "Hubie and Bertie" cartoons.

Claude was just not-funny stupid, and sadistic. Forced to fend for himself after "Meadows" the butler quits after being abused by the cat, Claude finds himself clueless. He has no idea how to do anything for himself. Apparently he doesn't even know what a mouse or a dog looks like, despite the fact there is a dog in the house.

When he encounters the mice, he is scared out of his mind and runs for the hills. Finally, he winds up talking to them and they take advantage of the situation. Overall, this offers almost nothing in the way of laughs except one quick scene when Claude first meets the bulldog, face-to-face.


As always, Chuck Jones's wise-guy mice Hubie and Bertie (making their debut) play tricks on an unsuspecting feline. While "The Aristo-Cat" has a fairly routine plot, the background catches my attention. The slanted angles look more like what I would expect in a Salvador Dali painting (Bob Clampett used Daliesque angles to a great degree in "The Great Piggy Bank Robbery"). But it's not just the angles. The colors - resembling those in Jones's "The Case of the Missing Hare" - obscure all perspective. This has to be the least pleasant place for a cat to attack a dog, believing the dog to be a mouse! So this is far from a masterpiece, but the background should draw interest. Even more than the fact that it's Hubie and Bertie's debut. Jones branched out their personalities in "Mouse Wreckers", "Cheese Chasers" and "The Hypo-Chondri-Cat".


Chuck Jones's 'The Aristo-Cat' is a visual masterpiece which is slightly hampered by a very thin plot. The first of Jones's short lived Hubie and Bertie series about two frequently cruel and sadistic mice and their tendency to prey on the emotionally frail, 'The Aristo-Cat' reduces the star character's roles to virtual cameos. The Hubie and Bertie films have always been amongst my favourite cartoons but the two rodents add very little to this short and their roles could just as well have been filled by any generic mouse characters. However, 'The Aristo-Cat' pays less attention to the normal conventions of plot and instead throws the spotlight on the tremendous nervous breakdown of Pussy the cat. A spoiled feline who pushes his butler, Meadows, too far and then finds himself with no-one to look after him, Pussy makes the most of his short time in the spotlight (he was usurped by the similarly jittery Claude Cat) by having one of the all time great mental collapses in cartoon history. As he runs around the huge, empty mansion screaming "MEADOWS" in vain, the startling abstract backgrounds, filled with angular shapes of vivid colours, move around behind him reflecting his encroaching madness to incredible effect. It's so luscious to behold that the arrival of Hubie and Bertie actually comes as a disappointment and brings the cartoon to a sadly predictable conclusion (including a hugely unsatisfactory deus ex machina ending). Happily, by this stage 'The Aristo-Cat' has already established itself as a must see and, while its eventual disintegration prevents it from entering the annals of the genuinely classic, the cartoon's first half ranks alongside some of the most startling imagery of any Warner cartoon.


I remember when this video came out in video stores like 1987-1988. I would have watched then, but the cover was misleading. The front cover showed what looked like to be human/animal sacrifice, the back of the cover said something like "this video isn't for the squeamish" or something like that and I thought it was gonna be all bloody and stuff. Thats why I never watched it years ago. Recently my friends had showed it to me and it had NOTHING to do with human/animal sacrifice or anything bloody and gross. Instead I was introduced to REAL Satanism and what is truly is and what it is not. I had always wondered if this was an attempt to sabotage the World Church of Satanic Liberation because they weren't like the Church of Satan. Maybe Paul Valentine would have made a better cover boy than the late Herman Slater, but the fact is Paul Valentine wasted no time in telling what his organization is all about, what he does and what the WCSL stands for. ( Goto youtube and watch his videos! Scream Greats 2 is on there!!) He will tell you what Satanism is and what is not. Also, he points out the fallacies of Wicca/Wiccians, why Christianity doesn't not work, and its OK to think for yourself. Its a MUST see!