Whereas some episodes in season three are at least watchable for their camp quality, this episode is quite painful to sit through.

Basically, there are some major plot holes in this story: 1) In a planet so crowded, how could room be made for an exact replica of the Enterprise? 2) How did they get the specs for the Enterprise? I'm sure the Romulans or Klingons would like to know. 3) How did Kirk get fooled so easily? Even a replica of the Enterprise cannot feel or look exactly the same as the real thing - he would have known right away that it was fake. 4) Since when does Kirk beam-down without a communicator? 5) I'm sure there are easier ways to get people sick than kidnapping someone with a rare disease - and why didn't they just make their own "carriers" from the start? 6) Even if Kirk fell in love with Odona (as was the plan to make him voluntarily stay), if she had died as planned then there's not much reason for him to stick around, is there?

Unfortunately, this episode is not even entertaining to watch, save for a few interesting camera shots (like the view from the bridge at the beginning and the low angle shot of Kirk through the glass table). They should have thrown this script out...


This is a poorly conceived Classic Trek episode which was salvaged by the superior acting of the show's primary actors. Kirk beams down to the planet Gideon and finds himself on an exact duplicate of the Enterprise but doesn't realise this since the 'set up' is so convincing--even though he meets Odona, its lone occupant. Surely, Kirk should have sensed some kind of a trap immediatedly. The Enterprise crew can't locate their captain who doesn't materialize where he is supposed to--in the Gideonite council chambers--and are concerned that his life is in danger. But Spock doesn't notice at once that the beam down coordinates the Gideonites gave for Kirk is different from the ones they sent to the Enterprise to beam up a member of the Gideon council later? Any normal crewman would have quickly checked the coordinates and noticed the discrepancy between 079 and 709 and that the Gideonites have deliberately altered the numbers. Several Trek characters move out of their previous characterization with Spock and Kirk appearing less intelligent than they really are. Frankly, this is unforgivable.

The scenes of Kirk with Odona on the empty duplicate copy of the Enterprise on Gideon also don't make much sense especially when you consider that the planet is supposed to be chronically overpopulated. The Gideon council chamber created so much free space for one man when they could have solved their overpopulation problem by having Kirk transport Odona to Dr. McCoy's sickbay for treatment? There is little logic to this show or its script. The Mark of Gideon is one of the subpar shows of season 3--not as horrendous as The Way to Eden--but still bad nevertheless. There is a memorable line which Spock says when Starfleet and its officials refuse to give him permission to beam down to Gideon and locate Kirk: "Diplomats and bureaucrats may function differently but they achieve exactly the same results." So, Spock himself has to violate a Starfleet directive to save Kirk. At least, that action was logical and highlights his loyalty to the captain.

Odona was a wonderful actor--and a good foil for captain Kirk even though their romance has little basis in fact. I guess Kirk's libido was in overdrive in season 3 of TOS. It was not unreasonable for Odona to offer to sacrifice herself and 'die young' in order to let her civilization survive. A noble idea...even if Kirk was left with the short end of the stick by being a guinea pig who supplies a deadly virus to stop Gideon's chronic overpopulation. Most of the episode's scenes are imaginatively written if one excludes the preposterous image of hundreds of anonymous Gideonites crowding the exterior of the Gideonite Council. The touching scenes between Hodin and his dying daughter Odona was well done. Overall, Hodin, Odona, Kirk and Spock's performance elevate the show to a 4 out of 10 rating in my view--still a failure but not a total disaster. If season 3 of Star Trek had a proper film budget, the producers could have had the sets to properly depict Gideon and avoided all the numerous plot holes. Pity!


While there were some very good episodes during the last season of Star Trek, there were probably just as many disappointments--probably because they knew the series was on its last legs and no one in charge really seemed to care. While a score of 4 looks almost average, for Star Trek it is not and the episode was completely forgettable due to poor writing--and an abundance of plot holes.

Kirk is beamed down to a planet to negotiate some sort of treaty or something but instead arrives in an exact duplicate. He's all alone until later a lady appears and says she, too, has no idea how she got there. At the same time, the crew of the Enterprise is worried since they lost contact with Kirk and the officials on the planet say they have no idea where he is but also obviously hinder the investigation.

I'll jump ahead and explain the why, as you shouldn't have to watch this episode--it's that dumb. It seems that the planet is actually so overwhelmingly overpopulated because they have no natural disease that they wanted to kidnap Kirk and take germs from him and introduce them to the woman--making her sort of like a "Typhoid Mary" who will help reduce the population through illness instead of instituting reasonable birth control. Huh?! This makes no sense on so many levels. First, why the ruse? They could have gotten germs from almost anywhere--why spend a fortune duplicating the Enterprise down to every minute detail and kidnap the Captain?! Second, if the believe so strongly against birth control, maybe they should consider celibacy or pushing each other in front of buses! Third, if the planet is absolutely choked with people, why build the Enterprise--where will you put it? Fourth, why not start a war and kill of some people like we humans would have done?


The ending of this movie stinks. It is the equivalent of telling a child a very suspenseful tale of a prince and a dragon. You build up skillfully to a climactic battle, and as the prince is raising his sword, you say, "But the dragon suddenly had a brain aneurysm and died, leaving the prince looking like a fool who lived unhappily ever after. Hey... sh*t happens, you know?"

Before the sneers and mutterings of "philistine" begin, let me say that I know what the screenwriters and the director were going for -- Greek tragedy: a good man, a Hero is brought to ruin by a fatal flaw in his character. The problem is that here, as in all storytelling, a tragic ending must also be a satisfying one for the audience. No matter how sad the hero's fall/demise, no matter what plot twists occur, one has to be able to say, "Well, that's tragic, but it had to happen. It was inevitable." It's a storytelling tightrope, from which the screenwriters and director fell from great heights, crashed and burned.

In trying to throw a curve, they threw a spitball; they cheated. A deus ex machina ("Machine of the Gods") is a phony dramatic contrivance where the Gods step in at the end of a story and make everything right again. The hero is off the hook. What happened to the serial killer here was worse than a deus ex machina. He is killed by coincidence. That's just cheating.

I would like to suggest what would have been a truly tragic ending. Make Jerry Black a lonelier man. One whose two failed marriages have left him without hope of having a family. Then he meets Lori and Chrissy. His unexpected love for them grows to *almost* the size of his obsession with catching the killer. Give him a true choice between love & obsession and let him pick the wrong one. Then let him catch the goddamned killer. And after he does, this Hero, having fulfilled his task, turns for love and adoration to Lori, who lets him have the same speech she does now and whisks herself and her daughter out of his life. Black then fully realizes what his heroic choice has cost him, and ends up lonely, embittered and perhaps mad.

That would have been a satisfying ending, because the way things play now, here's what the audience is thinking, "He deserves to catch the killer. He does not deserve to have this family after endangering Chrissy so horribly."

The ending of "The Pledge" is badly, terribly wrong, as it trashes what up until then was one of the finest suspense films I've ever seen and one of Jack Nicholson's greatest performances.


This movie has a couple of weak points. Unfortunately, such points are so weak that eclipse all the talent in the movie.

First of all, the movie has two clearly differentiated parts that just don't mix well (making a *very* different portrait of detective Jerry Black on each part). Maybe there's some will of creating contrast by concatenation of hope and tragedy in the same movie but, if that was the real will, the movie fails: it gets absurdity rather than contrast.

Secondly, the story is built from a serious promise. The scene where the promise is made is very disappointing because of the weak arguments, circumstances, and acting, for such a serious promise.

Also, as an additional comment, I wish to add that this movie shows a pessimistic view of the experienced old people. If you love stories where young people learn from old people, you may prefer other kind of films rather than this one.

I watched the original version of this movie when I was a child ("Es geschah am hellichten Tag" -- 1958), and I remember it as a very nice experience. I think I enjoyed it a lot, although I don't remember why (I was too young).

I've been very disappointed by this Hollywood remake.


Starts OK. But... Then all goes downhill. Reminds me too much of the Swedish TV series (3 parts) 'Dödspolare'. I do not want to spoil the plot, far from! But if you like films where bad turns to worse only to end at...

The movie hits rock bottom, and starts to dig.

The only positive I can post is; Jack performs excellently! As always!

If you like this kind of movie, you must see 'Dödspolare'!


I saw 'Wounded' ages ago with a few friends! We mainly watched for Machen Amick, who was the lead character. Although the film is low budget and considered B-grade, it had some nice cinematography, but unfortunately the film itself was beyond boredom. From what I remember, the cast did an okay job with Machen Amick, Adrian Pasdar and Graham Greene in their roles- but were nothing special. The characters themselves were dull and stupid, and it was the story however that dragged ever so slowly and became mind-numbingly daft. In fact, we were just waiting for the climax- which was pretty lame and anti-climatic. *1/2 out of *****!


Not really sure what exactly it was that writer/director Ivan Zuccon tried to accomplish with "The Shunned House", to be honest. Admittedly the concept of intertwining three separate H.P. Lovecraft stories into one horror anthology, entirely taking place in one and the same house setting, is definitely ambitious and original, but at the same time also hazardous and unrewarding. The wicked and ultra-sinister imagination of H.P. Lovecraft is incredibly difficult to translate into a movie  only gifted directors like Stuart Gordon and Lucio Fulci occasionally succeeded  and his devoted fans are very finicky when it comes to adaptations. The script tackles the wondrously atmospheric and nightmarish tales "Dreams in the Witch House", "The Shunned House" and "The Music of Erich Zahn"; all mingled together through the wraparound story of a young couple investigating the dark history of a house where tragic events occurred spread over three centuries. Beforehand, I was prepared to witness some really bad acting and perhaps some inferior production values, but the absolute last thing I expected from this film was boredom! The story material is great and the ambiance is thoroughly ominous, but Zuccon's narrative structure simply isn't compelling enough. The stories, and thus also the suspense, are too often abruptly cut off to return to the present day main characters and their continuous uninteresting bickering. Ivan Zuccon doesn't achieve to grab the viewer's full attention and hold it, and that is something quite important in Lovecraft adaptations, as his morbid stories are habitually confusing and tangled already. What "The Shunned House" does have to offer are numerous grisly images (like a girl repeatedly banging her head against a wall for reasons unknown) and multiple downright gruesome make-up effects (like a woman biting through her own wrist). Although not the goriest film of its kind, some of the footage here is definitely nightmare inducing. The acting performances are quite bad and, call me shallow if you must, but I was quite disappointed that lead actress Federica Quaglieri didn't have any nude sequences. All through the film, she's parading around in an incredibly sexy yellow top and her beautiful voluptuous boobs are constantly on the point of popping out  yet they never do.


I could not appreciate this movie in the slightest. The characters were non-existent in the Lovecraft canon. The stories were twisted into an attempt to be scary, introducing romanticized elements that were totally unnecessary. The material in the books far outclass it in horror and suspense. Whoever thought they could pass this swill off as a Lovecraftian horror film was thick in the head! I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, Lovecraft fan or otherwise.

If you want a good--not necessarily period appropriate, but good--Lovecraft horror film, I'd recommend The Reanimator. It's not the best, but it's better than this piece of garbage.


The Shunned House (2003) is a terrible film "based" upon the writings of H.P. Lovecraft. I have seen some bad adaptations before but this one takes the cake. Not only did the filmmaker used the basis of The Shunned House for the movie but he also used Music of Eric Zahn and Dreams of the Witchhouse. Sadly none of these show up in the movie. The director should have stuck with one story and made a lame version of that instead of taking from several stories.

The "movie" was shot on digital video, I can deal with that but their was nothing in this one that was the slightest of interest. Blood, gore and nudity was tossed into the picture but it's still bad. People want to throw around the title worst movie ever made. I have nominate this one. It is that horrible. A message to the director, don't try to adapt anymore H.P. Lovecraft. Please!!

Unwatchable, don't even try to watch this abortion.

You might get a few chuckles if you get a bunch of your friends and watch it. That's the only way I would see this one again. Don't say I didn't warn you!


As a fan of Lovecraft I'm always on the look for film adaptations. And now I've seen The Shunned House. And yes, it is a horror movie, horror as in horrible. It's a low (or no) budget, Italian straight to video, with awful actors desperately trying to speak English. It's really boring, utterly confusing, it has little or nothing to do with Lovercraft's work, the music is terrible and to my personal belief Howard is turning over is his grave. Oh yes, you get some cheap gore, but that doesn't make a movie, does it. The thing doesn't even qualify for a B-movie. If you want some good Lovecraft stuff, stick to the classics. The wonderfully dark humored Re-animator, or From Beyond, and more recently Dagon. Just leave Shunned House, its a complete waste of time and money.


What is this movie about? Granted, I couldn't even finish it, I had seen enough! I have to tell you, it takes allot for me to not finish a movie, i even sat through In the woods, trying to make the best out of it, atleast you could laugh at the bad acting and terrible effects. This had a combined crapeyness of bad acting, bad story, bad effects, and bad direction. I am glad I had a free rental that I used on this or I would be really mad. The name of the film company who put this piece of garbage out is called Brain Damage films, and after you see this, thats exactly what you will have. These are the times I wish there was some number less the one you could pick for your vote. I enjoy a B-movie, don't get me wrong. Sometimes the budget is mot there but the story is still good and entertaining. I am not slamming it because of the camcorder back yard feel it gives off. It just sucks.


A few days ago we got a coupon in the mail that said we can rent up to 3 movies for $0.99 each.So we went to the video store and I found this movie called The Shunned House.It looked like a pretty good movie from what the box said but i was sooo wrong.The movie was sooo boring that I fell asleep within minutes.The movie tries to scare you but it fails to.So if u see this movie at ur video store do NOT get it.I cant believe I wasted $0.99 on this piece of junk.


As a fan of Lovecraft I thought it was an interesting concept to tie some of the madness from the story of the Shunned House with 2 other stories from Lovecraft & the low budget film setting never bothered me. One of the elements of Lovecraft's stories that work so well is setting up the mood for the story, which gets shot apart in this film. You start getting into the tale of the what's behind the strange music from the violinist (in The Music of Erich Zann) and then a couple minutes later you're in present day, wait a few minutes & then you're off again to the story revolving around the mathematician (in Dreams in the Witch House). I think that the movie might have done better if the present day investigators introduced the Shunned House & then started to tell what happened by showing the complete piece on Erich Zann, a little bit more of the Shunned House, the whole piece on the Dreams of the Witch House & then let the Shunned House story finish off the movie. It's good that someone else is making adaptations of HPL's other stories but filmmakers should look to Re-Animator, Dagon or The Resurrected on how to do a singular film on HPL's stories or do an anthology film.

And for anyone who watches this film, the strange singing melody in the film is from Danny Elfman's music in the movie Sleepy Hollow.


I have been a huge fan of H.P. Lovecraft's writings for almost ten years and jump at the chance to see any movie based on his works. I have enjoyed all of them including the recent "Beyond Re-Animator" which many people hate. However, I did not enjoy "The Shunned House" in the slightest. The acting is bad, the special effects are cheesy to say the least, and the plot is near impossible to follow due to the constant shifting of time and introduction of new characters with little or no development. It seemed like the director did not care very much about this film due to the amount of detail that was ingnored. For example, there are several characters that obviously did not speak English during filming, but were dubbed over with English. At least in "Hurcules in America" Arnold learned how to speak English before filming so that the dubbing, no matter how horrible, would be somewhat believable. There was also an inconsistent use of subtitles in the film whenever a character wrote in another language. The one time they were used, they seemed awkward and out of place. The almost constant use of the strobe light is enough to bring on an epileptic fit and the music is repetitive and mind numbing. The film did have its moments though. The DP did make some interesting choices with the camera work and there were some moments that were genuinly creepy. If you're looking for a good adaptation of Lovecraft stay far, far away from this piece of crap. Try out something like Dagon, Necronimicon, or From Beyond. If you're looking for a good nappy time film though, The Shunned House is a sure thing.


If you're a big fan of neo-satanism, are a satanist, or are fond of muddled thinking in general this is the movie for you. Filled with references glorifying evil, and an annoying soundtrack it's sure to rub hundreds the wrong way. Please don't not voluntarily view this movie. If you have time to kill find another way of burning a few hundred minutes. You might have more fun watching paint dry, or you might delight in watching the grass grow. Hey there's always stargazing, or helping the elderly cross the street. If you like killing this you should seek the same kind of attention as you should if you enjoyed watching this horrifically poor movie.


To retell the stories of the Bible is too difficult to do on a low budget. The series "Anno Domini" shows this perfectly. In addition is is filled with presumptions that are not historically correct: Like for instance, that Peter went to Rome. It is a historical fact that Peters grave was discovered merely forty years ago in Jerusalem, by catholic archaeologists, but that the Vatican tried to cover it up. They didn't make it.


Based on a myriad of very positive comments here, as well as my experience watching the director's previous film _The Ugly_ and enjoying it, I rented _Heaven_. What an awful film! Don't believe the hype. There's a very good reason this bypassed theaters and went straight to video. It's an ugly, mean-spirited, depressing film, with characters that it is hard to understand and like. The acting is good--it's amazing to see Richard Schiff, so likeable on _The West Wing_, playing such a sleaze. Martin Donovan is good, as are Joanna Going and Patrick Malahide. Too bad the story doesn't have more going for it. And what's with the son of Donovan/Going's characters? Both of them have obvious American accents, but the kid talks like he just got off the plane from Australia or New Zealand (the latter, I guess). Other than chopping things up and presenting them out of order, so that what we think is going to happen isn't necessarily what does happen, this film really has very little going for it. _Memento_ it is NOT! Here's hoping that Scott Reynold's next film, _When Strangers Appear_ is an improvement.


In the scene where the brothel explodes I am wondering (as it wasn't released in New Zealand where this scene and others were shot) if they flash or pan to people watching the brothel explode as I was an extra cast as a guy walking home in dark trousers and white shirt.

We weren't told the plot but that there was only going to be ONE take on the explosion shot and no one was to 'act like a hero' or do what they weren't supposed to do.

Finally (I got there at 11.30pm) but the scene with the explosion wasn't shot at 3.45am sheesh I was tired but it was fun! As I live in NZ I've never been able to rent it so didn't see if I was 'centre stage' in reaction to the explosion of the brothel.

Any one shed some light on this???


Very unappealing distorted characters and a gruesome violent theme. It is hard to like a movie when the story is unremittingly violent and barbaric while the characters are cold and (Donovan excepted) unappealing to look at.


As far as i know it the Germans had German accents. this film proved me wrong, as the consistency made me question whether the owner of Rome was English. none of the actors have any signs of talent, apart from Gregory peck, with the only accent that fits in with his past. i know the public is meant to suspend your disbelief when you watch films, but this is the extent. i also learnt that if you are shot then there are no bullet holes and no blood. so educational. if you want to watch an idiotic attempt at an interesting second world war story, with no thought at all towards realism then this is the film for you. i think harry potter is more realistic.


Good to see something other than the usual SF fare about the Vietnam way. This is the first movie i have seen that references the job the dogs and dog handlers did in Vietnam. But the movie is let down by a lot of factors, namely the helicopters, weapons, and tactics. Modern weapons were used instead of the correct weapons, the helicopters were the wrong type, and some of the acting was atrocious. the best part of the movie is the dogs themselves. It was rare for the dogs to be returned to the states, as risk of disease was too high. most dogs remained in country, either with other forces, or were euthanised. Out of approximately 5,000 dogs, only around 200 returned to the states.


I expected a low-budget movie that was long on story and short on effects. The story, however, was full of hackneyed elements (the jaded Lt. who won't trust the new guy, the platoon full of chip-on-the-shoulder vets, the new guy who earns the platoon's respect through his grit...and on and on). It was also piled high with errors in detail that just irritated me. It seems as though there were no military advisors at all working on this film. Few or none of the rifles carried by the platoon dated to Vietnam. In one case, a sharpshooter picks off a VC sniper using a rifle developed in the mid-90's that shoots pistol ammo - hardly the high-accuracy piece they were trying to depict.

The romance that appears in the film is also laughable and totally unnecessary. That the lead character places his love in harm's way with little regard for her safety is obnoxious - and probably worth a court martial.

I am an animal lover, and when I heard Animal Planet was going to show the story of military dogs in Vietnam, I was excited. The story, though, is thin and the attention to detail was so poor as to be a distraction.


Vincent D'Onofrio was wonderful in this film! I Have heard him referred to as a "simple" fisherman, but, on the contrary, I found him to be the more complex character of the so-called romantic duo. Gavin had qualities such as an inner strength, loyalty, kindness, and he never stopped growing as an individual until he died.

The Gavin who first appeared at the beginning at the film was different from the man whose death was being Mourned at the end of the film.

George(Greta Scacch) was a pretentious, shallow, and unkind person who mistook acts of sexual passion for love, and remained unchanged until the end. Her many small unkindness towards to Gavin irked me, and her "contempt" for the presents he chose for her during their trysts together are a prime example of that.

I thought the saddest and most poignant scene was during their last meeting together before his death and she finally approved of the small gift he gave her. Gavin's sweet happiness when he exclaimed, " at last, I got you something you really like" broke my heart! The character of George was a stone cold witch and she proved it until the end when she intruded on Gavin's funeral like an unwelcome guest to hurt his wife (who had truly loved him and shared her life with him) only to reminded her that that she hadn't had all of his love!


Unremarkable love story between a well educated woman (Scachi) and a simple Scottish sailor (D'Onofrio) that goes on and on for almost thirty years. They lived separate lives but sometimes they get together and live passionate and feverish days of pure joy and lovemaking. A thin plot and cardboard characterizations and dialogues make this one a boring and peasant look upon the problems of the relationship of two diferent persons. Besides, D'Onofrio is completely miscast in the role of a Scottish fellow. I give this a 4 (four).


Let me start by saying that I grew up in Zimbabwe  not just in Zim but in the bush, & so I welcomed the chance to see the beautiful scenery of my homeland.

That said, let me add that I didn't finish this film, as it was made 'Bambi' look like the 'Dirty Dozen', for at least Bambi was reasonably accurate  the deer didn't get a job with NASA or solve the troubles of the world! The Zim scenery was beautiful, but then even Hollywood can't change that. However, the price the filmmakers paid to use that scenery (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here) was too high. For example:

1. The way that the bad guys were mostly white. Yes, there are some whites at the top of poaching but there are damn'd few at the 'coalface' end, in the field! Racism is bad whichever way it goes.

2. I'm sorry to disillusion you, folks, but there are precious few North Americans even in African cities, let alone in the middle of the bush. The fact that the only 2 white folk in the district are both from across the Atlantic is pushing coincidence towards fantasy. That's like showing a film about a Mexican game park & the only 'gringos' are a Brit & a Norwegian! Not very plausible.

3. The facilities in the bush were all like some a safari holiday arranged by Abercrombe and Kent. I know they were too much like roughing it for the kids but in reality, anyone working in the bush has to put up with a lot less comfort than these guys did.

Poaching is a blight upon the face of civilisation & anyone who buys or uses ivory should be forced to work on an anti-poaching patrol for a while, as many of my school friends (black & white) did. Therefore, anything that publicises this evil should be welcomed. However, this film wasted the opportunity to do that, preferring instead a scenario whereby a modern day (& suitably PC) John Wayne type figure comes in & saves Africa.

A few well-chosen changes & a writer that had least spent time in the outer suburbs of Harare, if not into the bush itself, could have made this a worthwhile film. As it is, the Eurovision Song Contest would be preferable  if that's possible!


In Running Wild we see Gregory Harrison as Matt Robinson, a retired major and widower trying to bond with his kids so he thinks it would be nice to take them to Africa where poachers are killing elephants. His 14 year old daughter Angela acts like a snob, but she just happens to be hiding her real feelings after losing her mother and her little brother Nicky is just your average annoying little brother. Matt meets Rachel (lori Hallier) who works at the orphanage for animals and he takes a liking to her whilst Angela gets saved by an Englishman named Walton and she gets a crush on him, but the question remains is WHY she falls for him! All of a sudden they find a wounded baby elephant and Angela bonds with it naming it Dandy, but there are still poachers around hunting for elephants. I only got this movie because I am a fan of Greg, but I must admit the kids casting was terrible except from Munyaradzi Kanaventi (mouthful!) who plays Isaac the son of the ranger who works with Matt. There was no romance in this movie so you can really say, "Oh so that's how they fell in love!" They go to see Walton and yet there is NO romance! Okay so it wasn't a love story, but if it was it would've have been worth watching. It's just a bunch of people walking around in Africa or flying in a helicopter. There are 2-3 action scenes, the last one was okay, but the others lasted a few seconds. Recommended only if you're a BIG fan of one of the actors in this movie.


Honest to God, the Outline pretty much says it all. The planet Andromina (not to be confused with Aunt Jemima) is represented by a cheap L.A. stripclub. There's no strippers, so the most recent male visitors go off to recruit strippers.

The men get mistaken for kings or arrested for spying on women (although despite the fact its a planet of women we only get two women who participate in any girl-girl sex scenes), and eventually, as always happen in science fiction cliche movies everywhere, the women become convinced that men are good for something. Well, not the men who made this movie, at any rate!

But boy, do we get to see a lot of that something, in prodigious amounts of softcore sex and nudity. This one has less plot then usual for such flicks, so change the channel if you don't like this kind of movie, and grit your teeth if you're into this kind of thing.


What can I say about THE PLEASURE PLANET that I haven`t said about umpteen other tedious soft core porn films ? Very little . It`s just another movie with a very weak plot used to set up very unconvincing set scenes between male non actors who spend too much time in the gym and bimbos who have obviously had silicon implants . Actually the sex scenes in this movie are somewhat less convincing than you usually see in this type of film as the cast members grind their hips together giving pained expressions like they`ve got constipation or something . No wonder a lot of people claim sex is over rated , they`ve probably watched too many of these films on late night cable stations


Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.

But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.

The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.

So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.


Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.

This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.

You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.

I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.

3/10


Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.

The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).

As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.

Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.


This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching


First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)


Hi folks

Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.

The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.

Just a waste of time thinks ...

JAKE Scorpio


This movie isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.

FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on this.


This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.

4/10


The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.


Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...

***SPOILERS***

Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...

One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...

Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...

...avoid this movie.


I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)

A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.

What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.

Avoid like the Bubonic plague.


John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.


Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.

Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.

John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?

Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.

By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.


This "Debuted" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is "I am speechless" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like "It was fun to make fun of this movie" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway "This movie sucks" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike


This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!


This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!


OK at parts. but just too crappy at some other parts...

i mean i know the camera he is using pretty well... and the whole picture has been propably shot with that... but why put some cheezy TV-effect or reshoot through a monitor... i looks disgusting? this is a dv-movie. it is OK at being such... so there the three points. other than that nothing really astonishing here.

it really isn't great movie, but it's not a bad one. if you are starting to make movies then this is good to watch, what can be done with 30 000 Euros (40k $).

those dvcams are just so light that getting good hand held picture doesn't really work... looks kinda crappy. i think that they should have gotten a some steadyshot get better picture.

not that horrendous though... some interesting dialogue.

you could rent this if interested in dv-work... other than that maybe pass.


This surreal descent into madness begins with a cameraman desperately longing to discover an unseen fear that had apparently caused a man's public suicide. A hike down into Tokyo's subterranean maze of tunnels leads him to a chained up girl, concealed in a small crevice in some kind of fantasy world. He brings her home and begins to study her animal-like behavior while his life takes a bizarre turn for the worst. He begins receiving mysterious phone calls concerning the girl and develops a perverted pleasure when he realizes that she will only consume blood. I have to say, this movie left me rather baffled and disappointed. I guess, the fact that the main character is insane might be enough of an excuse to push the bizarre factor to the extreme, but when a movie makes as very little sense as this one did, I cannot recommend it. What a mess!


'Marebito' is certainly better than your average US slasher flick, but don't expect much more than that.

At the start, with the emphasis on voyeurism, recorded death and vicarious experience, it teeters on becoming something impressive and somehow relevant to the omniscience, nihilism and anonymity of the digital age.

But the 'horror' aspects of this film completely ruin it. What begins so intriguingly becomes suddenly farcical, more akin to a sub-par episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Both the 'discovery' of a fantasy underworld, and then the clumsy Frankenstein narrative, are irredeemably hackneyed story lines that the director attempts to conceal behind portentous dialogue, edgy security-camera footage and a naked young woman.

Like a lot of style-over-substance J-Horror films, the plot eventually comes to rely upon inexplicable twists and mysterious appearances that may excite some people's interest but in reality are the signs of bad writing and a half-baked story that can be modified with ease because nothing significant is taking place anyway.

As for the 'hollow world' philosophy - it begs belief how pretentiously the film takes this, as if it has hit upon an entirely new idea. 'Underworlds', however, are a staple of horror movies; backing this one up with the obscure work of an early 20th century sci-fi writer doesn't make it any more exciting or screen-worthy.

Overall 'Marebito' is disappointingly poor. Beautifully shot, atmospheric in places and all that, but artistically inert after the first twenty minutes and no more enjoyable than countless films that cover similar ground with much more panache and cinematic touch. It is the work of a complacent director and the product of a genre that all too easily loses itself in its own idiom.


I honestly cannot say I liked this movie. I appreciate what it is, which is a genuinely creepy movie shot in 8 days on consumer-grade digital video by one of the masters of Japanese horror. However, what I cannot appreciate is the disregard for character development or practical story-telling.

Masuoka is obsessed with video. He's got his own apartment under surveillance (from within, oddly enough), he carries a small camcorder everywhere he goes, and he seems to be plugged into random cameras throughout the city. And what he's looking for in all of this video is the ultimate in fear. One day, walking in the subways, he encounters a bizarre suicide. The victim sees something that only he can which, apparently leads him to stab himself in the eye. Obsessed with finding out what this man saw, Masuoka goes underground. Literally. Underneath the city he finds a bizarre netherworld. And one naked girl chained to a wall. Who may or may not be his daughter.

Sounds weird, hunh? Well, it sure is. The use of digital video, cut with even grainier digital video makes for a creepy look, and the sound work is a constant video hum which increases the paranoia and overall strange feeling. But that's really all the movie is. Just a really creepy exercise that never builds into something coherent. Characters pass through with seemingly no rhyme or reason, but they sure are creepy. Many big ideas are pitched (like another dimension of freaky demons leaking over into ours. Ouch!), but they're never taken anywhere.

If you're a fan of Shimizu's work, you'll notice his fingerprints all over this. However, this is a departure in many ways. It is not built around the "boo" factor which pervades most of this other work. It is a much dreamier, atmospheric film than his others. It doesn't seem as concerned with scaring as it is with just creeping the hell out of people. Which it does. What is missing is who this guy is. What he's all about, why he's videotaping everything. And maybe a coherent story.

But, holy crap, a movie shot in 8 days! Kudos.


Yes, perhaps there is some interesting psychological commentary in the movie, but overall it is bizarre, unrewarding, and with no sense of closure. Further, it is not scary in the least. I thought it was supposed to be a horror movie, but it is more like a sterile view of something that could be scary just because of the subject matter, but doesn't come off that way.

I had a pretty hard time watching the whole thing just because it was so boring. I was constantly asking myself if the time I was spending rotting my brain with this movie was better used, say, eating a PB&J sandwich...


If you want to see a movie about things that will happen when you stop taking your medication, then this is a movie to see.

I guess if you think way into things, it is a creepy movie, but just watching it, its not that bad.

I saw it at the NuArt in LA and I really could have waited.

The cinematography was interesting, and the camera was really shaky at times. However, due to the fact that it was filmed in 8 days, I do give them props.

One more thing, the movie tends to drop focus points...and has minimal dialogue.


this movie sucked in every way, thin plot, no character development, flimsy acting, pretentious themes, clumsy production, super-low budget.

nothing at all redemptive except maybe the hot girl and a decent beginning. Its like a watching a mediocre student film that got way too much attention.

This movie is generally so bad one does not know where to begin...

If you watch the director/actor/producer interviews on the DVD you will find out that they shot it over 8 days on break while the director was making ju-on, this makes sense as they spent no time developing this movie and one has to wonder why they bothered at all. It also becomes apparent through the lead actor's (Shinya Tsukamoto) interview that director Shimizu gave his actors little to no direction which he politely (and somewhat embarrassedly) tries to spin as as a good thing but reveals that he (as a director himself) wonders why there was so little thought and effort behind this project. This would explain his totally flat performance (just because the protagonist is alienated doesn't mean you don't have to act)! Producer Takahashi answers this mystery in his interview by revealing that this project was an "experiment"... read low budget throw-away to make a quick buck on his indie brand label. This is all pretense and no follow-through. I am selling my copy on ebay so look for it if you like j-trash.

What a bunch of rubbish... Don't bother wasting any time on this one.


Marebito kicked off the 'Danger After Dark' segment of the Philadelphia Film Festival tonight. I was at the first show, eagerly awaiting a new film by the director of Ju-on. In a short introduction by a festival host, i learned that the film was shot on all digital film in just 8 days immediately after filming The Grudge.

The story of Marebito is quite basic, but the delivery was sloppy at best. The film is split between clean digital film and a very dirty, grainy digital film. The grainy digital is supposed to be the main character's camera that he carries with him. Everything in the film is hand-held and although it gives the film a very realistic quality, the shaky camera gets old quickly. By the end of the film, I had the feeling that this was more of a poor student film, shot on a cheap DV camera with sloppy technique. Also, nearly all of the movie is done through voice over, which seems more than lazy.

Throughout the film, Shimizu misses many opportunities for scary moments or intriguing ideas. He has many interesting things going on like the telepathic homeless man, the Deros, the Underworld, the man on the phone, the fact that Masuoka can see the dead (sometimes? wtf?), his need to murder for 'F', the twelve seconds of missing tape, the smashed camera, the woman in the window, and the wife. However, instead of using each of these elements to their full extent, they are all abandoned in favor of showing 'F' sucking lots of blood. That's pretty much the majority of the film: watching 'F' suck blood with a voice-over. So many intriguing elements were simply forgotten by the director. When the film finally faded to black, I was highly disappointed that absolutely nothing was resolved. Overall, it seems as though this is a film that poses many questions, but offers no answers.


I didn't dislike this film, but also found it to be very slight and very forgettable. In many ways, this film is highly reminiscent of the earlier film, THE GREAT RACE. Both are set in a similar time period, both feature a lot of over-the-top performances and both have a silly musical style about them (though the music in THE ASSASSINATION BUREAU was a lot more annoying--particularly the singing). The film does not take itself very seriously and as comedy, it almost hits the mark. I wonder, though, if this might have been a much more interesting film if it had been done as serious drama instead of kitsch. The basic plot of an international murder for hire organization is pretty intriguing. The problem is, this topic really had very little depth in the film as it was mostly played for laughs. I appreciate the effort, but it just didn't do much for me.


Fairly entertaining, mostly tedious little drama about a man (Steve Railsback) who becomes addicted to cocaine. His wife (Pamela Sue Martin) attempts to help him. Martin is admittedly very good, but the movie itself is only so-so.


I only regret that they don't allow negative ratings on here. Here's my plot spoiler: successful couple, man gets on coke, loses job, does more coke, loses marriage, house, does more coke, loses everything else, does more coke, loses everything else else that wasn't in the first everything else, does more coke... the end. I kept thinking SOMETHING would happen, but no, I was wrong.

I saw this movie when it first came out, over 20 years ago, and have continuously referred to it as the worst movie ever made. I guess I should really see it again to confirm that I still feel that way all these years later, but I'm not willing to go through that ordeal.

Anyone that had anything to do with this movie should be banned from movies or TV or anything else for life. That is all.


Pamela Sue Martin, then part of the acting ensemble on TV's "Dynasty", co-wrote, co-produced and stars in this tatty tale of drug addiction. Martin and Steve Railsback are the loving California couple who are ripped apart by cocaine, but Railsback--a somewhat over-eager actor with wildly active eyes and tics--was fundamentally wrong for the role of an "ordinary" man who gets hooked on coke and loses control (the viewer can easily see Railsback was over-wound to begin with). Martin is a strong, capable actress who should be commended for this attempt to broaden her capabilities, but the film's budget is low and the script, while well-meant, is full of tired clichés (updated clichés for the 1980's). Whatever good will Martin manages to build is mitigated by the pretentious finale, which has to be seen to believed. *1/2 from ****


I'll agree that the movie is indeed awful, but it nevertheless brought a nostalgic smile when I came across the title as I was looking up some information on Ian McShane now that I have caught up on all the Deadwood episodes but still find myself wanting to see more of him. For the odd reason that a high school coach/health teacher back in the 80's (I'll even confess my real age and tell you I was a grad of '89) somehow thought that Torchlight was an effective cautionary tale to warn us away from the evils of drug use. While I am too mature for such pursuits now that I'm a wise adult and, of course, believe that all youngsters should just say no,I'll observe that the movie has an opposite effect to that the coach intended. Sit through more than fifteen minutes of it, and at the very least you'll require a drinking game tied to Pamela Sue's oh-so-impressive emoting for the cameras to make it through the rest.


This movie is so bad it's almost great, on the order of a SHOWGIRLS type fiasco. I recommend finding a copy in some bargain bin or video store and inviting a few sarcastic friends over for lots of laughs. Viewers are supposed to care about the couple (Pamela Sue Martin and Steve Railsback) but the creep-factor is so high whenever Railsback is on screen, it's hard not to shiver with repulsion and fear at him. He looks like he's going to turn into a zombie and eat Pamela Sue's head off at any moment. There is no way anyone like Pamela Sue's sweet and innocent character would get involved with the weirdo Railsback plays! Whoever cast this movie has some 'splainin' to do!

That said, watching the downward spiral of Railsback's character into the drug world is highly entertaining, if only because it brings him into contact with a sweating, primped, slick-haired, and fascinatingly evil Ian McShane. As usual, when McShane is on screen, you cannot take your eyes off him. He plays Railsback's drug contact - and as someone else said - would fit right in as a character in SCARFACE or THE SOPRANOS. He acts everybody out of the water in this one. Mcshane once said he'd 'rather be sh*t in a hit than a hit in sh*t." Unfortunately, he was definitely the latter in TORCHLIGHT!


I don't even need to see it to believe it! The whole Rugrats empire has gone too far. A second movie IS NOT necessary at ALL. Here goes... little scaredy cat Chuckie Finster goes to a wedding and gets depressed that he doesn't have a mom (deceased). A brother of the father Chaz calls up and says there's a malfunction at Euroreptarland (a licensed Japanese Godzilla-type "Reptar" theme park in Paris) and make's a mistake, saying that Chaz can bring family and friends (I don't know why they could have settled it all with a nice, long mini-series). That was the cunning way to a plot of garbage. Chaz had an idea that he could find love in gay [not today's meaning :-P] Pareee. All the babies and company go to Paris and get into a typical Scooby Doo situation (Stupid meddling kids...). Two new characters come into view, a new Rugrat, Kimi, and the step-mother of Chuckie, which has yet to be determined. They make a big deal about a minor character instead of a new Rugrat. But hey, I'm only a 12-year-old who loathes many popular cartoons (Pokédie!)) A Rugrats movie is the way to introduce a new character to the show (miniseries...). They have also stereotyped the French enough to call it discrimination. Streetside cafés, monuments (like the dog doing his busines on the Eiffel Tower, ala Big Daddy), the language (like saying Oui, Oui meaning an amber bodily waste), their fashions and appearances, food, etc. etc. What the $%#@ did Nickelodeon do to them? Infiniti thumbs Way, Way DOWN!


I hated this film. I was forced to go watch it with some friends that hate me now because they heard me sware. Doesn't this crap ever get old Nickolodeon. Nickolodeon really needs to bring back Ren & Stimpy real bad. Nicktoons is dieing off now and thats a good thing because nicktoons disirves to die for banning Ren & Stimpy. That was down right cold man. So avoid this movie with all you got. I'm not saying this movie is bad because they banned Ren & Stimpy. NO that's only half of it. There cartoons are just plain old crap now. Even back then I actually didn't mind the rugrats. I would rather watch the grass grow for the next 4 years than have to watch this again.


I loved the first couple of seasons of the TV show and I love Paris! So I thought this would be great fun -- afterall I could imagine the kids getting lost in the Louvre, or dangling over the edge of the Eifel Tower, or falling off a bridge and onto one of the tour boats on the river, etc. But, this film takes place in a pseudo-Tokyo theme park named EuroReptarLand (can you say EuroDisney?) There's jokes about sushi, not escargot, sumo wrestlers as waiters and floor show entertainers, and some ripoffs of the "Lady And The Tramp" film, etc. All in all, a huge disappointment.


I saw this movie and it really is not great! The music is great, but the plot sucks! Save your money, and just buy the only thing thats good about the movie: THE SOUNDTRACK! P.S. Keep in mind I am A Rugrats fan!


Living up to the excellence of Shusuke Kaneko's Death Note films was always going to be a daunting task. The makers of this film responded to this challenge by avoiding it.

The film's prominent ties to its predecessors, most notably the inclusion of several characters and events from them, are entirely superficial, and I was left with the distinct impression that Nakata's primary desire was to make a bioterrorism thriller, with the Death Note movies and the character of L serving merely as convenient springboards.

After going to the trouble of hiring several actors to reprise their roles, (Such as Erika Toda as Misa, Asaka Seto as Naomi Misora, and Shunji Fujimura) their characters are criminally underused. This is not just lazy, it is cruel. It's the equivalent of dangling food in front of a starving dog only to pull it away after only letting them lick it. Even the unperceptive viewer can tell these are blatant attempts to fake a connection which is essentially nonexistent.

The sheer magnitude of neglected opportunities to capitalise on the wealth of plot and character established by the Death Note films is staggering. A event as stupendous as Kira's reign of death would have a lasting effect on society; the Death Note films show the beginnings of this, with people divided over whether his actions were right, and many supporting him to a religious degree. Yet in L: Change the WorLd, its almost as if none of it had ever happened. Life goes on as usual, with scarcely a mention of the monumental upheaval the world has just undergone. This also could've provided many interesting possibilities, such as the Kira cult becoming involved in the plot, or characters such as Misa and Ryuk playing new roles and continuing to develop. Apparently, Nakata couldn't care less.

What's more, he can't resist falling back on his roots as a horror director, and is determined to scare the audience with the victims of the virus. Unfortunately, the result is corniness rather than adrenaline. The rest if the time, he's either plodding through the drama on autopilot, or inserting light comedy in a haphazard manner.

The writing isn't much better. The script is brimming with trite clichés, yet is oblivious to this and makes no effort to put a fresh spin on them. It has some admirable aspirations, namely its attempts to explore L's human side, and capture the topical issues of terrorism and the Bird Flu/SARS scares in the same way that its prequels addressed justice and the death penalty, but in execution it fails. Overall, it largely plays like amateur fanfiction, overusing the surface strengths of the originals (namely L's eccentricity) while losing its deeper strengths. Interesting ideas are left to rot on a compost heap of generic characters, messy plotting, and lame attempts to emulate the excesses of the typical Hollywood action movie.

To his immense credit, Kenichi Matsuyama lifts L above this malaise and squeezes a river of blood from the stony script in his typically witty and charismatic performance. Once again, he embodies the character down to his finest mannerisms, and makes like he just crept off the set of The Last Name. True, his English skills are modest, but this is actually believable; I met many Japanese people who spoke in this way during my time in Japan.

Sadly, however, much the use of English throughout the film is reminiscent of the Heisei Godzilla series in its grating inanity. Also, the Japanese performances outside of Matsuyama range from decent, (Fukuda Mayuko as Maki) to downright cheesy. (Most of the villains) Even Erika Toda as Misa had none of the spark Kaneko drew out of her in the prequels during her brief cameo.

Even Death Note veteran Kenji Kawai's score, while certainly not bad, is a far cry from his work on the previous films, though largely because he's mostly forcibly limited to low key background music and the long periods of sluggish silence Nakata so adores. He finally finds a chance to shine towards the end, where he provides two impressive pieces; an epic cue that accompanies L's arrival at the climax, and a melancholy piece that fits the fittingly touching conclusion nicely.

Cinematography is also a step down, losing the smooth, rich clarity of the Death Note movies for a dry and altogether bland visual style.

Thankfully it's not all doom and gloom; there's some good apples among the piles of rotten ones. As mentioned previously, the ending is suitably poignant, though the tears it almost brought to my eyes are due primarily to my love of and familiarity with the character. I also laughed aloud at several of L's displays of quirkiness, and flushed with joy at the rare but delicious moments of Death-Note-style "intellectual pwnage." The opening title sequence is slick and classy, capturing the feel of its predecessors wonderfully.

The FX are strong for a Japanese film, and are actually slightly more advanced than those of the first two films. The destruction of the infected village is vivid and impressive, and the practical effects for virus's symptoms are mostly well done. Ryuk's execution via CGI during his brief appearance is about on par with his previous incarnations.

But you know something's wrong when your counting the good moments rather than the bad ones.

In the end, the film's highlights are like sweet chocolate chips in a bitter and mouldy cookie. It succeeds as fanservice and as cold commercial calculation, but fails as art, entertainment, or storytelling. It's an awful shame, because with the ingredients left by its marvellous predecessors, it could have been truly great.


I'm sure everyone agrees that L was by far the more interesting character in the Death Note movies, thanks to a charmingly weird geek-cool performance from Kenichi Matsuyama, possibly channelling Johnny Depp. As such you can't blame the producers for giving him his own spin-off/sequel... only for making it so bad.

The problem, in a nutshell, is that the writers have missed the point on practically everything that made the Death Note films interesting. The intriguing mystical lore about the Death Notes and their keepers is all forgotten about, which is probably better than trying to contrive some re-entrance for them - except that it's replaced by a feeble pseudo-science deadly virus tale that even the cheesiest of direct-to-video American films would be ashamed of. The high level mind games that drove the plot of DN are almost entirely gone - L's opponents are a dim-witted bunch, and in their place is a countdown to destruction and an entirely unforgivable attempt at an action-packed finale. Ugh.

Worst of all, they decided that what L really needed was humanising - to whit, a back-story that reveals him to be part of an alphabetically codenamed secret organisation fighting crime under the stewardship of Watari, and a plot that leaves him taking care of two young children for most of the film. Matsuyama tries his best, and his presentation of L still manages to be simultaneously super-cool and super-cute, but there's only so much he can do with the ill-conceived storyline and juvenile scripting. There are some moments that do work, but they are in a minority. Worth seeing if you enjoyed the Death Note films, just to tie things up, but set your expectations for it several notches down.


I haven't read the manga series, but I really enjoyed the two Death Note movies. L for me, was an interesting character, however, I was very skeptic to how this movie could possibly work, since a super-weird character like him usually only work in smaller roles, and the mysteriousness was the underlying charm of L in those two movies. I had an extremely low expectation in this film, and to my surprise, it was even worse than what I had imagined.

First of all... the story is absolutely worthless. It's something you would expect from a Hollywood B-movie or a low budget made-for-TV movie. The original series had been an exciting cat-and-mouse game of wits and deception. Even if they didn't want to re-use the Death Note, battle of wits is vital to the success of a movie like this, and for a character like L to reach full potential. This on the other hand, was L in a MIB ripoff organization in a cheesy biohazard plot with really dumb villains. As if that alone wasn't enough, they also added typical Japanese corniness: psychotic killers with environmental nonsense ideology and how the entire human race should be purged.

Horrible overacting by the supporting cast and poor direction didn't help. This was not a movie meant to be directed by a horror movie director. That "death in the lab" scene was totally corny, and the director kept trying to make Maki, the little girl, seem like a child psycho killer you would see in horror movies, and it was totally unconvincing and stupid. Fukuda Mayuko, who played Maki is an extremely talented up-and-coming actress, and I am very upset this director put her through a crap role like this.

I loved the final scene where L attempts to stand up straight since he found a new hope in life and wanted to live longer, and I can tell Matsuyama Kenichi tried really hard in this movie. He did great job. But "no matter how gifted, one cannot change the world alone", he couldn't save this movie alone.


This is movie is extremely average with nothing much in it. It's trying to use the success of Death Note to try to sell itself.

I had already read and heard reviews for this movie being horrible. So I had very very very low expectations in this one. But the problem is when you see L , you really start expecting something smart, something intelligent. And you get highly disappointed :-( If they had made this movie without the Death Note characters , it would have be a bad movie. But using the same characters is even worse, as you tend to expect them to do their regular bit. Believe me, when you see L on the screen, you will start thinking that he is upto something, or he will come out with something smart and surprising. But no .. nothing like that at all.

That is the reason why I gave it a 4. Unlike the earlier Death Notes :

* there is hardly a plot

* no brilliant moment at all in the movie

* it goes a little sentimental at times

* lines of L are very often useless

* there is no Ryuk

* there is no Light Yagami

* emotional side of L is seen as he gets along with 2 children

In fact, I am going to stop talking about this movie at all. I'd like to mention at this point , that Death Note 1 and 2 were simply awesome !!!


I Liked "Death Note I/II" too much, both at conceptual level as well as executional level thus as soon as I saw the poster, I grabbed the movie. However, this movie was a disappointment to me as it laked all the good things of Death Notes movies such as tight paced plot, adequate and intriguing twists n turns, the mental battle between Kira and L and the Reaper....

For the starters, movie plot involves the last 23 days of legendary L as he tries to battle out a group of environmentalists whose plan is to make world a better place for living by spreading a deadly Virus (mixture of Ebola and Influenza virus) and thus reducing the size of ecological footprint of mankind by reducing the number of living people rather than researching new energy efficient technologies etc. Wow! what a bunch of green crusaders who do good by killing people (have not they thought of any thing else???) However, L successfully saves the day with the help of a small maths genius and a not-so-small daughter of an virologist. Though L tries to pull out the old charm but most of his acting is focused on acting goofy (read here, eating so nonstoppingly that makes the average viewer nauseating, and sit, walk and type with such an awkward body postures and movement that merely watching them, hurts).

Another dampener is that there is no one intelligent enough to stretch L's mental abilities to the last point (as Kira did earlier) rather here L acts more like anyone secret service agents (he even throws something to save the lil kid in the movie). However the makers of this spin off must have forgotten that if it is any other secret service agent movie than please there are better options than watching almost physically disabled L. So in the end, it is a movie with a hole ridden plot that dwells more on mannerism of L rather than a good storyline.

Come on Guys, Bring Kira Back Please and please Bring the Old L back, at least one more time.


This film had f**k all to do with Death Note whatsoever. It felt like they just slotted a few of the characters and a few references into a completely unrelated script. If they'd have treated the movie separately it might have been better but as it stands it's just a blatant excuse to cash in on the good will generated by the first 2 Death Note movies which I thought were excellent....

It's a shame because I like the director, Hideo Nakata, I thought the Ring movies were great, even the US remakes were alright and the direction here is not the problem. The problem is branding the whole thing to rope in an established audience to generate some cash....

Come on, please don't treat your punters with such disrespect....

Now, I have nothing more to say on the subject, thank you move along.......


One may thing that under the eye of a new Director, the Death Note films may have a fresh new start.

Unfortunately no. This one is even longer and even more stupid.

Adding violence and poor English is not how to spice things up. Neither is making a stupid plot involving L's CRAZZZYYYY adventure that happens within 21 days.

Will someone please adapt this into a TV SERIES.

The DN universe cannot be contained to a movies, this is the final nail in the coffin,

Pass this one up.


OK I was devastated after I had watched this movie. I wanna run to the box-office and take back my money. What an overrated movie! There are countless of unrelated stuffs putting together. The FBI agent appeared out of nowhere. He even knew where L is and came to help(?).L trusted him(?) The REAL L would never trust an unidentified person like that. N solved a geometry problem and the answer is the plague's solution. Where he got that geometry problem? Why L didn't contact Raito's dad? Raito's dad would help, I am sure.

The acting is terrible. When F reported to L the situation at Thailand, he spoke English. If u notice, he was about to laugh (?) Even a non-native English speaker can realize the actors are speaking crappy English. Their English speaking is worse than my 16 years old brother. If the actors can not speak excellent English, please speak Japanese.

I have admired the superb L in Deathnote. His smart, his talent, his calmness are totally distinctive. However, in this movie, L solved the problem physically (?). He had to receive the help of the others to solve the problems. He never noticed why the girl's Dad ( I forgot her name, but she's one of the 2 children) asked her to do homework everyday and the homework was odd. Even the female doctor ( one of the villain in the movie) discovered that the homework is unusual at the first glance( why, L! u're stupid) Notice it again, L & N communicate through English. Becuz N is Thai. OK, that's fine. But why sometimes L speaks Japanese to the boy and he still understands (?) ( another wtf!).

The jokes are too lame and similar to many movies. That's why if its funny, I can not laugh, because that kind of jokes appeared too much in movies.

In the end, the villains died by themselves. So far, the greatest success of L is stop the airplane ( oh I remembered there is one time he showed his intelligence. It was when he noticed the co-writer's name in a dictionary. But yes, there is only one time). I have seen too many of airplane accidents in movies where our main characters always stop the airplanes not being crashed at the end. Lame storyline.

wtf is that huge title "L CHANGE THE WORLD". What change? Who change? L ? Everything Kenichi Matsuyama did is act cute. I don't have any problem with him acting L's distinctive style. I have problem with him spend too much time acting super cute in the movie. What for? The movie should change the title like "L's cuteness". "CHANGE THE WORLD" is a big word and doesn't suit with this time-consuming movie. The title acts like a window-dressing and nothing else.

On the final note, this movie is for those who love a cute and brainless L. For fans of the REAL L, u should watch it in a boring Sunday. Don't expect in it too much, and don't be deceived by the title. The world is still rotten after this movie.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This is exactly what you'd expect if you gave some thick teenage boys the money to make their own film - lots of pointless violent scenes, childish sex scenes, shallow characters and the simplest story possible. Oh yes, and there's a highly original gun battle scene near the end where the hero is alone and kills about a dozen adversaries. The original bit is that all their bullets somehow miss him completely, but he manages to shoot them all dead. Inspired, eh?


Yesterday I bought this DVD on sale in Blockbuster (Rio de Janeiro). The price was less than US$ 4,00 for an used DVD (called "previously seen"), which is very cheap for Brazilian usual prices. Unfortunately, I have just watched 10 minutes of the awfullest movie I have ever tried to see. Simply unbelievable how a producer can put his or her money in such a flick. Further, why the Brazilian distributor Europa bought such a garbage to distribute in Brazil? Meanwhile, in Brazil we have many important movies that have not been released on video or DVD, such as the work of Yasujito Ozu or "Fahrenheit 451" of Truffault. I saw another brave IMDb user that was capable of watching 30 minutes of this trash, and I would like to congratulate him for his courage. I would like to indicate this flick to "The Jerk of the Daily Votes". My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Retrograde"


What's not to dislike? From the mega-cheap production values, to the terrible performances (the non-European accents -- and stereotypes -- are the worst), it's infinitely awful. They might have considered reading an actual book about Antarctica, that might have helped the script although I doubt anything outside of burning it would have prevented this abomination on film. In Antarctica, you simply can't physically do 75% of what they showed characters doing. It's not just a really, really cold place. When Dolph Lungren is your star performer, you have a serious problem from the start. They couldn't even agree upon the time of day (when in doubt, take wristwatches off your performers and off the walls of the sets.


Dolph Lundgren vehicles have hit DVD every spring for the last few years. Apparently they have done well enough that some studio finally snagged this sci-fi time travel flick that has been sitting on the shelf since completion in 2003. John Foster (Lundgren) pilots a space craft from 2204 back to the 21rst century with the crew's mission to stop scientists from discovering plague carrying meteorites in Antarctica. Naturally, there are traitors on board who want to alter the future for their own personal gains and it is up to Dolph to stop them. This is pretty bad, thanks mostly to the flat direction by Christopher Kulikowski. The guy has no concept on how to stage or film a fight scene. And who casts martial artist Gary Daniels and doesn't give him a big fight scene? Even more disappointing when you see former PM Entertainment exec Joseph Merhi is a producer on this. The acting is uniformly bad with Joe Sagal (as a rich dude funding the scientific expedition) and Ken Samuels (as the boat captain) being the stand outs. Seriously, how do guys this bad get cast and maintain some semblance of a career? One has to wonder if working with such a poor director is what finally made Dolph decide to step behind the camera (his directorial debut was the film made right after this). He has directed 4 films since RETROGRADE and the three I've seen have been infinitely more entertaining than this.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Dolph Lundgren plays a captain called John Foster in this DVD sci-fi film, who's also one of a select group of people in 2209 Los Angeles who is 'genetically unique' and has an immune system that can fend off the effects of a deadly bacteria which has come off some meteorites that have crashed on earth and caused death and disease amongst the people. He has a spaceship that can travel back in time and stop the meteors from crash landing but on his way some mutinous members of his crew attempt to take over and control history for themselves. In the struggle, Dolph winds up in the past in Antarctica where the ship that will cause the disaster is located. But as he liaises with the captain of the ship and the crew members, forces are at work that are out to get him.

Even by Dolph's standards, Retrograde is seriously bargain basement so it's best enjoyed on a strictly trashy, campy fun level. This is a film so ultra low budget and cheap looking it makes Fortress 2 look like Independence Day, with sets and props so unconvincing you feel as though you could better them with items from your own back yard. With the budget constraints showing on screen, it's not surprising that the cast aren't exactly top quality either, with a truly horrendous no name supporting cast delivering some truly laughable, awful performances. Even Dolph isn't exactly putting his heart into it, and with so little encouragement around him, who could blame him? With all this going on, it would help if there was an exciting, fast paced story to get into with Dolph doing everything he can to liven the action scenes up, but this fails even in this department, with a slow, meandering story with a pace that seriously drags in parts.

Retrograde gets everything right by doing everything wrong. It's a film that's best enjoyed on a trashy 'so bad it's good' level. Go in expecting a film of The Punisher or Universal Soldier quality and you're going to come away miffed. **


I do not rate a movie a "1" unless it is *offensively* bad, and trust me, this one qualifies.

The writing, directing, and editing are comically horrid; many scenes are so badly done that you break out laughing, and no, it's not intentional! Washed-up Dolph is not being paid enough here to even pretend to act, and none of the other actors are helping.

The only thing that is half-decent is the special effects, or rather, the sci-fi bits from the future, and the passable intro with the meteors hurtling through space and plunging into the Earth.

Everything else about this movie is a total loss and a total waste of life. Don't bother. Please.


I'm not sure, if I can write a review of this movie. But still I'll try. First: I watched about 30 minutes of it. I couldn't watch any longer. Second: it's terrible. For everyone who's gonna see it anyway, I must say: The movie has very low-budget special effects & very bad acting (just awful). When I say very low-budget I mean VERY-VERY cheap. I've seen video games with better computer graphics. The acting I'm not sure anymore, if this is the guy who acted in Universal Soldier or Punisher. This is not even acting. It's like a school performance And I'm not talking about such things like fights or shootings in this movie - no comments. There is scene in Retrograde where all characters in a spaceship fell on the floor because of the spaceship's twisting... In space!!!! Just think about it So that's what I can say about first 30 minutes of this film. You may consider it as review of Retrograde's first 30 minutes. 1 of 10.


I've never read the manga, but since Death Note was so hyped in Japan I thought I'd give it a chance. After all the concept of the movie is quite interesting. However, I was completely disappointed. Maybe I should have read the manga after all, because after reading other reviews I think a lot of blame for this poor film goes to the director and screen writer of the film. There is lack of character development in many of the minor yet important characters. The main characters don't provoke much feeling as well. Luke (aka death) is an annoying character created to be comic relief (doesn't work) and an excuse for adding computer graphics, but instead becomes an eye sore. After having read that the girlfriend doesn't exist in the manga I don't really see the need to have added her to the movie since her character is completely insipid. The climax scene in which she is in would have been more engaging if I actually cared for her character. Furthermore, the scenes are predictable and cliché as well, which is frustrating. The acting was mediocre, but I place blame on the director for that since the directing is just plain bad. There is a lot that happens in this movie that has little or poorly thought out explanation (like the climax), making most of it unbelievable. The biggest disappointment is that there was so much potential for this movie. However, just wanting to make a quick buck off the manga is the obvious purpose for making the film.


Wow, this movie was REALLY bad. I only wish I had seen it more recently so I could write down everything that bothered me. I think the biggest problem was Light. He's supposed to be tall, handsome and a complete sociopath. Something that Shuya can't manage to pull off- he's short, whiny, and seems to have an acne problem. I don't think I've ever seen a character so miscast in my life. On the plus side the actor who played L was excellent, certainly the only enjoyable thing in this movie. Also the CGI for Ryuk was very good, which means a lot because CGI always pisses me off (it always looks too fake for me). Basically, this movie raped the manga. Although it would still be a terrible movie even if you have no idea what Death Note is. You'd be much better off seeing the anime (which is excellent) or maybe watching "L" when it comes out next year, because the same actor is in it. And because Shuya isn't.


As a massive fan of the manga i very much looked forward to watching this - i am disappointed. Although some of the themes are still maintained much of the story has been decimated. This isn't the type of story that you can pick and choose what works, it must fit together. Neither Raito or L show any sense of real justice or intellect which are the two characteristics that make their relationship and conflicts so interesting. Raitos cautious nature has been completely ignored with him blatantly bringing out his deathnote in a crowd full of people to write names in it in the very first scene showing him! It does not do justice to the original manga and all i have to say to anyone who is disappointed with the obvious flaws in this - please see the manga for yourself before making judgements on this great story.


This film is about a milkman being chosen to stand in in the world championship boxing fight.

The dialogs are bad. The acting is so over the top. In every single scene, things are done in such an exaggerated way that it becomes unbelievable. The plot is ridiculous that only a kid would find it interesting. The jokes are not even funny. The only entertaining scene in the film is the performance of a hip hop version of the British national anthem, which is actually rather good. It goes down as an embarrassment to Orlando Bloom's portfolio. This film is so ridiculous that it is no wonder that it is not surprise that it went straight to DVD in most countries.


I was disappointed by this film. Consindering that it was from 2003 I don't understand why a star like bloom would ever agree to such a script. Maybe it was the directors fault but I really didn't like the acting, and I've seen what bloom can do "kingdom of heaven" and this was nothing.

The story was lacking, the acting not very convincing and I really did not feel for this film. Bought it, and probably wont see it again unless I got serious hangovers and already have seen all the good stuff.

Orlando was very childes and the performance didn't look whole hearted. Some of the supporting acting was okay.


What the hell is the matter with this movie? Firstly, I've seen some bad Orlando Bloom films, but this one just takes the mick. His accent is simply terrible. The jokes in this film are pathetic. I wanted to cry at the embarrassment of this film. I just don't get how people think that it is even remotely good. After the first 10 minutes (which included Mr Bloom feeling himself up in his bed) I just couldn't stand much more. I don't see how anybody can sit through this movie, even if it does have a popular heart-throb (although horrendous actor) Orlando in it, it's just a very very badly made and badly acted film.

Shame on you.


The Calcium kid is about as bad as they get. The script is full of holes and aside from simply not making much sense, tends to do that thing where in order for plot twists to work everyone would have to be a complete idiot. The jokes, if that is what they were meant to be, are like beached dead jelly fish - lifeless and limp. The characters are annoying enough that you'll be reaching for the remote to fast forward through various scenes - once the originality of their British accents loses its appeal. The writer obviously equated - greedy, annoying == funny. Which, it doesn't. There is a reason why you didn't see this one at the movies.


I realize this show is a reality joke that is meant to be funny... however what bothers me is that Kenny cheats in every competition. While this makes for funny TV (sometimes) after 2 or 3 episodes it becomes completely expected by the viewer. So why does Spencer not realize Kenny is cheating in every competition? Honestly, if Kenny did not cheat I would be surprised. So how can all of the competitions be taken seriously? Kenny has staged each one to his advantage and it takes away from the funny random reality show it should be. It is almost a complete insult to viewers to expect us to think that Spencer does not expect Kenny to cheat every single episode.


Yes, this film really was made!

Get out your house-sized grain of salt! Basically, a satellite emplacement goes awry because the satellite collides with an alien spaceship running on autopilot and bound for an automated landing on earth. A pair of shuttle pilots witness the event and, predictably, a government cover-up ensues which attempts to cast blame on the astronauts themselves. The alien ship lands and is dragged off for investigation in the infamous Hanger 18. NASA, the military and the US government then all have to figure out what to do about it.

While the plot is admittedly silly, the dialog sometimes ridiculous, and the characters sort of one-dimensional, the screenwriters did a decent job of pacing and developing and telling the story. There are only a few entirely absurd parts. For example - while on the run, Gary Collins seems, under any circumstances, to be able to find a car with keys in the ignition and an owner who doesn't really care if he steals it. And almost every single scene in the film has two people in it.

While not exactly gripping or engaging, this is an entertaining little film to be viewed after midnight on any sleepless weeknight. Hanger 18 is slightly more credible than most X-Files episodes and slightly less well-scripted and shot. Performances are mostly fairly good, but Darren McGavin painfully over-acts most of his scenes and the number of hypertensive yelling and fist pounding scenes by the entire cast really detracts from the overall experience in a big way. Perhaps the director had a troubled childhood or just kept a too-large pot of coffee available on the set at all times. We'll probably never know. But I know that I can rate this one "somewhat more entertaining than most X-Files episodes" which, unfortunately, is more of a comment on the X-Files than this movie.