1st watched 5/8/2005 - 4 out of 10(Dir-James L. Conway): Supposedly truth-inspired story about the US hiding information about a captured UFO being in it's midst. The problem here is that if this is really true we'd know a lot more about what they found out, unless you believe that politicians are more interested in themselves than the history of mankind as we know it.(OK, so that's not a complete stretch) Anyway, I digress. The story is played well by the actor's involved which include Gary Collins, James Hampton and Darren McGavin(in a somewhat hammy portrayal of a NASA man almost "giddy" about the discovery). The Astronauts witness a UFO, it gets shot by a launched satellite and a remnant falls to earth. That remnant is captured by a government and a secret investigation ensues. The astronauts on board are kept out of the loop and even blamed for the incident and the death of a co-pilot, and they begin a quest to find out what's going on. The action is watchable but we can see what's going to happen as the government gets a tighter reign on concealing the information. This movie was definitely inspired by the "Chariots of the God" type movies with a little bit of the National Enquirer and this is where it fails. And definitely, with it's open-ended finale it's even harder to believe. As entertainment, it's OK; as truth, it's suspect at best.


Hilarious early 80s cheese fest, worthy of the MST3K treatment that this masterpiece garnered. I watched this in the early days of cable so it has a certain nostalgia; it truly is amazing how these brilliant and tiny number of scientists can swiftly interpret the data at hand to come up with staggering conclusions to reshape mankind as we know it. Truly stupendous. A must for conspiracy theorists and fans of ultra cheesy sci fi. As movie critic Leonard Maltin stated: "Clickly made, but about as credible as the three stooges in outer space." I loved that line. As for the movie, it has a spot on my list of guilty pleasures.


One could be forgiven for thinking this is a TVM . It features two actors , Robert Vaughn and Darren McGavin , who are better known for their TV roles , and HANGAR 18, s production values resemble those seen in TVMs . Surprising to believe that this film received a much hyped cinema release .

Production values aside HANGAR 18 is a rather dreary film script wise . The urban myth that the US government is hiding evidence that planet Earth has been visited by alien life forms and that the government will stop at nothing to silence anyone uncovering the facts isn`t too well developed . THE X-FILES would later cover the same territory and do it a whole lot better


Hangar 18 stars Gary Collins as one of three shuttle astronauts who see a UFO in space while attempting to launch a satellite. The satellite hits the ship, killing one of the astronauts. The UFO then crash lands in the Arizona desert where our government picks it up and takes it to Hangar 18 for analysis.

Robert Vaughn, who hasn't looked this good since "Teenage Caveman", plays the White House aide who thinks the government needs to keep Collins away from the UFO since the president's re-election is on the line. Why this is the basis for the plot escapes me. This isn't a conspiracy insomuch as it is a flimsy reason to have car and plane crashes, aliens, and a wild cross-polinization of species theory all in the same movie.

Any government that could let Gary Collins live through an entire movie just has to be full of idiots. Plus, when you have Darren "Carl Kolchak" McGavin studying the aliens, one can only envision Christopher Lloyd getting his inspiration for "Back to the Future", and that's not a good thing.

The sad thing is that the ending of the movie is set up about halfway through. But, the whole movie is like that. You know who's going to die, and when. The movie has plot holes large enough for the Rockettes to dance through.

Sterno says let James Hetfield of Metallica beat this Hangar 18 with his guitar.


A mediocre film, rather predictable film, not helped by lazy imagineering work on the spoken form of the alien language - it consists simply of lists of Swahili words read from a phrasebook, and distorted by some kind of vocoder. Plain to anyone who knows the language.


You know how you bite into a chocolate candy and expect a nice caramel or nougat center and instead get a mouthful of dates or macadamia nuts, the ones you hate? "Hangar 18" is like that.

I was a young teen when I saw this but was still on a high from "Star Wars". Watching this film, I was excited by the spaceship and all the neat gadgets and doo-dads in the discovered spaceship in that mythical hangar. I was expecting something really phenomenal behind the controls.

The men searching the craft come to the pilot's section and find....

Two overweight guys in black leather and bald heads with glazed-over cat's eyes sitting in leather swivel chairs.

I cannot tell you how huge a letdown that was. Especially for a teenager.

The rest of the movie was nothing more than the government suppressing the information and hunting down the unfortunate men who found the ship, so they won't tell everyone "something is out there...".

I have held a grudge against Sunn International Pictures ever since. How dare them.

TIDBIT - Campanella and Pankin, who appear in "Hangar 18", also starred in "Earthbound", another movie on the same sci-fi tangent released a year later by Sunn International. They must have owed someone BIG TIME.

One star. Trust no one involved in this movie.


Chuck Jones's 'Old Glory' is an totally serious Warner Bros. cartoon which typifies Jones's early attempts to emulate Disney in its cutesy approach. Longer than the average Warner cartoon, 'Old Glory' is also notable for its complete lack of gags. A patriotic message cartoon, it features an apple-cheeked Porky Pig as a schoolboy who is bored by his attempts to learn the pledge of allegiance until the ghost of Uncle Sam explains why it is so important. Cue lots of rotoscoped animation of American history. Hardly the recipe for a laugh riot, 'Old Glory' doesn't even try to tickle our funny bone, aiming instead for a rousing effect. Being neither American or particularly patriotic, 'Old Glory' was never going to have much of an effect on me and, while I do recognise it as a handsome piece of animation, it's a misfire in the entertainment stakes. Jones would later make some far stronger patriotic propaganda films that managed to be both informative and entertaining (the wonderful 'So Much for So Little' for example) but 'Old Glory' always leaves me yelling "For the love of god, somebody drop an anvil"!


This is one of those Looney Tunes cartoons used by Warner Brothers not mainly to entertain kids, but to educate them about the USA. In other words: Tell the children how good and brilliant and important the USA is and how many good and brave people died for 'this great country'. This is why Uncle Sam tells a dreaming Porky Pig to learn his Pledge of Allegiance. That's obviously the educational part of this 9-minutes long film, logically would be to start with the entertaining/funny things now, but in 'Old Glory' there is no fun. There isn't even an attempt made to be funny! As if the creators forgot that Looney Tunes cartoons are supposed to be witty or spoofing or something, but this particular one is tasteless in it's lack of entertainment what so ever!

In the era this little film was made, it wasn't unusual to promote the greatness and beauty of the USA or to make the USA-enemies look dumb/stupid. For instance in 'Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips' (1944) Bugs blows up several Japanese with exploding ice-cream! This all happened during the Second World War and although it's immoral to influence children the way it's done in this cartoons (and other Looney Tuners), you have to admit it's smart to use the Looney Tunes for this purpose. The cartoons are funny ('Old Glory' being the exception to this rule) and kids (and adults as well) adore Bugs, Daffy, Porky and all the others.

And that is why we see Porky Pig in 'Old Glory' studying and dreaming of the greatness of his country. With Uncle Sam explaining him (and the unknowing little viewers) all about how important loving the USA is. In an immoral, joke-less, spoof-less, un-witty cartoon.


Director Stuart Rosenberg was so dismayed when he surveyed the finished film that he had his name taken off the credits. That should warn you just how bad this cheesy 80s action movie is. But on a certain level, there's a weird, voyeuristic pleasure to be gained from seeing so many good actors struggling with such awful material. Why is a personable leading man like Mark Harmon wasting his time in a badly-written glorified cameo? Why is a rugged, reliable old-timer like Ben Johnson slumming as an embittered father? And - biggest question of the lot - why is a dynamic, Oscar-winning talent as notable as Robert Duvall staining his amazing reputation on such a brainless, gung-ho production?

 Harry (Harmon) is an American plumber who has just spent several months working in Colombia on an ambitious major water-plant. The day he is due to return home, he is kidnapped by jungle guerillas who say they will only return him safely if some of their colleagues are released by the American authorities. Since the Americans have no intention of meeting the kidnappers' demands, things look pretty bleak for Harry. Harry's brother can't bear the thought of losing his beloved sibling, so he hires a tough mercenary, Shrike (Duvall), and puts together an unlikely rescue team. Their mission, plain and simple: "Let's Get Harry!"

 Coming hot on the heels of other rescue-in-the-jungle films (like Uncommon Valor, Missing in Action, P.O.W - The Escape, and Rambo), Let's Get Harry tries to be different by going for a South American locale instead of Vietnam. However, the story is utterly terrible, with totally unbelievable characters and situations, and an unhealthy attitude towards non-US citizens (who are here portrayed as corrupt, devious, violent, drug-fuelled and expendable). Other than Duvall, the performances are lazy and amateurish. Some reviewers would argue that I'm missing the point, and that the plot and characters have been intentionally sacrificed in the name of cheesy action - but the action is so intermittent (not to mention poorly filmed) that the film is a failure even on "mindless-adventure-movie" level. All things considered, Let's Get Harry can be summed up in three words: bad, bad bad!


There are some films that you wonder what the actors were thinking and whether their careers will be irreparably damaged by the poor, B- quality. With a cast like Robert Duvall, Busey and Harmon, you expect no less than average medicrioty. I should have known when I saw Glenn Frey of the Eagles listed as one of the cast.

This is a lazy effort which is not at all credible and that is the film's problem. The characters go into dangerous territories without the fear that would be natural and go around shooting in movieland. Some of the shootouts are downright hysterically bad B-movie and it's like there was a discount at 7/11 for the six pack of the "let's have the bad guys get shot and fall down off a ledge" package. Their clothes weren't right for an "expedition" of this nature. The dialogue was not natural.

In his defense, Duvall does all that he can with his character. He oozes charm. Busey acts like a Bucktoothed third rate actor here with the entire film quality feeling like a lesser Jean Claude Van Damme effort -- and that's not good.

Fortunately I only saw snippets of this film because it became just too stupid to watch. One scene, not a spoiler, shows Duvall's character trying to negotiate a flight while much grass is being unloaded. One of his "party" has a problem with the illegality that is going on. It is not only out of place for this kind of stupid morality statement (hey, they have submachine guns and are supposedly ruthless and will kill you in a moment) but the resulting dialogue is laughable.

If you just want a shoot em up, let's go get em type film, irrespective of any reality check, go for it. The other reviewers were not too harsh in nailing this film to the wall.


In Columbia two Americans get kidnapped. One is the US ambassador and the other a plumber named Harry Burck ( Mark Harmon ) from a small town in Illinois. They are kidnapped by a drug-lord who wants some of his men released from a US jail. Harry's friends go to Washington to try and get the government to do something about it. They are stone-walled. Desperate they hire a mercenary ( Robert Duvall ) and head for Columbia to Harry's rescue! Daft idea huh? Yep. But our brave American heroes are determined to save their friend! It could have been a nice action-movie, but it's pretty bad acted and executed. Most actors are sleepwalking. Only Duvall and Gary Busey give slightly inspired performances. Can't really blame the actors though for this is terribly bad written with no logic or interesting dialog at all. Waste of time I'd say.


this is just another movie about the evil Colombian guerrillas and the brave American heroes. bloody as it can be the movie only portraits the "bad" part of a beautiful country. I don't think it is well done as a movie or that it shows in anyway the reality of a country like Colombia which, constantly improves and shows to be winning the fight against terrorism and drug dealers. I also find it extremely utopic and epic, yet it is your choice to watch it or not. The whole movie revolves around friendship, but it shows a lot more than that. Just know that Hollywood is not showing the reality of those third world countries and that those kind of movies offend many people around the world.


Yes, it's a real Alan Smithee film, and it's pretty obvious why Stuart Rosenberg did not want to be associated with this dud. Basically an opportunity for pure hearted Young White Americans to pound the bejesus out of filthy Brown Skinned Drug Dealers, this Reaganesque paean to Manifest Destiny is boring and offensive. Avoid at all costs, unless you're a member of Aryan Nation.


Alright, three people have actually left positive reviews for this movie, and you can rest assured it was probably the director, the producer, and his wife. I suppose it's up to me to set the record straight. This movie is a piece of garbage. (You might suspect this from the fact that only 80 people have bothered rating it in the last 10 years)

I'm not sure if this movie was the final nail in the long overdue coffin of Molly Ringwald, or just one of the many stepping stones in that direction. The main character, played by that guy who played the android in Aliens, has acting talent, but he's been set adrift in a sea of poor writing and poor supporting cast. No man is an island, and one actor can't pull off a whole movie by himself.

The premise, as I remember it, is that Molly Ringwald's character has run away to the desert with her (REALLY painfully acted) loser boyfriend, who has 'accidentally' shot a drug dealer. Our ex-android friend is the hired killer sent to even up for the bad guys, and there's also a lot of time wasted on another character who is Molly Ringwald's (ex?) husband, who she doesn't want much to do with initially, and who can blame her, since this guy's an even worse actor than she is!

There's relatively little action and no tension here, for a movie (kind of, maybe) about a hired killer. Most of the time is spent on listless acting, poorly delivered dialog and scenes meant to show how quirky and bizarre the personality of the hired killer is. And the killer is quirky, but so what? So is the drunk bum on the street mumbling to himself, and I didn't have to pay 5 bucks to watch.


When I heard about STANDER and saw clips from it and the reviews were mostly positive, I really wanted to see it. Unfortunately, once I got my hands on the DVD and watched it, I was totally disappointed.

I don't know all the details about the real Stander but the attempt to make him look like some sort of Robin Hood of South Africa were superficial. It's hard to empathize with a thief who, no matter how much he actually helped blacks, lived in wealth and loved to live the high life. Humble he wasn't. The script is based on a true story and again one wonders were the truth begins and were creative licences were made to make the story more exciting. In the end, I feel like I know as much about Stander now as I knew before I even heard of him, which just shows you how pointless this film was.

The big problem with STANDER are the cold, distant characters. No amount of stylish film-making can overcome a story with characters you just don't care about.


An independent "gay indie" film it might be, (Why was it Black & White?) but 'The Toilers and the Wayfarers' was really hard to watch. Even at just 76 minutes, I found myself hoping it was over all the way through. It was as if it were filmed in Germany, and the only exposure to "American Culture" was American TV or movies, as all the stereotypes were out in full force, as were homosexual/racial slurs. It was a nice first effort, I suppose, but so many scenes didn't mesh well with each other and apparently everyone speaks German. I guess that's good for the characters that either speak fluent German or only German. Personally, I've only met a few people in my entire life that spoke German, and here, everyone on the street speaks it. (Another reason, it feels like it was filmed overseas and played off like it was America. The spoken English feels so, well "dubbed.") It goes in so many directions, it's hard to describe, but one story line (of many) involve a teen, Dieter (an "Arch Hall, Jr." of MST3k's 'Eegah' fame) defending his new German-immigrant friend, Udo, from everyone, including everyone who thinks he's gay, especially his newly outed best friend, Phillip. Phillip's so obviously gay, I'm surprised they didn't make Dieter blind as well as just a bad actor. Then, all of a sudden, Dieter himself is gay and Phillip is sick and abruptly abandoned. Maybe he has AIDS or just the flu, we're never sure. (And still, Dieter sleeps with him, throwing caution to the wind  sure he might have used a condom, but protection was never shown.) And story line #56, apparently, Udo is a wanted man  for (???) reasons that might've been in some deleted scenes. The movie was a mess and strongly un-recommended.


The Game RFM is brilliant in graphics and gameplay. the ps3's gears of war...but the game is very racist and insulting to any English man like myself. Monsterouse outbreak spreads round the world gets to Engalnd we can't handle it so Americans save the day.....what aload of bias,racist sh*te now my fellow American cousins reading this you have to understand my concern now if resistance fall of man was set in the US and England came to save the day im sure they would be many complaining (including me i think its bias for both country's both way round) . now it would have been nice if the story writers would have been more considerate and had it like all the world ad been taken over and the US,UK and the USSR joined forces to eradicate and had you fighting in different country's it wouldn't be as insulting to any one would it

Summary: now you can either agree with me (i doubt it) or disagree but at least give it abit of thought before you agree or disagree I've made my review and i stick with it.... Good Graphic Good Gamplay just racist maybe without intent but it still is racist


I am second guessing myself over my "1" rating because I usually reserve 1 for extremely bad movies but I couldn't give this higher than a 1.5. The actors and actresses were all very unattractive which sucked because there was a lot of sexual situations. The actual acting was horrendous. You were always aware that it's just a movie. You never get lost into it like you do a great movie. The special FX were hit and miss but overall OK for a small budget picture. Not quite enough of it to earn the "strong violence/gore" moniker though. The ending was so predictable that it secured a "1" vote. Had the ending been good it would have gotten a "2". Another thing that bugged me was that the premise of the movie was this group of people stuck in a house (which may or may not be haunted) all the while being recorded and streamed on a website. The group had to solve certain clues so it was like a scavenger hunt. It made no sense because it was just a 2 story house. They acted like it was a huge compound. Another huge plot hole was the fact that every time some action happened it was never picked up on the web cam. If the whole premise of the project was to video these people, it seems like they would go to great lengths to ensure that there would be no "blind spots".

Hey don't take my word for it though. Pick up a copy and decide for yourself. Make sure to come back here and review it because it's pretty likely that as soon as I post this, we'll get a few positive ghost reviews by people that worked on it.

Sorry guys, I didn't mean to rag your movie but it wasn't any good.


Playing like a bad mix of 'House on Haunted Hill' and 'Halloween: Resurrection' (yes, worse than 'Halloween: Resurrection'), we follow the story of three couples (including a couple football players, an emo lesbian, and a porn star. . . seriously) who are invited to the former home of amateur mountain climber & psychotic murderer Sean McIntyre (which might be the lamest name for a killer in the history of horror). Why? Because some rich guy (who looks like the prickish lovechild of Eli Roth and Colin Farrell) promised them $5,000 if they'd participate in his live-stream webcast at the haunted house. As expected, the ghost of McIntyre is brought back during a séance (why do I even bother?) and begins to stalk down his house guests.

Well, what's there to say? I wasn't expecting much here, and I got what I was expecting. This simply is not a good film. The premise isn't awful, I suppose. Worse ideas have made better films. But, though it's said too much: The execution was just plain bad. The writing was stale, clunky, and chock-full of clichés; and it wasn't helped by the laughably bad acting. Sadly, unlike many other modern straight-to-video horrors, the cast that kept their clothes on isn't even attractive enough to make up for their lack of talent. I will give the film one compliment: the gore FX were pretty good. . . even though the violence was unrealistic (I mean, severing a head with a kitchen knife? C'mon). The direction (by someone who'd previously been into 'Sesame Street' videos) isn't terrible, but it seemed he didn't know which way he wanted to go with it, as it blends hand-held, steadicam, and realistic video. . . then there are jumping camera effects (including some little girl with cataracts or something) in only one scene that never show their face again. One style would've done better. . . at least we could've depended on SOMETHING in the film.

Beyond some good gore/violence, there really isn't much else to see in this amateurish film. There's better gore and better violence in better films. No need to bother with this one.

Final Verdict: 2/10.

'Death on Demand' hits shelves July 8th.

-AP3-


If you have to watch one horror movie with a ghost-killer donning a pair of mountain climbing boots with spikes and brandishing a pick-ax as a weapon this season, this will have to suffice for now. It's about a guy who, after being a successful mountain climber, came home and in a daze killed his wife and children, then hung himself. So, what better way to celebrate Halloween years later than to have a internet-camera view of every room during one night when a bunch of teens have sex in nearly every room for paying customers on0line to see (after, you know, conjuring the dead back to life in a wedgie-board set-up)? Then, of course, wackiness ensues! And by that I mean there's lots of grisly murders, and a lot of people doing stupid things and getting themselves killed.

Now, as far as direction goes, Adam Matalon isn't any genius but he's done a few scenes here that are somewhat horrific visually (even the opening scenes, tinted puke-green, have a good effect on the mood), and as he treads very familiar ground (from various haunted house movies to Halloween Resurrection just to name one obvious title) he makes things dumb, trashy, sleazy, and sometimes funny in the most garish ways imaginable. The cast, mostly first-timers and indie players like Broome, Ciccarelle, Christal, Falcone, Folan, Greer, do what little they can (which, actually, isn't very much with such paltry writing and invisible-paper-thin characters), and the filmmakers rely on lots of 'GOTCHA!' suspense and violence that goes to as far extremes as a direct-to-DVD can try to go.

Despite an ending that is (somewhat) promisingly bleak, and the so-real-it's-real turn by Krista Grotte as guest porn star Kristy Luv (who may be a real porn star, I'm not sure, definitely looks the part), it's all second-rate at best. While not really a Z-grade offering, and with a couple of moments of inspiration and cheap thrills and laughs, it's mostly lame and sour work.


This movie was terrible. Absolutely horrible. The acting was some of the worst I've ever seen and the movie seemed to simply revolve around sex. A few of the violent scenes were well done, but the actors were too horrible to pull them off. The outtakes were honestly the best thing on the DVD.

Not to mention the fact that I am a REAL climber and realized that he had some ice axes, some crampons, and a lot of TRAD CLIMBING gear that you would die trying to use in pure ice climbing. Mixed climbing, acceptable, but the movie called him an ice climber (which is also different from alpining, which is what hiking in the Himalayas would be).

/Gear rant. The movie itself sucked. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't spend any money or time at all on it. Horrible♦


Overall, not a bad movie for this type of bad movie, it is watchable, and laughably bad. Basically this is a rip-off of 'Halloween: Resurrection' But its pretty much as entertaining or better, with a lot less budget and worse acting (which makes it entertaining). This is a perfect example of an entertaingly bad movie.

Some of the acting was actually OK, but the two football players - "Biff" and "Brad" were awesomely horribly bad. Especially the erectile dysfuntion guy - I guess he was supposed to be closeted Gay or something but he was really, really, really horrible, easily in the top 10 worst actors I've seen. Could have used more nudity.


Richard Sachs (if you didn't even chuckles at that name, the ill-conceived 'humor' in this horror film will bore you, by the way), the collage student son of a successful businessman decides to have the inaugural debut of his reality show website shoot at an haunted house that was home of serial killer Sean McIntyre, a man who killed his family one Thanksgiving night before hanging himself. Of course he comes back to stalk the six contests of the game.

This film was horrible in just about every way, with the acting being atrocious (even for the low standard of low-budget horror films of the ilk), the humor was mind-stunning bad and the 'action' came too little too late to really give a damn about it. A sub-par clone of just about any indistinguishable straight to DVD slasher flick out there today. Pass on it

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Sara Christal, Krista Grotte, and Anne McDaniels all show breasts


Myself and my partner decided to give this movie a try we went by the trailer. I wish that we had spent our time doing something more constructive.. Party at my house for a 24 hour paint watching marathon. Getting back on track.. Velvet luv. oh boy. I think I have seen better acting at a school play. 2nd grade I should say.. "you make me hot baby" When we started seeing the scenes with velvet in them my thoughts were you gotta be kidding me, is this a low grade horror movie or some cheesy porn flick. we decided to follow through with the movie to see what exactly happens, unfortunately the plot was too obvious and we ended up guessing what was going to happen. Some reason I felt psychic, now if only I could have predicted the lottery numbers then I would have been set, unfortunately this movie is too predictable. If your thinking of watching this, I would seriously think twice, due to the poor acting, little tips though... when you place a false hand made of silicon or rubber.. make sure that you don't shine a light onto that prop, and for the woman in stockings when you act dead, try not to clasp your hand around the other actors hand and most important of all... ( Don't Blink ) I am not going to spoil it for you guys as thats the type of person I am, so if your going to watch it.. good luck, oh by the way.. This movie should actually carry a government health warning! ( This film can cause serious manic depression for the hour and half of your life )


The format for an episode of Pimp My Ride is always the same so here is the basic rundown of the show- Xzibit visits the home of a person that sent a video showing their old car and asking for it to be pimped. He really doesn't do much other then driving the car and telling bad jokes (and supplying his own annoying laugh to tell you when something he says is funny). The person will usually start screaming and making a fool out of themselves on television until Xzibit drives the car to West Coast Customs.

There, he will leave and does not appear until the end of the show when the person comes back to pick up their car. The West Coast Customs workers will then sit around and discuss what they are going to do to the car. Then they will spend about 30 seconds fast forwarding through the "pimping" and destroying of the car prior to that.

They will usually go over-the-top when "pimping" the car, adding at least 4 TVs per car and other expensive and unneeded items you would not use while in your car. I guess that the car looks better after they are done, but that isn't saying much. They rarely ever do anything to the engine so even though you have car that has a TV in every seat and a stereo system that could cause permanent hearing loss, you are still driving the same old car underneath.

After, the person will come back with Xzibit and they will scream some more until they drive the car home. Then there are about 50 before-after shots of the car in every angle possible.

Overall, they might as well just show some before and after shots of the car for a few minutes and open up some time slots. I would much rather just look at the car after it is done and not waste a half an hour of my time. I would much rather have a car that has a nice paint job and a new engine then a bunch of unnecessary things that make my car the perfect target for a thief.


Hands down the dullest show MTV has ever pimped up out of its pimpy sleeves. Take a shoddy car, stuff a few superfluous accessories in it - such as advanced DVDs whose features you won't use at home let alone in a damn car - and then watch the vehicle's owner (always a moron) throw a hysterical fit of jubilation once he sees how over-the-top silly his car has become. You are now the proud owner of a car that is good enough for any gay-pride parade! Throw in a dumb rapper with an appropriately idiotic name, and a bunch of criminal-looking (hence "cool") pseudo-mechanics, and you've got yourself the ultimate television sleeping pill. I sometimes think the only way for me to wake up during an episode of PMR is if the car in question actually left the screen and smashed right into me.

The only thing Xzibit exhibits is his profound talent for memorizing several lines at a time, a feat for which they probably had to cast dozens of braindead, barely successful rappers. His pitiful jokes do MTV justice, i.e. are on par with the expectations of the gooey substances that make up the brains of most MTV viewers. Maybe they should pimp Xzibit's teeth next time: there simply isn't enough gold and silver glittering in that damn mouth of his.

The cars that are picked for dem-da-pimpin' are supposedly all owned by poor students and the like. So how is it a favour to those people to give them a car that will need ultra-security to prevent it from being stolen within the first two days? My advice to future PMC customers: sell the car IMMEDIATELY to some desperate nerdy fan of the show, and then buy a REAL car.

As for using the word "pimp" as a verb and all that, well what's to say that is new? MTV loves to contribute its lion's share in the dumbing-down of the 21st-century populace. If that means glorifying rent-a-whore "businessmen" or raping the English language, even better.

German MTV has managed to go one "better", however. "Pimp Mein Fahrrad" is about doing dull things to bicycles. What's next? Pimp My Girlfriend? (Actually, that would be interesting!) Pimp My Toilet Paper?


Contrary to the known world it seems, I disliked Shrek for the same reasons I love all Pixar films. Shrek 1 & 2, as with all Dreamworks animation, are bent on bombarding the audience with modern pop culture references ad nauseum -- partially because the creators believe such recycling is humorous, but also I suspect because they understand, smartly, that modern audiences desperately sop up pop references as a means of affirming their own image of themselves. They are hipsters, on the pulse of modern culture. You can't put one over on them. They feel smart when they recognize the reference. I find it embarrassing. Wheras Pixar create original characters, stories, settings and music, Dreamworks repetitiously offend by piling on cliché after cliché. I love Mike Meyers, I love Eddie Murphy and John Cleese, etc. etc. But I abhor Shrek. If you are a young child, it makes sense that you feel drawn to something to which you are accustomed. If you are an adult with any semblance of taste, go watch The Incredibles or Finding Nemo and LEARN something about storytelling and character execution. Long live Pixar. Shrek is for the unwashed masses. Good day to you.


I was quite surprised to see that the writer/director of The Lookout has quite an established career as a Hollywood writer, since this film offers nothing new (then again, maybe that's a key to longevity in Hollywood). I was also surprised to see the gushing reviews that this rather cliché film garnered from some major critics. It is character-driven story. The only problem is, none of the characters are particularly interesting. The story revolves around a young man as he struggles with a post-car accident brain injury. Unfortunately, those struggles are only superficially touched upon. We see him in some sort of rehabilitation school for about a minute, then a brief meeting with a therapist, (assuming she will be a major character in the piece), who is never seen or heard from again. His relationship with his wealthy family could have been interesting, however, we only see them in the briefest of scenes, and are not even sure who his father is until the final line of that scene when he calls a man "dad". The relationship with his blind roommate is not particularly drawn out either (you're half-way through the film before you realize it's his roommate, and not a relative). The other problem is the casting. This is the 2nd film where I've seen Gordon-Levitt try and carry a leading role, and it simply does not go over well. First, he is miscast as a former high-school star hockey player that every guy looked up to and every girl wanted to bed. I've seen many former high school glory boys, and none of them were as diminutive as Gordon- Levitt. But that's a minor problem. What's worse is that, though technically a sound actor, Levitt is part of a whole crop of up-and-coming former child actors that seem completely untouched by life (see Josh Hartnett). There's no real presence or weight there. It's as if, after years of these young men and women being scolded not to overact and "be natural", that now they do nothing at all, besides "mood act", which is an instant cure for insomnia. This young man is being hailed as "one to watch", so maybe there's something I'm missing here. But I will say that it's getter harder to.


Our protagonist Chris has a big problem.

Since he drove without headlights one evening, he was involved in a major accident that crippled a beautiful girl in the passenger's seat and killed two innocent victims sitting in the rear. That was 4 years ago. Amazingly, Christopher was not imprisoned for this one. There should have been a movie regarding why for that reason alone.

Now, that it's 4 years later, Chris has met up with a motley crew who is plotting a bank robbery. He works for a bank and has ambitions to go further. He joins the thieves and then turns on them.

The picture may be described as being dull. Chris takes notes and his writings are like those of a 2nd grader.

The one good thing about this film is the performance by his blind friend, well played by Jeff Daniels. I have always thought of Daniels as a superior actor since I saw him as Shirley MacLaine's son-in-law in the memorable "Terms of Endearment." Since then, Mr. Daniels has been in a variety of bad pictures and this one is on par with "Dumb and Dumber." Let's call it "Dumbest." This guy is talented but is not getting the proper material to work with.


This film defines the term "watchable average" ,,, Forget the critics ,, It slowly goes no where with its Pretty Boy Heath Ledger,Kneau Reeves guilt ridden Depressant ,, and Geof Danniels is the only person who manages to deliver. Its a 3 out of 10 and I seriously think those pretentious American sycofants in Rotten Tomoatoes who give it high marks have been watching too much Jerry Springer ,, Sam Raimi's Simple Plan delivers far greater punch or the much underrated 'The Score'. Seriously the plot has some incredulous turns and is ridden with 'Cliches' and drags on and on and on and on !. This youngster belongs in an American teen drama.. And the most annoying 'Night Rider esqu ' Soundtrack is straight out of an 80's Nightclub.. If you reach the end of this contrived nonsense without asking the question can 'someone Lookout for the Director and give him a slap' I will buy you a banana sandwich and glass of milk

Seriously avoid at all costs

Watch the Australian Classic ' The Noise !!!


My daughter and I found this movie in a clearance bin for only $3.00 and thought, "Why not?". Now I'm thinking of asking for a refund. The acting was very poor. Scripting was third grade level and that's being generous. I've read comic books with better lines. What little plot existed could have been improved by my six year old nephew. They re-used scenes multiple times and used some cheap stock footage to fill in some time. I guess this is what you get when people without skills or talent try to make a movie. The fight scenes reminded me of very low-brow slap-stick humor. This was supposed to be an action adventure and turned out to be a bad comedy. I feel sorry for the actors and actresses. If this didn't kill their careers then nothing will. If you are thinking of buying or renting this movie give your cash to the homeless guy in front of the liquor store instead. The money will be better spent and chances are it's one of the actors.


That includes the worst movies ever made by a five year old kid with his parent's video camera. Trying to follow the plot was like looking at a Escher painting, but without anything interesting to see along the way. The acting was terrible, and the directing was worse. The best thing about the movie was making fun of it with my friends.

I highly suggest that you don't see this movie unless you are:

A) brain dead

B) deaf AND blind

C) punishing yourself

D) a cinematic masochist

E) all of the above

Preferable E.


I am a big fan of bad movies, and my friends and I often rent or buy bad movies and make fun of them together. I was at the mall a few days ago and saw this on DVD for 5 dollars. I laughed at the cover and bought it without thinking twice. It definitely gave us something to make fun of. The plot of the movies jumps around a lot, and it was really hard to tell what was happening. We almost fell on the ground when we first found out who the evil boss is. The movie is extremely random and the acting is hilariously bad. Also, the sound on the DVD is really really dim and hard to hear. It is a horrible movie, so if you are a fan of them, you might wanna check it out.

BTW: It said it was made in 1994 in the beginning, but I trust IMDB more than them. Either way, it seemed like it was made in the early 80s at best.


A friend of mine purchased this movie in a bargain bin, with a few others. Now, I am generally a fan of bad movies, particularly bad horror movies... This film however, left me aghast.

I can summarize this simply, with the event that transpired after the film completed.

Me:"I will give you a quarter to let me microwave that." Friend:"5 cents a second."

The quarter was more then enough to put that poor DVD out of its misery. It then was aptly flung around until it shattered on a radiator.

This movie is firmly placed at the status of "The Worst Movie Ever". And anytime someone brings up an alternative, I merely offer this one up as evidence. This movie has only a single place, that of forgotten obscurity, it is unfortunate that it was so bad, it has been wedged into my mind forever.


Lets just say after I watched the first three minutes it was already off. The movie is so bad it is almost laughable. I can't even tell you what its about, but if your looking for the worst movie ever, then I think you've found it.


What can i really say that hasn't been said about this movie before? This film is a mess. This is a film that is lacking in continuity, plot details, plot points, developed characters, and sense. I hate to say this about a low budget film, especially when i know that the creators are trying, but I couldn't get into this. I could only finish this after twenty separate attempts. Still, I'm a movie lover, and i can find something good about any movie. This film has it's moments. There is a unique fight sequence that takes place in a balloon room that is worth seeing. There's some interesting humor in some exchanges between two of the main characters, and when the film is over, there are some well done credit images. Other than that, unless you're a die-hard montage fan, there won't be much you'll like about this poorly done film. I'm not a big fan of concepts involving child ninjas, but I'm sure a good film can be worked out of it. 3 NINJAS almost worked, i loved the film when I was 2, but it lacked some appeal. POCKET NINJAS just doesn't have any redeeming qualities for most, if not all, viewers. Overall, not worth seeing. It gave me a headache. Hopefully they'll get it right next time.


Pocket Ninjas is one of the few movies that is so bad it's good. Most of the movie is flashback, but poorly done and confusing. The plot has more holes than the finest swiss cheese, and it takes 9 minutes for the opening credits to end. I personally found the patty-cake "battle" between the White Dragon and one of Cobra Khan's cronies in the carnival absolutely hilarious. The location for this movie is perfect. The dojo is right next to a liquor store, but nobody seems to mind. The training sequences are long, obnoxious and downright painful. This is quite possibly the worst "professional" production I have ever seen. All in all, the perfect formula for the perfect awful movie.


And this year's Oscar goes to.......Pocket Ninjas!! Ladies and Gentlemen, forget Million Dollar Baby, Ray, and Sideways, they don't even compare to this wonderful movie directed by Dave Eddy. One could say that salvation could be obtained just by watching half a second of this movie.

Between the fantastic lighting, brilliant sound, and with a villain no older than 10, this movie combines fantastic writing (like "You're not only a dumb blonde, but you're a vegetarian" and "Oh yeah, well you're a fat Republican") you're bound for a four star movie.

Honestly, this very well could've been the worst movie I've ever seen in my entire life. If you and a few buddies want some gut-wrenching laughs, however, or you're just a big fan of bad movies, I would highly recommend this movie and all its hilarity.


This movie is, flat out, atrocious in every way. The acting is awful, the stunts are laughable, the fights are very poor, there is no plot, and what little plot that exists is ridiculous. However, I highly recommend it as a tutorial on how not to make a movie, and for any big group of people who wants to end up rolling on the floor laughing.


What a HORRIBLE movie. The dialogue sounds like it was written by a 7 year old, the acting is atrocious (you can tell the people are reading off the script), there is absolutely no plot whatsoever, new characters are introduced out of nowhere and they don't even have a purpose to being in the movie, the camera work is laughable, the action scenes are the worst I have ever seen in my entire life, editing was so bad it was noticeable when scenes were cut out and replaced, the music was terrible (it didn't add anything to the scenes it made the scenes even more confusing and horrific), and the wardrobe was just rediculous (In a bad, bad way). What's up with all the karate scenes that are repeated over and over and over, they aren't even different karate scenes, they are exactly the same ones we are shown from the beginning to the end. If it weren't for those cheezy, depressing, fighting scenes, the movie would've been 10 minutes long as my roomate said. All in all, this deserved a 0, but I had to give it a 1 because there is no lower score. I hope whoever made this film was really, really, high and just decided to make a joke film, because if it was a serious movie, wow I feel bad for him.


Sometimes I watch movies from the "Bottom 100" to laugh a little, but this "film", if it is actually allowed to call it this way, outclassed everything I have ever seen before. It is not funny like "plan 9" or "the claw" it is sad.

It really hurts to see acting, that could be outclassed by every kindergarten theater group on this planet.

The biggest problem of the movie is the "numbing-factor", your brain will be switched off by the movie and you will be stunned until the credits start.

Even though the movie has a story, too stupid for any 1st-grader, it doesn't really follow these. The actors are just fooling around for 80 minutes.

Trust me and do not watch this movie. If you did, demand refunds from the director. If you didn't pay to watch the movie, then sue him for solatium, for this is mental cruelty on tape.


I am digging deep on finding a god-awful movie such as this one. Dave Eddy, congratulations man! You've made the worst movie ever. I bought this film without knowing what I was about to get myself into. It was on sale for 50 cents at Amazon.com with the shipping price of $2.98. The remarks column said "Discontinued by Manufacturer."

I never got a kick out of watching a fight scene, (more like a "Let's Play Patty Cake" scene), where the white dragon and that retarded Kobra Khan are fighting with balloons. BALLOONS MAN! BALLOONS! Too many Looney Toons Gimmicks dumb this fight scene down to the point that even the mentally handicapped would start crying.

So this is where the creators of the Napoleon Dynamite got their kick-ass 8 bit Nintendo soundtrack. The background music is so sloppy and poorly edited. It seemed way too retro to be late 90's flick and it looked like it was the 80's with those super cool mullets.

I have never seen so much hardcore choreography as this. These supposed kids were supposed to be black belts when they look like they should be wearing yellow belts. So many roundhouse kicks to the face and so many reused sound effects. Flailing their arms and spinning back kicks in play fighting, it looked like they used the 4 inch rule so they don't hurt each other. Pure FAMILY "FUN"!

The training montages were lazy at best with more Looney Toons gimmicks just make want to say F___ you to this movie!

They've roundhouse kicked my ass with their super cool virtual reality gear. They sedated me with with their virtual fight scenes to the point of being lulled to sleep. Was that it? Everything was resolved by the Pocket weasels beating the evil Cubby Khan in a virtual reality fight? This movie is one giant "Butt-Whiff!" that I had the balls to watch from start to finish.

If Hell had a BlockBuster or a Netflix, Pocket Ninjas would be the only choice movie!

All I got to say is WOW. Dave Eddy, man you took one for the team!


There are low budget/direct to video movies, and then there is trash like this.

Trying to follow the plot of this film can actually hurt at time with the amount of thinking that was required to follow what was going on. Was there a Cobra Khan or was he just part of the kids imagination of the white ninja. Was the white ninjas back story based on a comic or were the kids just dreaming it. What was the deal with that scene with the clown fight and the balloons. Why were they bouncing on balloons for 15 minutes?! Also the kids were trained by a Van Damn wannabe who while solidly built lacked any acting talent. Also the box art, why couldn't the box designers at least pick an honest one to give the audience an idea how ugly the costumes were which looked like was made of cheap pieces of costume purchased in Chinatown.

Acting was poor at best. It was fairly obvious by the end of the film that the kids could not do any of there own stunts which was probably why the stunt kids wore the awful costumes.

The film at times seemed like a bad live action cartoon. This film goes so far as to hit clichés such as fishing rods and bait to lure the one kid's mom , following the kids by hiding in a trash can.

There were also subtle problems such as some of the film was not properly edited to make it feel like it fit in the movie as the lighting was off and it seemed the purpose of it was to purely drag the film on.

The film director insists that to allow the film to be acceptable by foreign markets he had to put in work out scenes which could be misconstrued as intentionally trying to torture the viewers.

But the worst torture by far was saved for last in the form of the "Virtual Reality fight" which consisted of random fighters fighting sped up using such weapons as silly string. I honestly question the mental health of the writers and seriously wonder if some of them were on drugs when I watch this scene, it makes me cry every time cause it hurts so very much.

My advice, do not watch this movie ever, unless you go in wanting to be subjected to the worst kinds of mental torture a film can present you with. There is nothing to laugh at in the film's intended humor. Not even the mistakes are funny most of the time. You might get out a few guilty laughs at some of the dumber moments, granted they might just be a response triggered by the brain cells this film kills at speeds higher then grain alcohol.


Holy Christ. sorry, but i have to get it off my chest. i just finished watching this movie, and felt i needed to REGISTER on this site just to write a review just to express my hatred for this movie. there are countless errors in this movie, and the production values......ugh all i am saying is i could fund a better quality movie with whats in my wallet right now. harsh? no, not at all. it looks like they filmed this thing on a video phone. and the plot..... first off we find our so called 'heroes' in a dojo with their trainer 'white Dragon' but they don't know he is white dragon, they are being informed of white dragon foiling robbers and such. this sparked my attention because later in the movie they saw white dragon on a Japanese comic, they were wondering who he was, even though they were informed of him in the first FIVE MINUTES of the movie. another thing that annoyed me is their costumes. their ninjas right? wrong. they wear black suits, colored maskes, CLOWN WIGS and roller blades. yeah, VERY stealthy. now we come to THE worst scene in the entire movie, if not in film history. we find white dragon fighting Cobra Khan in a balloon factory. and by balloon factory i mean a bunch of clowns in a room blowing up balloons. well here we are, the fight between cobra khan and white dragon, well they do anything but fight. the mighty white dragon is just bouncing on balloons and telling each other that 'nah nah cant get meh' and the ever dreadful 'neener neener!' I could swear at one point i heard my television crying in sorrow. the long and short of it is i wanted to stab my eyes out with a rusty knife. Yeah, not a very good movie.


What a god awful movie. I really wish I could swear on this, but alas, I cannot. I can't even believe that this is real. I watched it with a few friends in a basement, and just wow. WOW. What in hell were the creators of this monstrosity thinking? What did they think they could accomplish? If you are considering this movie, don't even think about it (if you're even brave enough to call it a movie.) My friends were bugging me to sign up on this to comment on here, so I finally broke down and registered. The camera work was done by a grade 2 child, and the acting was extremely painful, as you could obviously tell they were reading the script for every single line. The 6 montages (2 of which were partially re-used, by the way) were excruciating. Also, for the scenes where Robert Z'Dar was in the movie, I sat there in awe of his ungodly chin. It could swallow the sun. It could feed the entire continent of Africa for at least a month, probably more like 3 or 4. Hell, I even think it could probably kick the crap out of Chuck Norris. And that's saying something. Anyways, what I mean to say is that this movie is ridiculous. If you want some amazing laughs, acquire this "movie" some how and watch it with a couple friends. You will NOT be disappointed. Please, be intoxicated, otherwise you may hurt yourselves though.


Wow! Where to start. Lets go with acting. The acting was so bad, it didn't even have a chance to become good and then go bad again. It sounded as if they couldn't remember their lines, so they had someone hold a card off screen. On top of that you couldn't even hear what they were saying so you had to turn up the volume, then you were blasted with loud music.

Now the fighting. The fight scenes were so underwhelming. They looked lazy and boring. Not one person looked like they new any martial arts except Gary Daniels, who even though is a pro-fighter never threw a punch the whole movie. Another thing who can fight on roller blades.

The whole pace of the movie was slow and dragged out. It seemed every scene was a montage scene.

The only good things in the movie are the masks that the kids and the "White Dragon" wear and Robert Z'Dar as Cobra Khan.

If your looking for a children's karate movie, skip this and go get "3 Ninjas 1 and 2".


I have never known beauty until I saw this movie. Now flowers smell sweeter, the sky is bluer, and my cocaine is whiter. When I now think of the top three greatest films of all time I'll think of The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, and Pocket Ninjas.

The directing in this film (I use the word not in disrespect to the greatness to which is this) is above par. I have to admit I'm a little put off by the fact there aren't enough montages. It is just new film all the time in a coherent manner. I have to admit that this is a new take on filming. Maybe it'll catch on.

As for the acting? When I think of the three greatest actors I now think of Al Pacino, Anthony Hopkins, and the littlest pocket ninja.

Truly, I think the Academy missed a great film here. They should re-release it into the theatres (it's not like it was a straight to Laser-disc film). I think it'd sweep them all. Even best music.

Well...I'm going back into my cave, then it's back to another day of Pocket Ninja watching. This movie makes my life worth living!


Let's start with an irrelevant montage of karate training that consists entirely of fresh-air punches and kicks. The cover on the DVD bears no resemblance to the movie, which is much worse, but let's cut to a montage of the same karate training with crappy music. Plot? Ha! There's 3 annoying kids who who communicate entirely in sarcasm talking about a white-dragon character/crime fighter but it's difficult to know if he's real or not because we've just cut to a montage of fresh-air karate training again (really the same 3 kids just wearing masks). Now Just when you think the plot gets going somewhere, there's another cut to the bad guy (presumably the bad guy, he's really a scrawny kid) with his henchmen dropping nun-chucks on their feet and weather he's real or not isn't entirely clear as we cut once again to the 3 main characters and another training montage that is entirely identical to all the others before it. The music sounds like a theme to some crappy kids TV show and just makes you want to bury your fist through the TV speakers after hearing it for the 1000th time.

And apart from a truly bizarre fight sequence in a carnival tent involving Robert Z'Dar and a lot of balloons, that really is the entire movie. But just to finish off, cut to a training montage of fresh-air punches and kicks. I gave up counting after the 6th repeat.


Aye, aye, aye....where to begin?! This horrible movie is just terrible in just about every way...no, wait...EVERY WAY. My only questions are who was insane enough to think this sort of film would sell AND why is this movie currently only ranked the fifth worst film on IMDb?! The film looks like someone with a few dollars (not that many, actually) thought that other martial arts films are bad because they are violent, have actors with actual martial arts skills and don't star talentless kids and teens. So, they went to their nearest karate studio and recruited all the white, yellow and a few green belt kids and asked them if they wanted to star in a movie! While I saw a lot of people with black belts on here, I just assume they bought them and did nothing to earn them, as my cat knows about as much about self-defense as these knuckleheads!!

The plot, not that you'll ever care, is that an evil force (led by a cute 9 year-old) can only be countered by three talentless 'ninjas'. These good ninjas consist of three kids in karate who are given special masks that allow them to have really, really below-average and SLOW fighting skills!! If these kids are the world's only hope,...then we are so royally screwed!

There is nothing...nothing positive I can say about this film. Horrible writing (if they even had I writers--I honestly think they just made it up as they went along, horrible action (I hate to even use the word 'action'--this implies something more than Tai Chi speed fighting), inept direction and annoying characters--this film rates a zero in all departments. Plus, the idea of watching a film consisting mostly of obnoxious teens with their annoying dialog is NOT anyone's idea of a good time!! The only value this film might have is to use to interrogate members of Al Qaeda, however Amnesty International would be all over the President's butt if they ever did anything that cruel and inhuman!!


Saw this movie in Cali. at an advanced screening sponsored by the Regional Air Quality Management Board.

My biggest problem with this show is that they play it off as a documentary, when it is NOT.

Even the Tagline: "A real adventure in the coolest place on earth" implies documentary.

The truth is, while every shot WAS taken in the arctic, and was NOT staged, the characters Nanu and Sela were "composite characters" comprised of MANY different animals that were filmed by the directors over their time in the arctic. Basically, the story was made up.

Furthermore, many of the shots that we see were "stock footage" (this is obvious, as the quality is SIGNIFICANTLY lower). Also, the editing was poor, and only a child would think that the scenes truly played out the way they were portrayed.

The sound is also poorly edited, and, while I can not be SURE, I would guess that many of the sounds did not occur as shown in the film (pull my flipper??!!) Also, I think Queen Latifah's lines were poorly written, and she is a poor narrator to boot.

Basically, I think that the issue being tackled here is FAR too important for the directors to FABRICATE a story to show it. Tell it the way it is. If you can't follow 1 bear and 1 walrus, DON'T pretend you did. We can STILL get the point that global warming is hurting the arctic, and that we can prevent it . . . you don't have to make things up to tell us about it!


There are two of these moral messages in this movie:

First: The usual women's libber tale: Beware of Males; The only superior beings in the world are Females. It even goes as far, that they try to suggest, it's only the (bad) males, who are killing the prey.

Second: (Usual since 10 years as well): It's only because of you male punks (Car-drivers, electricity-users and so on) that these cuddly (female) creatures won't be able to live (hunt???) in the years forthcoming, because of your blame only, their world is going to disappear.

You realise the intention - thus you are displeased.


Don't bother renting this movie.

National Geographic and Paramount start out filming the cutest little polar bear since Knut.

They add silly narrative.

Then things take a turn for the worse.

They stick in some guff about global warming.

Why didn't bloody National Geographic fly in some steaks for the polar bears? Don't they sell enough of their magazines? Doesn't bloody Paramount have some spare change to helicopter in some goodies for the cute little bears? Why did they let'em die?


My wife wanted to rent this and watch it. It really is cute in some places, but there's nothing here that's any better than the Planet Earth episode on polar bears. In fact, the opening sequence of the bears emerging from their den is remarkably similar...

The storyline is contrived and the references to changing climate blatantly obvious.

It truly is sad that these magnificent animals die, but that's the essence of the natural world, right? Some animals prey on others, climate changes in natural cycles. Polar bears survived the last stint of global warming just fine. The ice sheets were so small 1000 years ago that crops could be grown in Greenland. Wine grapes were grown in England. Where were the polar bears then? This movie was not nearly as good as "March of the Penguins". I came away from that movie inspired. I came away from this one wanting to gag.


We saw a screening of Arctic Tale (or Death of the Polar Bears) at the Lloyd Center Cinema 10 here in PDX. I guess it is the finished cut, although the guy asking if we liked it didn't seem to know or care.

It seems as though it was shot in high-def and DV and maybe some VHS-C because there is zero consistency in the picture quality even within a given scene. This is no Blue Planet and it is now clear that National Geographic has been completely deposed by the BBC as the reigning champ of these kind of films.

We are reminded by the filmmakers who are doubtlessly evolutionary scientists that a jellyfish hasn't changed form for some 650 million years. This little factoid fits nowhere in the narrative, it is simply plugged in among the drowning bears. The jellyfish is perfect and hasn't needed to evolve since the seas were first poured out, the hapless bears, however, have come to rely on the ice that us selfish humans are now using to chill our Budweiser. There is no doubt among any sentient beings that the earth is getting hotter--at the end of an ice age things tend to get a little toasty and barring any asteroid strikes it is likely that these warming trends will continue regardless of what mankind does to accelerate the process. It's going to get hotter and the polar bears will probably die when that happens.

But if you're a pure Darwinian evolutionist--who cares about the damn bears? The bears are simply unfit to survive in a warming climate created by us not-so-benevolent primates at our own imperative. People came from apes and we scratched some bones against some rocks and after a few years viola--Chevrolet Suburban! The bears had better learn to swim or grow some gills--really fast. Tough luck bears! You're really cute in Arctic Tale, but frankly you've been known to eat people on occasion and your extinction, sad as it may be, will probably save a few wayward Eskimos.

There are also some Walruses? Walrii??--that are also going to croak because I spent and extra two minutes in the shower this morning. I now feel really bad that I have a water heater. I guess like Gil says--all drains really do lead to the ocean. Forget my shower--the cooling system at San Onofre must really be screwing with the walruses. Needless to say, we're going to kill all the creatures that rely on it being really cold or they are going to have to move somewhere colder or something just has to give. I don't know what to do about the bears but if they really require it to be 50 below all the time, how do these ones at the Los Angeles Zoo even stand a chance? I mean it gets well into the 90's down there.

I am really confused as to whether the kids finding out that everything is going to die is entertainment or info-tainment or guilt-trip-attainment. Your kids will cry when they find out the bears are going to die. Some bears die in the film and it is very, very sad--thankfully my youngest daughter and I were out taking a leak during the bear death sequence because it might have over-traumatized my little 4-year-old. I wasn't even sure whether or not to flush the toilet lest I kill yet another bear. I'm not sure how much bear death is on my hands..I do drive a Civic, but I also take long showers. I breathe and add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. I've never planted a tree and when I do plant--um--plants they are usually the dark green kind of plants that absorb a lot of sunlight and radiate a ton of heat causing even more global warming.


After watching this show, I would not recommend anyone to spent money to watch this on the big screen. I happened to have 5 free tickets to bring my kids to watch it. If you have not been reading news and do not know what is global warming doing to our planet, or where do polar bears live (besides the zoo), or how walruses look like, then perhaps this show will benefit you. Other than that, there was really no significantly new or interesting information that I gained from this documentary. The net result - an animal story about animals struggling to survive - non-dramatized. Not entirely bad, I did appreciate the skills and patience of the crew in producing this show. It was well done.

By contrast, the "March of the Penguins" was a much more interesting and 'moving' documentary.


Robot Wrecks should have been a great Our Gang entry--- the basic idea of building kid's robot slave in the days soon after the World of Tomorrow sounds pretty cool. Alas, sounds can be deceiving. Robot Wrecks blows the premise by bastardizing the robot by stuffing it with Billy Ray "Boxcar" Smith and allegedly fueling it with "invisible rays" and then selling it to one of their usual foes, Freddie "Slicker" Walburn (who's atypically gullible here). Voices are obviously dubbed, the acting is excruciating to watch and the only remotely funny aspect is that the writers could get even kids to recite the dialog (blame Hal Law and Robert A. McGowan). Sadly, future MGM Our Gangs would rival this deplorable production. If I could give this less than 0 stars I would.


ROBOT WRECKS is a mediocre entry in the "Our Gang" series, made during the declining years of the once excellent short comedies. The aging "second generation" cast members look awkward, particularly Spanky McFarland, who is really too old to portray a kid. The plot is according to a well-worn formula, with the gang building their own backyard version of something they have seen. It's all familiar, with predictable results. The studio was trying to introduce another new generation of child actors to the series during this time period, but the originality of the characters seen in the earlier films just wasn't there. The best examples of the earlier films (1930's era) featured the gang doing their thing without any adult presence in evidence. The 1940's films are full of adult characters, and their presence is a big detraction. If you want to catch the true peak of the series, watch the films made from 1929 through the mid 1930's, and don't bother with later series entries.


While it's a joy to see Matt and Kitty back together, this movie sorely lacked any hint of the Gunsmoke magic. In a nutshell, Matt Dillon is now a mountain man, Kitty has left Dodge and Newly O'Brian the former gunsmith and deputy is now marshal.

Will Mannon, the evil gunslinger who appeared in a self-titled episode of Gunsmoke, is released from prison to kill Matt and the judge who put Mannon in prison. Another prisoner, Jake Flagg, who is an old friend of Matt's, breaks out of prison by using the warden as hostage. Flagg needs to warn Matt about Mannon. The gunslinger shoots the warden and Flagg is now wanted by a young, overzealous deputy and some bounty hunters. Several of the unscrupulous bounty hunters actually stab Dillon who is found and taken back to Dodge where he awakens to find Miss Kitty. Matt tries to help protect Flagg meanwhile Mannon returns to Dodge where he torments Miss Kitty as he did in the original episode. Back then he had raped Kitty and beat her, something Matt did not know.

Okay, inconsistencies. First, but this is my opinion, Matt would not have become a Mountain Man. It's just not him(maybe they got him confused with his Zeb Macahan character from How the West Was Won). Second, Kitty explains why she left Dodge. It's a flashback from the episode "The Badge" where Matt is shot and Kitty just can't handle seeing him hurt anymore. Any fan of the show would know that this episode(don't know when it aired but certainly not in the last year of the show) ends with Matt meeting Kitty and sort of convincing her to come back, which she does. The movie made it sound like she never came back. Amanda Blake left the show in 1974. There are reports she claims she was sick and tired of the character and the commute(she was living in AZ at the time). Others question that producer John Mantley fired her for money reasons. They allegedly did not get along at all. Third, in the episode Mannon, he is apparently shot dead from how the episode ends but I guess it could have been interpreted as him possibly surviving.

Those are disappointments show-wise. Other ones that made fans cringe are James Arnesses' hair and make-up, absolutely scary. Kitty looked her age and did not look bad at all. Amanda Blake had contracted AIDS and she later died from the disease 2 years after this film. Ken Curtis did not return, he reportedly wanted more money than Blake. Finally, Matt and Kitty never kiss at the end, they never even get together. She see's him through a window and sheds a tear as he goes back to his lonely life. Reportedly, the original script had Matt walk into the hotel where Kitty was(and you could use your imagination). There were too many Flashbacks which took away from developing the plot to this movie. They actually show one Flashback twice.

John Mantley produced the movie and I was surprised someone with such a grasp on GS let this be the end product.

Also, the cover art for the movie on this website only show's James Arness. There is another version which has a small picture of Kitty on it.

Otherwise, it's fun to see M&K back together.


As a Dukes of Hazzard die-hard, I must confess my disappointment in both original cast reunions. John Schnider still cannot act unfortunately. I grew up a much bigger fan of Tom Wopat who actually had a better body and was a much better actor. However, he appears bored in this reunion (probably because he was currently dong Broadway). Luke had a goatee because he needed it for a production he was doing on Broadway (he flew back and forth to do the reunion). The plot in this movie was very thin and I hated seeing Rosco friends with the boys. Without Uncle Jesse and Boss there was no need for this film. Daisy Duke seemed way out of place in this film. You would expect better.


******MAY CONTAIN A SLIGHT SPOILER! MAY CONTAIN A SLIGHT SPOILER!***** I can't believe this! I grew up with Bo, Luke, and the General Lee (have to mention the car) and all the cast from the original series. I even watched Sonny Shroyer when he did his short-lived spin off and I enjoyed the "Reunion" TV movie done in 1997, but this title isn't even worth the paper the script was printed on! I realize that some of the original series' plot lines had lacked some "development" but this made-for-TV movie took the cake! It just was NOT believable! I found myself sighing with relief when I got through with it, and the sigh was that I was able to make it through without actually turning the movie off! Although it was nice to see some of the old characters once again, it is very hard to believe that Hollywood would actually have us believe that some backwoods country boy like Enos Strate is going to be so big in LA area that everyone knows him and the women falls all over him! And that was just for starters! I'm not about to ruin the plot! If you're a fan of the original series, stay that way and stay away from this movie!


I grew up with this show and the images of that car jumping, the country scenes, the ethics and simplicity of the series, captured my imagination back when I was a child. The creators of reunions today should take into account that we loved this show and don't want to see it crumble. Above all (fist fights-and jumps) this show was about two good old boys against the corrupt system. So if one want to modernize the plot, he/she should construct a story where the Dukes and the legendary General Lee surpass oppressive forces of today, leaving that humane feeling to the audience they always did. The Dukes didn't chase as much as they were chased! That is a basic principle forgotten. Loading it with new characters and unrelated stories, makes real Duke fans uninterested. This movie was also a lost opportunity for Hollywood to make some self-sarcasm of itself, since it is a powerful "system" and the Dukes could have taken some yeeehaaas against it.


It's nothing like the TV series. The original series had a lot of action like the fight scenes, car chases, high speed jumps but this reunion didn't have any of it! There was only one jump scene and that was to impress the gangters that the Dukes were not losers. Hasn't the director ever seen CBS series and take some of those ideas and put it into the movie? If they're gonna make another reunion movie (which I doubt it), then they should come up with a different plot.


Lets face it -- in this politically correct society we don't need to convicted felons out on parole for bootlegging a controlled substance riding around in gas guzzling bright orange hunk of junk with a racist flag painted on top of it Haven't we out grown the Dukes! ! ! for god sakes it 2005 - grow up

But who are we kidding -Huh? - Of course we love the Dukes

Actually I loved the Dukes of Hazzard ... I just didn't like either of the reunion movies. And No! ! ! ! I haven't out grown them at all - I look forward to seeing the 2005 big screen version of the Dukes with Burt Reynolds as "Boss Hogg"


Yes it is a classic, and yes I own it. Why the four star rating let me explain. I own the movie for one reason "the sorcerers Apprentice". That segment alone makes it a classic. This segment alone is an example of what was the great thing about cartoons in the 1940's, no speech amongst the characters, which allows your imagination run wild and the music went right along with the cartoon. With exception of the narrator there is no speech in Fantasia but, unlike my comments about the "Sorcerers Apprentice" this hurts the rest of the movie for the animation on the rest of movie just doesn't grab you and with the classical music playing in the background I am always put to sleep.


Whoa! This movie is the weirdest movie I seen in years! It differently Walt Disney alright but boy this is strange and certainly boring! All it is really is a collection of dance sequences and musical numbers. It lacks edge and doesn't hold my attention for long enough and some the sequences are kinda creepy! The only good part of the movie is Mickey Mouse in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" which is somewhat a famous figure for Disney as they used it for their home video logo from 1988-1996! It was funny the way the brooms turned on him like that. Other than that, the movie is flat, boring and dead weight. If you can catch The Sorcerer's Apprentice on it is own that watch it but with Fantastia's other segments, don't bother as they will only bore you!

4/10


This is the most overrated B movie in history. It's "interpretation" to some of the most beautiful music ever made is revolting. "Cute" centaurs and Pegasuses for the Pastoral? Stravinsky for a children's history of evolution? "Abstract art" for Bach's Toccata? Tchaikovsky for dancing mushrooms? If you like classical music (I do) run away from this pretentious garbage.

The movie is so bad that it only gets interesting when the music is as bad as it: Ponchieli, Dukas, Mussorgsky, etc. The joke works because the "homage" stresses the banality of the composition.

Not recommended for children (too boring, go watch Pixar's stuff) neither for intelligent adults.


Worst Children's' film I have seen to date.

I was thoroughly disappointed at this film. Not because of the quality, not the length. But at the material that ended up being this movie.

I rented this expecting this to be a beloved "Disney" classic. But instead all I saw was an orchestra and a few snippets of cartoons. I would have no problem with solid cartoons, with classical music accompanying the drawings. But to showcase an orchestra, for almost the entire length of the film, is a bit much.

If you are looking for a classic "Disney" movie, with Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, etc. Avoid this one.

I give it two thumbs down.


I hated this film. The whole movie is brooms getting water. This film made me sleep. I can't believe that it is in IMDb's Top 250 list. This is the worst film I have ever seen. This should be #1 on the bottom 100 on IMDb. If you liked this movie, you need new taste. If you hated this film, you got good taste.


Why this is considered such a Disney classic is far beyond me. It's is so boring. It is not mature enough for adults and it is either too boring or way too scary for little children. Their is no plot, so someone with a short attention span like me will be in pain watching this. The only part that little kids would really like is the part with Mickey Mouse as the Soucerer's apprentice. Though i am really not getting the whole broomsticks with arms thing. Aside from hat there was one cute part, which was the dancing hippos and the alligators. That part is far more enjoyable than the Mickey Mouse section. But overall i just a a brief summary of this film. and that is that it was long boring pointless and STUPID STUPIDS STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID!!!!


Hard to say if this was meant to be taken seriously, but a college professor is commissioned (by none other than exploitation king David Friedman) to go find a Bigfoot-like creature in the Okaloosa wilds in Alabama. Along for the trip is an overly helpful former student, and a bunch of over-fed rednecks with guns, to take pictures only though, of course. It seems as though the character played by Friedman lost his son to this beast, and he wants revenge. And the professor is apparently none too bright, because he seems to suspect nothing.

The beast is a rather tragic figure, really, since it's some poor schmuck in a gorilla suit with some kind of rigid ugly mask. It, of course, manages to elude capture and bullets and just about everything else, and the professor, while talking to himself the whole time, manages to kill everyone but the girl and they ride off into the sunset, sort of. You see the beast from afar, several times, but no matter how far away it is, it always is treated like it's right on the intrepid explorer's tails, and they're always moseying for their lives.

Throw in some guitar & mandolin picking, and a bunch of talking, and that's about it, really. Oh, and there's some other fine upstanding campers in the area, and the girl, after a fine show of cellulite, dresses up in a red frilly skirt and shorty top, yecch....and I think she's also got on patent leather shoes and white knee-socks. Absolutely stunning. Anyway, this gets her white trash boyfriend all hot, & while he's having his way along comes our monster & cuts in. Definitely the highlight of the film.

Plenty of unintended laughter, really....and I'm in awe that someone could crank something out like this and be serious about it, really. Definitely a "regional" film, probably best enjoyed by "regional" folks. 2 out of 10.


If I could give zero stars, I would. This is present on a 4 movie DVD of Bigfoot movies and this is the worst. It concerns loosely a tracker going into the wilderness after the "missing link" to earn 100,00 dollars. Of course, his backer has ulterior motives. That is as comprehensible as the plot gets. The acting is nonexistent; the lead reads his lines in scene after scene, including a trek thru the forest, from a clipboard he holds. Finally the entire movie, halfway thru, is completely voice-over. People appear and disappear at random, they run from the beast in terror and the next moment are chatting quietly. There is no resolution of the plot, people are killed right and left and the characters don't seem overly concerned.

For those that care, there are several scenes of naked breasts, all the female leads, simulated sex including bestiality by the beast on one of the females, not a pleasant sight. and there is totally gratuitous guitar and mandolin playing a la Deliverance.

Worse than "plan 9 from outer space"


Oh my! I decided to take a chance and rent a DVD from Netflix with this one, Legend of Bigfoot, Capture of Bigfoot and Shriek of the Mutilated. I'm not sure which one was worse. Well, no, that's not true. Legend of Bigfoot (1976, not to be confused with Capture of Bigfoot -- 1979, which also went by that title) was so bad I couldn't finish it. The other three merely left me scratching my head, amazed that I grew up in the 1970s and somehow turned out normal.

SPOILERS AHEAD After seeing one film, in which the Yeti was faked to cover a satanic cannibalistic cult, I didn't think a Bigfoot plot could get any more bizarre. I was wrong. A hillbilly and a Bigfoot capturing women for each other to share has to edge out the cannibals for weirdest plot.

At least this was the most passable Yeti costume of the four films. (Mind you, that's not saying MUCH!) Long scenes of totally irrelevant sex, a long sequence of interesting but totally irrelevant folk music and some characters whose actions defy logic make this a somewhat typical 1970s B horror flick. Add the asthmatic-sounding heavy breathing whenever Bigfoot is apparently getting reasonably close to anyone, a one-scene appearance by a sheriff who looks more like a Silver Dollar City blacksmith, the annoying habit of the prof and a couple of the bad guys either talking to themselves or thinking out loud to narrate the action and a Bigfoot who is somehow impervious to automatic weapons, and you get a 1.6-rated film.

Should I waste ink pointing out plot holes in such a film? Well, maybe. Let's seethe grad student throwing herself at the middle aged professor is a bit much  and her 'you saved my life' remark made no sense at the time. (It would have, had it happened at the end of the film, I suppose.) The prof is being chased by men with a pack of hounds, yet somewhere along the way they disappear. The rich guy funding the expedition is a tad unbelievable. Sure, he wants the creature deadbut he is apparently willing to let his goons kill the prof and the girl to get it? I've seen worse films  even some with much bigger budgets. If one likes B horror with the obligatory semi-nude scenes, flimsy plots and a little gore, this might be worth your while. If you're looking for The Shining  or even Lady Frankensatein, this isn't it!


Sasquatch spent most of the 90s toiling away in such horrendously lame'n'tame children's movie bilge as "Little Bigfoot," "Bigfoot: The Unforgettable Encounter," and "Big and Hairy," which makes this regional redneck horror/action hybrid a definite anomaly, but still nothing to get all excited about. In the misty backwoods of the Okaloosa Wilderness in Annistan, Alabama, a local Bigfoot creature murders the son of all-powerful rich jerk Milton St. John (an embarrassingly poor turn by bona-fide exploitation legend David F. Friedman). St. John bankrolls an expedition led by insipid nice guy Dr. David Stone (semi-sentient walking spam chunk Rick Montana in a stupendously lousy non-performance) to find the foul fiend. Unbeknownst to Stone, the other members of the team are a stereotypically gung-ho, trigger-happy bunch of hillbilly yahoos specifically hired by St. John to bag the beast. R.G. Arledge's lax, ham-fisted direction strikes out in every conceivable department, thereby sinking this leaden bomb to an unforgivably schlocky sub-level of rank amateurishness: the sluggish pacing, putrid acting, wafer-thin cardboard characters, ill-judged stabs at lowbrow humor, the huge letdown creature (it's some heavy-stepping zhlub in a rubber ghoul mask and black gorilla costume), weak off-screen killings, and dissatisfying sudden'n'senseless ending all leave a great deal to be desired. Those looking for a fun, worthwhile Bigfoot flick are strongly advised to search elsewhere.


I didn't like this Episode at all!!!

It was a good idea to make an episode with Kelso as narrator and the salt-bunny is hilarious...but...Why???

Why the Iraq??? Come on, did they really had to chime in???

It was nothing new, nothing that didn't appear in thousands of other TV-shows etc. before.

I want the "poo-musical" back!!! I think the musical-episode was the best so far. So it's very disappointing to have this episode to follow.

I'm really disappointed by this episode and i'm hoping that the next one will be better....which should not be so hard!!!


Last night's episode has me a bit worried that the show has started to jump the shark. I thought the episode missed badly. They could have done so much more with the Private Dancer joke, with each cast member learning the patient's name and having their own fun with it. Kelso could have been a lot funnier. It was stupid that battle lines were drawn politically and Scrubs rarely introduces hot button topics into its shows- that is what makes it timeless and classic. Like Keith and Elliot wouldn't know each other's political orientation after a year together? It was a cheap way to call Hillary Clinton a beetch, and it missed. All in all, a poor episode and I hope they turn it around.


Naomi Watts could not save this. Not even a descent performance by herself could save this this mish mash of a sequel that had the same affect as Exorcist II: The Heretic. By the climax, EVERY one around me in the theater was laughing. No joke. The dialogue becomes unbearably tedious and the plot becomes atrociously abstruse. The film follows Rachel Keller into Oregon where she tries to forget the events of the first one, but then Samara shows up wanting a mommy... and that is the point of the film. All that CGI crap for absolutely nothing. And that is exactly what this film is. No, really, I am not going to dignify this film with a review worth reading. I am sure Naomi Watts would rather have changed Samara's diaper then done this film!

This film honestly has no guts, spunk, or attitude that the first film had. This film is a bunch of special effects covering up a paper thin plot.

Avoid like the plague!!

1 Star!


Did no one who made this mess ever see the first Ring movie? I mean, how many years was Samara at the bottom of that "SEALED" well and she seemed to have no problem getting out and about when she felt like it. Having Rachel thinking at the end of the movie that the only way to stop Samara is to seal the well...wasn't she the one in the first one who un sealed it? Why would sealing it now stop her? And when did Samara ever have a problem finding someone she was looking for? The kids in the first movie watched the tape at the cabin and then went back to their homes and I doubt that they left a forwarding address for Samara to find them. When in The Ring 2, Samara grabs Rachel's arm and says "I found you." Please...did Samara loose her Map Quest? I could go on and on with the HOLES in this POS movie....I was a big fan of the first Ring and also the original RINGU, but this was just TRASH! This movie was not creepy or scarry at all...but just down right CRAP! I thought if they did this right the studio may have a nice franchise on their hands like a Jason, Freddy or Michael Myers...but did they ever blow it. Sure it made 36 million the first week...but I bet it will fall so fast you will hear the studio heads spinning.


The one sentence review of this movie is that it sucks. Pretty straight up. But no one likes the criticism "sucks." They want reasons. Allow me.

CGI deer. A whole whack of them. A whole whack of unexplained CGI deer. One wonders if they couldn't find horses to continue the story from the first movie so they figured fake deer was the way to go for part 2. And just to try to make it seem like it wasn't 100% lame and irrelevant they toss in antlers at the Morgan homestead. Oh, well then, it all makes sense now. Or not.

Did anyone even listen to what Samara's birth mother said? She tried to kill her baby cuz the kid told her to in her head. Just like Rachel's son told her to in her head. To get rid of the thing inside her. So the "thing" in Aiden isn't even Samara, it's just some damn nameless thing the writer's never explain beyond a casual line about some watery world beyond that possessed Samara as a baby. OK....whatever...

Samara wants a mommy. You know what I want? Some friggin Vicodine to slip me into a drug induced coma so I can wipe the memory of that lame as lame plot contrivance out of my head. But wait, it gets worse... she wants to watch TV with her mom. That's about it.

Excuse me, I need to go yank some of my hair out.

This thing from some nether world that can make things happen with the power of its mind gets killed in a well, comes back from the dead through VHS tapes and murders people within 7 days of witnessing said tapes then inexplicably possesses a living boy.....cuz she wants to watch TV with her mom? Who the hell wrote that? What drooling, mittens-pinned-to-his-coat, Scooby-Doo-lunch-box-carrying, lazy-eyed, fat-necked, Lysol-huffing, ice-cream-smeared-on-his-face, laughing at the antics of Uncle Joey on Full House idiot wrote that? That is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen in my life.

Does she want to kill millions? Does she want to inflict suffering on mankind? Eat the living? Make a race of obedient slaves? Reign in darkness? No, she wants to watch friggin cartoons from the 50's and eat sammiches with ma on the sofa. The mind reels at the absolute idiocy.

So, to reiterate, this movie sucks. Do yourself a favour and stay away. If you hated the first one, this one will make you wish you were stricken blind by burning embers before you put the DVD in. If you liked the first one, this will make you mourn for a half decent story and a film that doesn't induce bile production. And if you saw this one and liked it we clearly can't be friends. I'm sorry, I'm sure you're a nice person though.


I have always believed that the horror genre is the most difficult to master. To make an effective horror film takes an amalgamation of talent, luck and one intangible that most cannot figure out. To me, you have to love the genre and you have to have little studio interference. Films like Halloween, Last House on the Left, Evil Dead, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre were all low budget and independent films and all were pioneers of the genre. All were also emancipated from any studio intervention which more often than not can destroy a director's vision. I would think that somewhere in Urban Legend and The Haunting's vernacular was a good film until the morons who knew nothing about film got a hold of it.

I mention all of this as a precursor to the review because The Ring was a modern day miracle. It was the scariest horror film in twenty years and it was a studio project. I honestly never thought that a film made by Dreamworks would touch a nerve in the way it did. But with direction by Gore Verbinski and Ehren Krueger writing one of the best scripts I've ever been privy to, The Ring scared the hell out of me.

To do a follow up was almost a no win situation. Not since Nightmare on Elm Street 2 has there been a more disappointing sequel than this one. I don't know where to lay the blame, because Ehren Krueger, whom I respect very much, returned to pen the sequel and you have the director of the Japanese film that started it all, helming this one. So where does the blame fall? Was it the studio who interfered too vehemently? Was it that the Japanese original was that inferior to the Dreamworks version? Or is it just that lightning doesn't strike twice in most films? I'm not sure what the answer is to that perplexing question, all I know is that this is about as much of a true dichotomy from the first. You can't get any further apart.

Naomi Watts is adequate as Rachael and David Dorfman is passable as Aidan, but the continuation of Samara story is perhaps the weak link here. In the original, she was an enigma. Her story was such a mystery that it kept you guessing as to what she was and where she came from. There was a blend of The Changeling and a bit of The Shining all rolled into one. A sequel succeeds when it extends the story, not just retells it. There was no continuation of the story here. No one bothered to explain why Samara can come through the TV and petrify you to death. No one bothered to explain why she is still haunting people through videocassettes. No one bothered to explain anything. Now maybe some are okay with that. Maybe a mystery should remain a mystery. But if you can get past the regression of the story, then what is even more disturbing is that there is nothing remotely disturbing, interesting or scary about the film, and everything that was freaky about Samara in the first one is now like watching Scooby Doo and mystery of Samara. There is no fear of her now. There is nothing remotely disturbing about her. Maybe I was expecting too much, but this film is one of the weakest sequels I have ever seen. If they decide to make a third, they had better go back to their roots and get Verbinski back.

Is it wrong to expect this much from a sequel? Maybe. But then again, there are sequels that can match the original, if not surpass it. At least two of the Friday the 13th sequels surpass the original and if you are talking non horror, then you can also add films like Lethal Weapon 2, Bourne Supremacy and of course classics like Terminator 2, Aliens, Godfather II and Empire Strikes Back to the list of sequels that either equaled or surpassed the original. Now in my opinion, Nakata is not on the same level as Cameron, Lucas or even Copolla, so there is no reason to believe that he can create a better film that Verbinski did. But suffice to say that everything that made the first such a paradigm for years to come, has vanished in this one. It is truly unfortunate as it feels like too many politicians in this one threw their hat into the ring and tried to make changes that did nothing but give us another Nightmare on Elm Street 2.

And that is a shame.

2/10


**SPOILERS** (As if you should care) This was one of the worst movies of all time. Like the first movie, the plot throws you many scenes that are made to scare, but simply do not live up to expectations. In addition, none of it makes any sense. One of my major problems was the fact that Smara hated water - why? It wasn't because she was thrown in a well - she was afraid of water as soon as she was born. This huge oversight leaves the viewer confused and unimpressed.

Oh, and when the mother uses the F-word for effect - what a cheap movie ploy. If a movie has to use profanity like that to make it better, then the movie itself must just be crap. Maybe they should learn how to make a good movie before releasing it (yeah, that's probably a good idea).

Again, The Ring Two throws the viewer a ton of images that neither make sense nor engage the viewer. I found myself laughing through the parts that didn't just disgust me outright. No movie is more deserving of a 1 out of 10.


I LOVED The Ring, so naturally, I was ecstatic about seeing The Ring 2. What a disappointment! The movie didn't have much of a plot (even for those of us with more creative imaginations), and, because of that, it was difficult to follow. I found myself being bored more than anything else and waiting for the next scary scene to shake me awake. The special effects were pretty good, and all the cast members did a really good job with their roles, but despite their abilities, the movie failed to make an impression half as good as the original. There are several points in this movie when you feel like you begin to catch on to something that will eventually make sense (and make it worth your money), only to be let down at the conclusion of the scene. Better save your money and wait for this one to hit rental shelves...I wish I had.


I loved the first movie. This sequel is a joke, and not at all frightening. In a couple of places, the audience burst out laughing that's how believable the plot was. How could the writer, director and production people think we could buy this supercilious, ridiculous screen play. Acutually, I take it back about not being scary. Sissy Spacek was a horror to behold and laughable at the same time. The whole new explanation for Samara's diabolical antics made the audience groan with remarks like -- ah comon now! And at the end, I heard a some of the audience say, That's what you said last time. I suppose The Ring Three will consist of Aidan's murder trial.

Take my advise and wait until it comes to TV. I wouldn't even pay the money to rent the video. It's not worth it.