I'm not convinced that this film is not more well-respected just because director Robert Altman's name is attached. Show Kansas City to your average casual film-viewer without letting them know who directed, or you can even let them know, if they're not cineastes and do not know Altman, and I think the average opinion would be much lower. That's not to say there are no positive qualities to the film, but it is far more burdened with flaws, and it's more likely to ultimately annoy rather than entertain.

The story is of course set in Kansas City, during the depression. Blondie O'Hara (Jennifer Jason Leigh) enters the home of socialite Carolyn Stilton (Miranda Richardson) under false pretenses (she says she's there to give Mrs. Stilton her normal manicure) and ends up pulling a gun on her. Mrs. Stilton figures it's just your run-of-the-mill robbery, but O'Hara wants something else. O'Hara's husband, Johnny (Dermot Mulroney), has gotten himself into trouble and Mrs. Stilton's influential husband, Henry (Michael Murphy), an adviser to President Roosevelt, can help him out.

Let me mention the positive aspects of the film first, because otherwise I'll likely run out of room. The primary asset is the film's music. Because of the setting, including that a lot of the film takes place in a black jazz joint, the "Hey Hey Club", the music is jazz during its transitional phase between swing and early bop--heck, even a young Charlie Parker (Albert J. Burnes) is in the film, although the setting has Parker too young to be shown performing (and Parker turns out to be irrelevant to the film). But it does have musicians playing Lester Young, Coleman Hawkins, and Count Basie, and the musicians who perform throughout the film read like all all-star roster of contemporary jazzers, including David Murray, Joshua Redman, David "Fathead" Newman, Ron Carter, Christian McBride, Geri Allen and Victor Lewis. The music is excellent if you're a jazz fan, as Altman must be.

The other asset is that production designer Stephen Altman, the director's son, does an excellent job getting the period setting right. Especially if you're into classic cars of the era, the film will be a treat to watch, but all of the details seem right. The cinematography isn't bad, either.

However, even as good as the music is, it just doesn't work within the context of the film. Most of the musicians can't act but try to. Maybe it's that they weren't directed very well by Altman. He features them on camera too much, and even lingers on them for relatively long songs. A concert film featuring the band would have been great. In the middle of a dramatic film, these shots just feel like padding with bad acting.

The story itself, although relatively simple--too simple, perhaps, is chopped up and told as if it's going to have some big revelation or twist. Altman keeps unnecessarily jumping back and forth in time--but just a few hours, and he keeps unnecessarily jumping back and forth between different sets of characters in the middle of (very) long scenes. I guess he realized the scenes were too long and needed to be broken up. The scenes should have been cut back instead. More should have happened. Far too often, scenes feel like they're stretched out with pointless dialogue just to increase the film's running time.

And the dialogue isn't just pointless. It's loaded with non-sequiturs. I've never experienced laudanum or known anyone who has, but one of the characters, shown as a laudanum user, regularly speaks gibberish. At least that seems to be the excuse for it. It turns out that everyone in the film routinely speaks gibberish as if they're on some kind of heavy drugs. Not every line is like that, but enough are that it's relatively inexplicable. The plot in general has a lot of non-sequiturs. It seems almost as if Altman, who co-wrote the script with Frank Barhydt, was shooting for some kind of bizarre surrealism, except that surrealism seems so out of context for the setting and basic gist of the film, and it's too understated to seem intentional. I just don't get why people in the film would speak and behave so oddly.

Then there are the performances. I've liked Jennifer Jason Leigh in some films--I absolutely love eXistenZ (1999) for example, and she certainly can act like "someone other than herself", which a lot of people seem to use as one of the main criteria for "good acting", but her character here is so annoying that I couldn't wait for the film to be over. She bizarrely barks out her dialogue in a grating accent. When I thought of it upon waking up this morning with my review gelling in my head (I usually watch films at night then think about them while I head off to sleep--reviews often pop up almost fully formed when I awake), I burst out laughing remembering the character. It's something I'd more expect from an alien sketch on a show like MadTV or Saturday Night Live. Imagine Prymatt Conehead with a sour and somewhat hyper Brooklyn attitude.

Harry Belafonte, as the ridiculously named "Seldom Seen", also tended to be annoying--and he probably has more lines than anyone else but Leigh. A number of other characters were primarily annoying, too. The only one I really didn't mind was Miranda Richardson, despite the gibberish, and she's also gorgeous, so she's a treat to watch.

There are a couple good sequences, but they tended to be those focused on "action"--when characters were up and about, doing something rather than sitting in a room and talking, and the climax was great (I even cheered). Unfortunately, those sequences were few and far between. The majority of the film just seems flat and drawn out. My advice is to just buy the soundtrack; avoid the film.


Okay, he's making a movie about "gangsters" in Kansas City which features a bar where free-form jazz is played, so he decides a nice way to make the movie (what a surprise) is to give the actors free reign to improvise their lines! It may SOUND like a good idea - Altman sure thinks it does, he uses it to make most of his movies - but this is no excuse for offering us a muddled, terribly acted half-baked film that essentially has about three scenes that are stretched out. The plot of this is one of the worst you're likely to see. I remember, at the time i was watching it, i felt there were such major problems with the motivations within the story that completely undid its narrative structure. It pains me enough to recollect the movie, let alone think of it in that much detail.

What Altman doesn't seem to realise is that improvisation seems to make most actors nervous. When they're saying a line they know they've made up during rehersals, they seem not to believe in it. It may have worked for Brando in Last Tango in Paris - but Brando was a titan. These actors, and most name actors Altman shows the true colours of, are not.

The first major mistake was giving Harry Belafonte improvisation priveleges. God, is he obnoxious in this. He's the bad guy, but he's not obnoxious in a way that makes you think "oh, isn't he good" or maybe "isn't this fun." You just think Belafonte is an arrogant guy.

Jason-Leigh's accent and acting are particularly hammy. Miranda Richardson is the only one who escapes unscathed. She's pretty good.

1/10.

Films this bad are rare. Can't recommend enough that you avoid this like the plague.


This movie does a good job of portraying a 1930s Kansas City of mobsters, racial unrest, petty criminals and jazz, and if all it took to make a good movie was atmosphere then this would be a great film. But all this movie has is atmosphere, and it's not enough. I'm not a big fan of Altman (I like about 1 out of every 15 of his movies) but I watch anything Jennifer Jason Leigh is in, so I had to watch it. Leigh is fine but this is not one of those electric performances that has made me such a fan. I don't think it's possible to bring any electricity to this lumbering creature. I was incredibly bored throughout and only kept watching out of a vague curiosity as to how it would all turn out, but at the final I felt heavy and almost paralyzed with boredom and disinterest. I'd say this is for Altman fans only.


This is another one of those "intelligent art films" you need to read the review first before you can understand the movie. If it wasn't for the great music and in general wonderful atmosphere created by the director at the Hey-Hey club, this movie would have been a total flop. The storyline is simply ridiculous, it has no meaning, no reason to be. The secondary story even less, we fail to even understand why it is there. The acting is superficial, in some cases exaggerated to the point of being silly (Jason-Leigh). The only remotely positive acting performance (surprisingly) was Belafonte in a not-so-bad copy of Brando's Godfather. The dialog was simply stupid, the only decent characterization was that of Belafonte's seldom Seen which emanated some real emotions, everything else seemed to be on the level of a five-year old. Thank god for the music...!


A true nadir in the chronology of a sometimes great director, and a female lead performance worthy of an Ed Wood film


Interesting Idea, Poorly Executed.

Here are the positives I can say about this movie. - The idea of a comic going to a bar in a small town in Wisconsin to catch his big break is a pretty cool and an interesting idea. - The background and secondary characters are good. It has a very good small town atmosphere. And it does capture the spirit of the region

Other than those two this movie is pretty bad. Poorly written, poorly shot, bad lighting throughout even for a low budget feature.

The problem I had with it was that you have two movies going on at the same time and they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. You have one story which is this sort of sideways-ish story about a comic trying to rediscover his love of his work and a second story which is this cartoonish sidebar about a Green Bay Drug-lord.

These two stories have nothing to do with each other and any contact between the two stories is completely coincidental. The Drug Lord and the Comic actually probably only share about 3-5 minutes of screen time together in the entire film.

Then there are Montages that go too long, scenes that stretch way too long, a lot of unnecessary scenes. The actual guts of the film should really only produce about an hour long film. The rest is just padding, in particular the Macarena scenes of which there are too many and they are too long.

It's just weird that you have a movie called "The Godfather of Green Bay" where the character that the movie is named after could have been completely cut from the film and you would have not lost a thing. It could have become one of the secondary characters and fallen to the background without a problem. And as a result there could have been more character development and time for the main story which is really the more interesting story.


These reviews are obviously biased in some way. 10 out of 10. Seriously. This is the Godfather of Green Bay not The Godfather. I'm giving it a 1 just to offset you people. This movie is a complete waste of time. It has been said that it takes a miracle to make even a bad film. Well, congrats go out to the makers of this movie. They did perform a miracle. A really pointless, unfunny miracle. I know that it probably was done for a very small budget and it is an independent film, but that doesn't excuse some things.

The two main characters that are supposed to be comedians have absolutely nothing funny to say and every attempt at a joke is awkward. The lead, Pete Shwaba, is so wooden. He brings nothing to the screen. How did he get Lauren Holly for this mess. I felt so sorry for her while watching this movie. Of course Mr. Shwaba and her have zero chemistry. Miss Holly, I hope that check cleared. For someone who I am told claims he is a comedian, Mr. Shwaba couldn't deliver a punchline in this movie. The writing is ridiculous. The mac-arena... come on. Doesn't work on any level, kitsch or otherwise. The directing is amateurish at best filled with close-ups and awkward staging. I've used the word awkward twice now, but it sums it up. If you see this movie, beware. You will have that weird feeling in your stomach. It is awkwardness. Awkwardness that you spent money on this experience. Awkwardness about how to leave the theater discreetly. Don't worry. You aren't alone. Everyone else will have it too.


Beach Balls concerns a young man who wants to become a rock star and his adventures in this poor comedy. typical late 80s fare with some poor rock video/band performances, bad acting, production values, script,..you get the idea..even the cute girls can't save this dog..on a scale of one to ten..1


I had to watch this for university and it was the worst piece of media I have ever seen in my life! They call this a documentary. It cannot be called a documentary because there are no interviews or commentary -- it's just someone following people around with a camera in Cuba. Perhaps people think it's good and arty because it's "different" and not like the average documentary but seriously, there is no movement, direction or purpose to this and it's 85 minutes of my life I will never get back!! One will not learn much from this piece of media as it is not particularly informative. I found it hard to keep watching this, alone write an essay on it afterwards. Thanks a lot university, NOT!!!


This skillful, soulful film is shot mostly in closeups, the faces of the people, the hands doing their work. Roasting peanuts, lining track. At night some of them go out and participate in nightlife or cultural activities. There's a burst of life in an otherwise lifeless existence. But there's an overwhelming feeling of myopia, the camera seldom pulls back to give a wider view. I took this to parallel the necessary myopia of having to live in a totalitarian state. You don't want to be to aware of the context. There's always the CDR, the spies, the informants ready to report any anti-government activity or conversation. Better concentrate on your work. A TV is going in one of the houses, a clip of a Fidel rally is playing endlessly, watched by only by a very old woman who may or may not be blind. A large lighted sign over the city reads, REVOLUCION. The letters are faded, the accent on the "o" is unlit. This has to be intentional on the part of the filmmaker. The revolution has failed. Toward the end you see two guys sitting at night in the rain with the statue of John Lennon, the forlorn hopes and dreams for freedom and spontaneity. At the very end waves crashing on the seawall--the world is pushing in, how long can Cuba hold it off?


I did not like this film at all. Very romantic Cuban style movie, without any edge at all. The fact that the maker of this film was allowed to make it and leave Cuba with the tapes, tells it all. This movie smells Cuban propaganda.

All the people have their problems, but all in all its really not much to talk about. You see a quite well functioning Havanna, where people actually work and looks forward. Do they? i cannot remember seeing that many people work at the same time, when i visitede the country in 98..

I don't say that all films like this have to be critical to the system, but when you make a film about this many Cubans i find it very strange not to include at least one person who dreams about: another government,democracy, freedom of speech, to be able to travel, to read what he/she wants...the list goes on...a person with dreams like these is not hard to find in Havanna. OK there was this guy who went to Miami, but i bet even Fidel was not insulted after seeing that scene.

I gave it 2 points because of the great photo shots.

Its a sin to use porn like music in a film about a country with a music tradition as strong as the Cuban.


(Whats the point in me telling you the ending)

My girlfriends uncle gave this PPV to me as a gift. He told me it was good. When i watched it, I was a bit insulted. At the time i thought it was a mean joke or something. But i was very polite and thanked him any way :)

Criss Masters VS Carlito.

The starting match was Carlito vs Criss Masters. The Match was OK. A good start to the show. There was only one good move when carlito jumped from the rope.. 5/10

Umaga VS Rickflair.

Pointless feud. The match was alright. Kinda sad to see rick flair to be beaten up like that. Thats all that really happened. Rick flair being beaten up, Flair didn't stand and chance. Besides the odd slap or low blow. It was a really fast match. But it wasn't to bad. 6/10

Trish vs Mickie James

It was a OK match, Not much happened. I was looking forward to seeing what would happen after WM. The match ended after she injured herself (inreal life) But i didn't care. The match wasn't that great. 3/10 Poor Trish lol :(

RVD vs Shelton Benjamin

I love RVD. It was a good match but it took to long to get started. The match started really slow. There were a few good moves. A good match. 7/10

Kane vs Big Show I thought the feud was funny. Kane attacking big show over a silly thing about the date may 19th. Big show had a small cut over his eye, And said 'Tonight will be an eye for and eye. Haha. The match was stupid. They acted like idiots. (pains me to say that about such kick ass wrestlers) The room went red and a magic voice started say may 19th. Kane started crying and big show put him out of his pain bye knocking him out with a chair... It was really short. 1/10

The McMahons vs HBK and god.... I don't care about the match. The fact the Mcmahon was talking to god in front of the fans was just stupid. I was getting very tired of this PPV. I was not offended bye this match.. It was just stupid. No wonder there's a stereotype that wrestling is for kids. 2/10

Edge vs. Cena vs. HHH

I must say that the DVD was not running well but from what i saw it looked like a pretty cool match. Nice and bloody, The out come made every edge/cena/HHH fan happy. 7/10

This was a rushed PPV just after Wresltemainia.


I'll come right out and say it  not everything Shakespeare ever wrote is a gem that needs to be enshrined forever. What's more, most movies of Shakespeare plays are even worse; they're either faux-stagey, as if the actors wish you to keep in mind that this is Shakespeare, for God's sake, or they go the other way and become overly artsy. I only own a few on them on disc (Ken Branagh's Much Ado and Henry V, where the tongue-twisting dialogue flows so effortlessly it appears to be ad-libbed), as most of the versions I have encountered are artless train wrecks; even Orson Welles' Othello is to my mind wince-worthy.

I tried this version out solely because Diana Rigg was in it. Granted, so was the rest of the Royal Shakespeare Company circa 1968, an impressive list (Ian Holm, David Warner, Helen Mirren, Judi Densch, etc.); and this is a difficult play to do well because its plot is so hoary, and the play-within-the-play so tedious, that these actors can hardly be held accountable for the bard's sins.

Not that they don't make enough of their own, however. Central to the film's weakness is that it can't figure out its own identity. There is a stab at period costume here and there, but then Rigg shows up in suede go-go boots (not to mention Queen Hippolyta in a leather dress and thigh boots). The story is set in Athens, but the landscape (at least they didn't use a soundstage) is Tudor England, as are whatever costumes attempt to be period (the period of Shakespeare, not Athens). The film takes place almost wholly outside, which is a relief, but unlike, say, Branagh's Much Ado, which takes advantage of some gorgeous Tuscan landscape, most of the time here we are treated to some non-descript copses of trees. Add to that budgetary problems  Puck, Oberon, and gang appear as green-tinted hippies, with their faces not even matching the hue of their bodies  and you have a production that is easier to laugh at than with.

Most of the actors give it their all, but most of them appear miscast. Rigg is far too old and worldly for the dopey Helena, and Derek Godfrey's Theseus seems more like a baron in some Russian novel (though admittedly I kept getting distracted by his helmet-head bouffant). You'll see a lot more of Judi Densch than you ever wanted to, as her costume amounts to green paint and teeny pasties. I did like Warner's Lysander, who appeared the most natural of the four young lovers, and Ian Holm's Puck, but it's impossible not to enjoy a Holm performance.

I tend to think Shakespeare movies tell you more about the period when they are made rather than when they are set (much like the plays themselves), and this one is no different. Part old school, part hippie romp, the film unintentionally reflects the chaos of the late sixties, of a cultural shift, or wanting to take something classic and make it new but unfortunately having no idea how. The end result is a lurching effect, its low budget and low-tech seeming impossibly crude to viewers used to spectacles such as Lord of the Rings (even Xena's make-up jobs would make these look silly). It's interesting as a novelty piece to look at where Shakespeare presentations were, and where they were aiming to be, four decades ago; certainly we have a different emphasis now, as actors forty years from now will no doubt reinterpret the bard in their own fashion (android Iago?). For all but a die-hard fan of any of the regulars or of Shakespeare's work, though, this film is a pass. It did, however, help shed light on why a talented actress who was part of the Royal Shakespeare company for many years is chiefly remembered for judo kicks and leather catsuits.


I would only recommend this movie to people who would like to see a laughably horrible version of a great play. All the actors are horrible, except for whoever plays Bottom. They deliver their lines incredibly dry. The costumes are also bad, as the female characters are in mini skirts most of the time. Surprising, considering the movie takes place in Ancient Greece, or, at least, it's supposed to, but the director decided to say it was in Athens, when all the costumes and sets look like the Victorian times. The editing in this film is nonsensical. The fairies, instead of being graceful, disappear and move thanks to the magic of film cutting. Human characters find themselves in random places in between lines of monologues, even in between lines of dialog, where it makes even less sense, when one character is suddenly up a tree. It's a funny movie, but not because the play is a comedy, but because it's all so horrible.

Thumbs down, way down.


1st watched 5/25/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Peter Hall): Well-intentioned attempt at silly Shakespeare play with some good acting, makeup, and set design, but a muddled mess of a movie. I guess even the masters can make dud's and this sure is one. The central purpose or theme seems to be that human love can last but only with help from a group of god-like fairies who are able to move love from one person to another with the sprinkling of flowers while the human's sleep. What follows is love hopping from one person(or beast) to another but it all gets fixed in the end and the lovers live happily ever after despite their past nights worries due to the constant change in couples. A big piece of fluff from such a serious playwright as Shakespeare just doesn't seem to work and despite some good performances this version I thnk will be forgotten eventually.


I have seen many versions of the play in my life, both on stage and screen. For that matter, I actually played the role of Puck as a child. And this is unquestionably the worst version I've ever seen. The actors are stiff -- probably mostly due to the director, as they never, ever move. The camera angle, however, leaps whimsically and frequently. Characters, too, and not just the fairies, appear suddenly before freezing in place to say their lines. It reminds me of the Confuse-a-Cat sketch from Monty Python's Flying Circus. Regardless of the high-powered cast, only Ian Holm as Puck and relative nobody Michael Jayston as Demetrius show any energy at all ever. I'd also like to concur with regards to what others have said about how dirty the lovers get, the strangeness of the costumes, and a number of other points. The overall effect is that of a remarkably boring two hour long drug trip, best appreciated through open mocking.

On a side note, I would not allow any daughter of mine on screen naked but for green paint.


There are three reasons for seeing this movie. Diana Rigg, Judi Dench and Judi Dench's miniscule costume. What a hot li'l pixie she was thirty years ago! She wears body paint nicely.

Other than that, we are treated to one of the least funny adaptations of a Shakespearean comedy I've ever seen. The director is far more interested in having the actors talk to the camera than each other. The Focus is on The Words, which would be fine for a radio adaptation, but it makes for a snooze of a movie.

The Kevin Kline/Michelle Pfeiffer version was better... and I didn't like *that*. Maybe this is just too delicate a comedy for the movies and needs to be seen live to be appreciated.

But Judi Dench... WOW! There is nothin' like a Dame.


The story started out okay: A teenager from the big city moves to a small town and begins a friendship with the girl no one likes, who is physically abused by her stepfather. Then both of them decide to set out to find gold on Bear Mountain.

However, early in the movie, it takes a turn for the worse: it starts looping in an endless chain of clichés, which I'd like to point out.

(WARNING: the following might be a spoiler for whoever hasn't seen the movie.)

When Beth can't use the breaks on her bicycle, she screams for Jody to get out of the way - however, she refuses to take this advice, and runs forward - and faster than the bike - and falls in the river.

Later, Jody tells Beth that she found an old book with the story of Molly Morgan. The book is later revealed to contain everything on how to get to the gold, and even a map! Yet, no one ever went searching before.

Jody and Beth wait on the boat for the exact time when the sunlight will bounce off the gold and reveal the mine (for only ten minutes). Coincidently, the beam lands EXACTLY where the girls have their boat - and the it looks amazingly like a spotlight.

Jody moves in to the cave - which has naturally formed stone furniture - and reveals to Beth that she killed her stepfather the previous night - with a fishing pole - and says that she was sure he wasn't breathing. Yet, in the latter scenes, he reappears, perfectly okay and unbruised.

Beth nearly drowns when she gets her leg stuck under a big rock and the water level rises - did it ever occur to her that she could sit up? It was her LEG that was stuck.

Jody never tells the police that her stepfather abuses her - even though she has the bruises to prove it.

In the scene where Beth tries to find Jody in the mountain, she finds a particular cave with awesome lights moving on the walls. These lights are revealed to be reflected by the natural - and lapidated - crystals in that cave.

Jody and Beth find the gold! But when they reach out to grab it, they discover they're larvae. Golden, glowing larvae.

And finally, Molly Morgan appears and saves them both from Jody's stepfather. Then, later, Jody and Beth receive a pack of gold from a lawyer "whose client wishes to remain anonymous". But it's never explained how Molly Morgan has a lawyer - and just why she gave that gold to the girls.


If you have seen this movie, I am very sorry. I sat through this terrible film one afternoon and wound up actually kicking myself for it. The acting is bad, but what do you expect from two young girls. The script was just awful, and there was absolutely no excitement or value whatsoever to this film. The events are both predictable, and highly unlikely. The worst part about it is there aren't even any laughable aspects as in other terrible movies such as Troll 2 or Manos: The Hands of Fate. If you haven't seen this movie, don't go out of your way to see it. Actually, do everything you can to avoid seeing it. I'm sure that this was one of the films they forced Alex to watch in A Clockwork Orange.


What a waste of 5 hours...what's that? the movie was only an hour and a half?! D'oh! This movie drags and drags, and has well, about 0 good qualities. I was literally kicking myself for having wasted my time to view this atrocious mess of the cinema. The plot is lame and very forced, the acting is bad at best, and the story is quite predictable. I understand that this was no attempt to make another Citizen Kane or anything, but oh man, this is seriously painful to watch! If you are looking for good "family" entertainment there are tons of other options. However, if you are looking to torture yourself and/or others, then check this movie out...it's something that you'll never forget, though more than likely you'll wish you could.


"Greeks on the Roof" is another example of the brain dead, banal, lame and dull witted Australian comedy which apparently can't seem to get by without referring first to some bodily function.

Add the parade of equally retarded Australian non-entities they brought on as guests and the whole show degenerated into an appalling parody compared to "The Kumars at 42". The "Kumars" is innovative, classy, witty, intelligent and wholly entertaining. Words that Australian comedy (or lack of it to be precise) just can't comprehend.

"Greeks" should have been banned for the sheer atavistic cruel torture they inflict on one's intelligence. To describe the show as stupid would seriously be a compliment. This is no exaggeration

The same ban should apply to the soap "Neighbours" which could accurately be described as a trip down insanity lane. Talk about suburban boredom!!!

Put the 2 shows together and suicide would be a blessing.


To be honest, this film is basically a very poor rip-off of Finding Nemo....

and is no where near as good, funny or entertaining, nor is the animation up to the same standard.

The plot is roughly the same, although this time he doesn't go after his parents - even the voices sound alike!

I really recommend that you don't go and see this film - even little kids who have seen other animated films (such as Finding Nemo, Shrek, Shark Tale, Over the Hedge, Madagascar, etc) may turn up their nose at this one.


Firstly, let me start by saying that if I could give this movie 0, then I happily would, as it goes I cain't so a 1 will have to do. Now, then on with the review. 'The Reef' or 'Shark Bait' as it is otherly known is a floundering story about a young guppie fish named Pi who is forced to move to the glossy reef under the sea after his family are killed. It is here where he encounters bullying sharks, dopey but cute angelfish and a storyline so drip it makes you want to bury your own head.Queue all the kiddie-flick clichés which so merrily unfold. There are just so many bad points about this movie (not to mention a laughable stab at trying to rip off Finding Nemo and Shark Tale) The animation is absolute carp, the voice-over work (by a blatantly wannabe Will Smith-like Freddie Prinze Jr and Rob Schneider) is a jumbled mess and the whole 'complexity' of the story is just bad. The set visuals are very candy-eyed but only add to the dishorientation of the film. It is a very appalling movie, even below Shark Tale's standard, and very very un-original. Don't see this for your own good...


I watched this movie and tried to put Finding Nemo and, even, A Shark Tale out of my mind. Unfortunately, it was impossible considering the number of failings that this film had.

You know those sticker activity books that you buy for your kids, where they can place characters/creatures anywhere they like to make their own story? That is what this movie is. There is no sense of place, environment or even interaction established through the audio/visuals.

The central tale concerns a small fish who lost his parents (awwwwww) and then meets a lovely girl at the reef, only to have her proposed to by a big, bad shark and then he realises that he has a month to get trained up and ready to challenge that shark, for better or worse. Like The Karate Kid, but with fish.

This review is not a good one so let me just rattle off all of the bad points. NONE of the vocal talent engage us in any way whatsoever, the animation is as poor as anything pre-Pixar, the jokes are almost uniformly embarrassing and pretty much everything here is designed to put you off the movie. Oh, there are a few fart gags - whoop dee dooo! NOT family fun and not enjoyable for anyone from any generation, in my opinion. Avoid. I gave it a 3 because some individual frames in "the haunted shipwreck" looked nice. Avoid. Avast. Avoid.

See this if you like: Fish, The Karate Kid, more fish.


Truly, this is an awful film. I loved Finding Nemo and I enjoyed Shark Tale, and I saw this film expecting it to be less good than either of these films but worth a watch none-the-less. This was not the case.

Obviously I am not the target audience for this film. I am seventeen and this film is clearly aimed at children much younger than myself. However, most children's films are made bearing in mind that they will mostly be seen by adults as well. This film can't have been - there are no jokes for kids, let alone adults. The whole thing feels like a bad computer game; an impression emphasised by the bizarre pause that follows everything any of the characters say. The ending, especially, gives the impression that somewhere there's a kid with a console playing out the action.

Not everything in this film is appalling. Sometimes - just sometimes - it comes up with something that really is moving or humorous. However, the tears and the laughter quickly dry up when you remember that you saw the exact thing in Finding Nemo or Shark Tale, only better. The level of plagiarism this film reaches was previously unknown to me. Never before had I seen anything that ripped off anything else to the degree that this film does. Even Freddie Prinze Jr.'s enthusiastic vocals can't lift this one - he's clearly trying his best and, although his best is not wonderful, it shouldn't have found its way into a film this poor.

Overall, the animation is shocking, the characterisation is non-existent and the story has clearly been stolen and dumbed-down until it means nothing, makes no sense and makes the audience feel far more willing to buy that Finding Nemo DVD. Avoid. This. Film.


I'm sorry, but this movie absolutely stinks. Any review giving it more than one star is from someone just being nice. My 2 and 4 year old daughters watched it, like they do every new movie, 6 times in a row the first day. But now it's in the back of the pile and it never comes out.

It's hard to decide which is worse: the dialog or the acting. First, Andy Dick, like he does in every movie, stinks. Then there's the fake accents that sound so... what's the word... fake. Fran Drescher is so stale. Freddie Prinze Jr. actually sounds too stiff to be the hero.

Every aspect of this movie is a butcher job of a bad movie made worse.


Compared to this, films like The Little Mermaid and more recently Finding Nemo are broad, groundbreaking epic pieces of surrealist animated genius that echo Fantasia. Yes, Shark Bait truly is that bad in fact it could well be looked at as a new low for animation as a whole. But it's not that Shark Bait isn't just bad, it's mostly pointless. Did we really need another film about a young and energetic hero who must overcome his self doubts and doubters as he strives to win the heart of a young female and beat the bad guys in the process, creating a better and safer new order? No, we didn't but Shark Bait goes ahead anyway.

I read that this film was a joint venture between the U.S.A. and South Korea; ugh, what do these two nations have in common when it comes to film-making? Shark Bait's cast includes R. Lee Ermey; John Rhys-Davies; Donal Logue; Rob Schneider and Freddie Prinze Jr. Love or hate any of the cast, that's still an impressive array of different personalities but judging by the animation, did they blow all the money on the cast? There used to be a time when it didn't matter who was doing the voiceovers and the goal was to create a dynamic and visually impressive experience, not any more it would seem; now we have to have names to fill up the posters and get people in  but get them into what?

A word on the animation. On this occasion, the film looks more like a badly rendered PC screensaver produced by a second rate company for an equally second rate computer, and that's at the best of times. There is one occasion when the animation threatens to pull through and that's when the hero and his girl are above the sea level watching the moon  the ripples in the water and clouds above seem impressive enough, but that's when you realise the two fish have been above the water for so long, they would've 'drowned' by now.

Also, a point on the joint U.S.A./South Korea set-up is that they're two very different nations when it comes to animation or cartoons. When I think of Korea, I guess I think of 'funimation', or 'cute' animation, something that has perhaps spilled over from Japanese contemporary culture. Now, it's all well and good saying this is a kids film and so forth and that it fits but there is a clash of ideas here. The Americans have made some cracking animated films in the last few years such as Monster's Inc.; Ice Age and Finding Nemo but these were American through and through and there is no 'influence' or clashing from other nation's animated ideas.

The Shark Bait of the title is Pi (Prinze Jr.), a young fish whose family is swept away by a human fishing net and flees to a fish sanctuary far away to live with a relative. It's here he meets girlfriend Cordelia (Evans-Wood) and shark bully Troy (Logue), who wants Cordelia for himself  can you imagine what the kids between a shark and an angelfish (or whatever Cordelia is) would look like? Anyway, Pi must come to learn that just taking something is the wrong belief and sharing what Troy thinks is additionally incorrect so he must go through a training montage with an elder mentor and on and on it goes. Now, delivering this sort of message to very young kids is fine, I suppose, but when a film is so inept that it sounds like the voice talent was recorded in someone's living room and the script sees needs-must to throw in homosexual German crabs and a photographer of French decent as well as Jamaican and Southern United State accents for the hell of it, it grates on me.

Additionally at Shark Bait's centre is the idea that Cordelia, the female the two males are fighting over, is nothing but a mere prize to be won and that's the catalyst for the whole film to even happen - that part certainly isn't a positive message. The film is all feint, feint set up and no payoff. Did I mention Cordelia is supposed to be some sort of fish celebrity that appears on the cover of National Geographic? I guess the fish know that because one of them must've seen a discarded issue, amid all the other trash, on the bed of where Pi was living at the very beginning. But, this celebrity status is non-existent from the beginning and she manages to go to a concert with Pi without anyone noticing her  that's before the trip above water where they should've died.

The film wonders on and Pi eventually undertakes a training routine from a turtle that knows some sort of martial art in which controlling water bursts and moving at high speed are key; Pi only cracks it when he actually builds up enough energy to get genuinely angry. Everything from Troy's nasty sidekicks, one of whom seems to posses an accent reminiscent of a 1930s Hollywood gangster whilst the other seems to be doing a really bad Christopher Walken impression, to Troy's own frequent rhyming as he attempts to get across a sense of evil; it all fails and fails big time.


The animation on this movie was so sub-par it is amazing it even made it to the screen. The movements are stiff and the faces are not very animated. There is no emotion in the faces and they are extremely bland and boring. The characters are all predictable as is the dialog. The main character, Pi, is so badly created he is almost forgettable. I guess the "big stars" offering the voices must have all cringed at the final product because it is embarrassing to watch.

The writing is stiff as well and the jokes are for toddlers or little kids.

If this was cut up and then shown on Sat. Mornings then it'd be above average, just.

This is a rip off of both Finding Nemo and Shark Tale, and a very bad one at that.

For the kids only. Young ones at that.


Functioning only as an apt definition for "hot mess," "The Reef" is really just an awful movie. The script, the voice acting, and the animation are not even a notch above film school amateur hour. In fact, a conscientious mouse jockey in his mom's basement could probably compose a 5-minute CGI short on his Mac with more going for it.

"The plot" does not matter as the similarities between it, "Finding Nemo," and "Shark Tale" are so obvious that Helen Keller could find them. The glaring deficiencies in the quality of CGI, screenplay, voice acting and the feeble rip-off of other far more capable screen stories makes one wonder why someone at some point didn't come to their senses and ditch this project long before it ever made it in the can.

It tries for some jokes but fails every time. In fact, I don't think I laughed once. Even purposefully bad groaners fail to elicit a chuckle. The puns are so deliberate and juvenile it's baffling that it could have passed muster to any adult sensibility. But, then again, even "Howard the Duck" got made.

One of the key reasons there are no laughs is that there is no good voice acting. There is zero personality attached to these characters. Everyone involved is phoning in it and probably going for a paycheck to cover their Christmas fund.

Movies like this make you appreciate the thoughtful craftsmanship of Pixar's movies. It makes you realize how vital the story and the composition of the script is - not to mention, of course, their vastly superior CGI animation. Even relatively "bad" CGI movies like Shark Tale and Madagascar have tons more personality and skill behind them than "The Reef" does. As desperately tired as I am of all these awful and cheaply made CGI movies about animals, insects, or both, at least most of them have some basic charm and a few jokes you may actually laugh at, thus in some measure vaguely redeeming themselves.

"The Reef," however, has no redeeming value at all. Best to leave this one alone as watching it will merely be torture.


Ever been to a film where you are looking at your watch within the first 5 minutes?

Sadly this film looks great from the trailer and has the relevant kiddie appeal - so we took our son (who loves Finding Nemo) and all of us were deeply disappointed.

The very poor animation looks like this was made in someone's bedroom (actually I think now you could do a better job at home) and the storyline is nearly non existent. Half the time I thought the projector was out of focus, but no, it is just made that poorly.

The characters sound and look wooden, there is none of the 'shine' that a film like Nemo has. Characters also appear out of nowhere with no explanation.... granted the audience is young, but they aren't stupid!

It is sad to see how a film like this can be made against the fabulous work and care that someone like Pixar put into animated stories, this is just rubbish, and I wouldn't bother going to see it - save the £20 or so it will cost you, buy some popcorn and watch something decent in your own home on DVD


I have seen this film with my brother back in 2006, when I was 10 and he was 6. My dad brought this film from a video-club, not even looking what it is (typical for him, he just asks "Is this a film for kids?" and if it is, he takes it). When I saw the cover, I knew it will be a bad film, but I put it in and watched it anyway.

The film is about a fish named Pi. He lives in Boston with his parents, who are starting to think should they leave Boston and go to a tropical reef, where Pi would be safe. Both of them are caught in a fishing net, and Pi is saved by some porpoises. They bring him to the tropical reef his parents were talking about.

Next, he sees Cordelia, a pink female fish, being taken photos of by some divers. Pi immediately falls in love with her. There are some fish around her, and among them he finds his cousin, Dylan. There, he learns about the inhabitants of the reef. He learns about "flatbottom" (the open ocean), and that all the fish avoid it, because fishing isn't forbidden there, and there are numerous fishing nets.

Soon after, a bully shark Troy (oh, how original name) appears on the scene, with his two pals, a barracuda and an eel. Troy kisses Cordelia, and Pi unsuccessfully tries to stop him and save Cordelia. The eel and the barracuda attack Dylan.

Pi learns that Troy is a true nightmare for the inhabitants of the reef, and that nobody has enough courage to stop him. He meets a sea turtle, Nerrisa, who teaches him some kind of martial arts and shows him some places where Troy could get stuck or worse, so Pi could defeat him.

As the day of the fight between Troy and Pi gets closer, Cordelia begs Pi to not do that, because Troy could kill him. In the meantime, Troy is trying to find a pearl and give it to Cordelia. He promised he'll find the most beautiful pearl in the ocean for her (in the film, when a fish gives a pearl to another one, it means the first fish wants to marry the other one). He gets angry and sends his pals to find one, and they see Nerissa's dark-blue pearl and try to steal it, unsuccessfully. Fearing of Troy's punishment, they steal the pink pearl of Dylan's mother.

The day of the fight comes. Troy appears on the reef and starts singing rimes, like he's the best, the strongest and so on. Pi stops him and provokes him. Troy gets angry and chases him to kill him. Pi quickly swims through narrow passages, and Troy gets stuck, but is saved by the divers from the beginning of the movie.

Pi tries out another trap: a sea current filled with jellyfish. Troy bashes into one and faints. He falls on the sea floor. Pi comes to him to claim his victory, but Troy suddenly awakens and kicks him. The other inhabitant of the reef, when they see what happened, rush in to help Pi. Some of them attack Troy, and the others help Pi.

Pi gets better and lures Troy into a fishing net. As the net is going to the surface and the only way out is getting narrower and narrower, Pi quickly swims to the top and jumps out of it. Troy tries to do the same, but is to big to get through. He cannot get out, and he gets pulled out of the water.

Everybody celebrates the victory. Dylan manages to defeat his provokers, Troy's two pals, and takes the pearl they have stolen. Nerissa gifts his blue pearl to Pi, and he gives it to Cordelia. She accepts him. Even the eel and the barracuda start celebrating and find their place among the others.

OK, these are thing that I noticed in the film:

* Firstly, I'm not sure that in Boston there are so colourful fish as Pi (he's orange).

* Next, the dolphins (porpoises) that saved him and brought him to the reef are very stupid and unnaturally looking.

* How can Dylan know that Cordelia was in National Geographic? He couldn't just walk out of the water and buy one!

* The people that made this film should have made the fish look more natural. In this way I'm not even sure that Troy really is a tiger shark (because I think that tiger sharks have some kind of stripes on them).

* There's a wise sea turtle, Nerissa. Why does it always need to be a turtle? Putting a sea snake or something instead of Nerissa would be more original, I think.

* The graphics are awful!

* Troy is smiling through the whole film! How can a baddie smile all the time? He must be a psychopath or retarded or something!?

* I noticed a goof in the film: in the current there are some jellyfish, and Troy bashes IN THE HEAD of one. The heads don't sting, only the tentacles or how are they called.

* There is a walrus or something in the film, and, during the whole film, he did not go to the surface to breathe (I say this because walruses can't breathe under water).

In the end, I give this film a 3 out of 10. Why 3, why not 1? Because I watched it the second time with my little cousin, a toddler. She enjoyed the film, so I think this movie is suited for toddlers.


Shark Bait (aka: The Reef) sports an all star cast (and I use the term rather generously), but is badly marred by a weak story line, horrendous dialogue, cheesy references to other films, and third rate computer animation.

I assume the bulk of the film's (apperently low) budget must have gone toward convincing some fairly popular actors to embarrass themselves by having their names associated with this "bucket o' chum"! The actors seemed to walk through their parts, as if they simply sat in a sound booth and read lines they had never seen before.

The writing is horrible... period.

Much of the film is an obvious knock off of both Disney/Pixar's Finding Nemo and Dreamworks' Shark Tale. However, the animation doesn't fall in line with those movies. Much of it seems unfinished, as if we are watching a "making of" segment on the bonus material portion of a DVD.

IMDb lists the title as Shark Bait in the U.S. and The Reef as the U.K. title. However, the copy I rented from a U.S. Blockbuster store had the latter title.

The film is rated G for General Audiences by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), but is riddled with crude, scatological humor (farting noises followed by bubbles rising from behind  a fish "wetting" himself and the surrounding water turning yellow), numerous references to butts, and even one reference to putting things in one's butt. When a movie is rated "G" one usually expects that it won't contain any material which could possibly be considered offensive. Not the case here.

The only reason I gave this movie a rating of 2, and not 1, is that my kids under 6 found it mildly amusing (emphasis on mildly), but I can't even recommend it for kids of that age because of the gratuitous potty humor. Those over that age, however, were as bored and disappointed as I was.


I took two of my kids to see this abomination the other day, and couldn't wait to get out of the cinema. It's just truly dire.

I wasn't expecting Pixar levels of animation, but I certainly wasn't prepared for quite how bad it turned out to be. And as for the story... well, at least it's being environmentally friendly by recycling every cliché it can lay its hands on.

The voice acting is more wooden than Keanu Reeves (now that's not something I ever expected to type!), but given the script it's not entirely surprising - it sounds like the 'talent' just phoned their parts in.

Awful, awful, awful.

Avoid.


Everyones going to say it and I'm no different. Shark Tale/Finding Nemo rip-off!

The start is Finding Nemo, right down to the parent being caught.

Pi is sent off to find his Aunt on The Reef. On the journey Pi grows up in less than 5 seconds and is told by Aunt Pearl they never go to Flat Bottom so you know he IS going to go there. And to stay off the Haunted Pirate Shipwreck. And sure enough they go to both forbidden places within less than 5 minutes of being told not to.

Odd that.

I do question how a fish knows the names of Star constellations?

Anyway, Pi gets bullied and beaten up by a Shark who likes the girl/fish he loves, goes on a journey of self discovery until all his friends help him defeat the bad shark. Exceptionally DULL and predictable.

He gets the girl. No shock there.

This is Really Boring and awful, nothing happens and its tedious to watch as it takes SO much time to get anywhere at all.

Leave it until its in the DVD bargain bin which won't be long.


I've seen a lot of bad animation and this is the worst theatrically released animation I've ever seen.

It's just hitting the pay-per-view scene in Canada and I beg you, don't rent this one. Obviously I fell prey to its "something to rent for the kids on a snowy night" marketing strategy.

Animation: zero Sound quality all over the map: zero Dialogue (are you kidding me): zero Poster (a well done rip-off of the Finding Nemo design): 1 out of 10

I only log into IMDb to comment maybe three times a year and this is my first of 2008. It's that important that this film dies a quick death.


The special effects again are superb but this is Finding Nemo in reverse i.e the parents get taken away and Pi (Nemo) is left behind, if you haven't seen Finding Nemo you will like it.

It becomes very clear at the beginning of the film what the plot is and takes a long time to reach the end!

There's is nothing new or nail biting in this one and there is no humour at all, which is very disappointing.

All in all very disappointing as a follow up movie to Shark Tale which there really are no similarities with it should have been called Finding Nemo 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


As much as I love Rutger Hauer, I just couldn't enjoy this movie. Because some of the cops looked alike and because the filmmakers only attempted to explain half of an interconnected story in order to preserve the final surprise element, I wound up confused in the beginning (until they make it totally obvious that Hauer is being set up).

Hauer is Nick Randall, a slick bounty hunter who is visited by Philmore Walker, an old partner (Robert Gillaume), who persuades Randall to take on a risky job involving Arab terrorists (I think they need the feds, not one bounty hunter for a job of this size). Only problem is, that Walker is in cahoots with the city police officials are actually working with the terrorists to bring Randall down. In constructing the story, the filmmakers try too hard to make some of it, but not enough of it known (at least sequentially), and for me at least, it turned out to be a difficult mess to sort through (again, until they make it obvious through at least half of the second act). Furthermore, there just wasn't enough develop among the characters (possibly, because there are too many people involved) that you never really get a real sense of anything.

The only saving grace, however, are the action sequences. Plenty of car chases and explosions if you're in the mood for them.


A rather convoluted and tedious 'action' movie from the 80s, Wanted: Dead or Alive stars Rutger Hauer as Nick Randall, a tough-as-nails bounty hunter on the trail of nasty Arab terrorists (led by Malak Al Rahim played by Gene Simmons), who are out and about in L.A. blowing up innocent people.

Hauer is his usual reliable self, and turns in a good performance as the hardboiled ex-CIA operative who makes his living bringing in the bad guys any way he can. Likewise, Simmons (the demon bassist from my favourite rock band, Kiss) makes the most of his part as the head terrorist, sneering and glowering to the max and generally looking very evil. But with its rather dull script and pedestrian direction from Gary Sherman, even they can't save this movie from being a less than average production.

Apart from a few bits of nasty violence, and a nifty ending which sees Randall wreaking revenge on Malak Al Rahim in explosive fashion, Wanted: Dead or Alive is a pretty forgettable movie.


a bounty hunter(Rutger Hauer)takes on a terrorist(Gene Simmons).while it's refreshing to see Hauer in a non bad guy role,there's not much else to recommend this movie. found it boring and tedious from the get go,right to the final credits.Robert Guillaume is also in the movie and is good,as always,but he is wasted here.Garey Sherman directed the movie.he also directed Poltergeist III and wrote several episodes of the TV series Poltergeist:The Legacy and he co-wrote Wanted:dead or Alive with Michael Patrick Goodman.i wanted to like this movie,but it just doesn't have much going for it in the originality or action and excitement dept.the most i can give Wanted:Dead or Alive is a 4/10


The main reason that I bought this movie was that Gene Simmons is my most beloved rock idol. As well, I'm proud that my tiny little country has the honor to be asked for an actor like Rutger Hauer in a big American movie. The title of this movie sounds full of suspense and the description on the back of the cover sounds lethal, full of nuclear terror and L.A.-wide fear...But I didn't like the movie at all; the tension of the confrontations between the main players hardly ever wasn't built up in a creepy way. The main enemies even hardly ever met each other in the movie. This wouldn't be a real problem if other players would have had fierce clashes with each others, but they mostly remained far away; the one in the police station, the other hidden in the oil warehouse. When they prosecute each other in the factory, the scenes seemed pretty predictable to me. A good thriller ought to be quite unpredictable with a complicated plot. The story was just humble, could be compared to many other thrillers. Even the personalities were neither eccentric nor very expressive. It's a tragedy that the love scenes in the movie were the most beautiful. This ought to be a real thriller, not a romantic movie!! Gene, you should run away back to your far better movie 'Runaway' and Rutger, welcome back to Holland!


Despite the title, this movie really has no similarity to the TV show WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE. In fact, it's an incredibly violent and mind-rotting piece of garbage without a single interesting moment. I remember when a co-worker rented this piece of &*@@!*$ when we were both doing an overnight shift at the hospital. He thought it was pretty cool, but everyone else there just was horrified by how violent and stupid the movie was. There didn't seem to be much plot--just Gene Simmons killing a lot of people and the good guy(?) Rutger Hauer doing the same in the name of law and order! And, in the end, we were treated with one of the most gratuitous and violent endings, when he shoved a hang grenade in Simmons' mouth and pulled the pin. I just wish the pin had been pulled a lot sooner and ended this mess!

This movie should be of interest only to psychotics and sociopaths--all others, steer clear at all costs. This is exactly the sort of film that demeans our society and desensitizes us to evil. Don't watch this film!

PS--Instead of Gene Simmons from KISS, using the actress Jean Simmons might have made this movie a lot more interesting! She could do more than just make evil leers, so she couldn't help but improve the part.


First there was a TV show called Wanted Dead Or Alive, made in the late 1950s, with an upcoming young star named Steve McQueen playing heroic Wild West bounty hunter Josh Randall. Here, in this 1987 actioner, the events take place in modern times and Rutger Hauer's character is named Nick Randall. He is, in fact, revealed as the great-grandson of McQueen's character from the old TV show, but the link is barely mentioned and has absolutely no relevance to the plot of this film. Still, that wouldn't matter if the new and updated Wanted Dead Or Alive was any good. maybe if the action was exciting, or the storyline had a few new ideas and angles, or even if the film as a whole had any sense of pace and purpose. But no! Wanted Dead Or Alive is an ultra-mindless, ultra-pointless offering that makes one grind one's teeth with despair.

Ex-CIA operative Nick Randall (Rutger Hauer) now works as a lone-wolf bounty hunter in L.A. He lives in between jobs in a huge warehouse full of motorcycles and gym equipment. His knife-edge existence teeters even closer to the edge when Arab terrorist Malak Al Rahim (Gene Simmons) starts blowing up buildings and people in downtown L.A. First 140 people are slaughtered in a cinema bombing; later Rahim proposes to destroy a chemical plant, wiping out some 30,000 innocent lives in the process! One of Randall's old CIA colleagues, Philmore Walker (Robert Guillaume), approaches our moody hero and pleads with him to track down Rahim. Randall agrees, but is initially unaware that the authorities intend to double-cross him as they have reason to like him even less than the terrorist! Rahim doesn't take too kindly to the interference of this bounty hunter and kills a few of his nearest and dearest, leaving Randall so angry that he forsakes his money and goes after his adversary purely for the personal satisfaction of it.

Wanted Dead Or Alive is a pretty awful movie on most levels. It doesn't deliver for action fans, because the action has a cheap, amateurish feel about it. It doesn't deliver for suspense fans because there is no excitement, just lots of noise and mayhem. It doesn't deliver as a "thinking-man's" thriller because of its insistence on mindlessness. And it doesn't deliver for those who fondly remember the old TV show because it has virtually nothing in common with it other than the fact that it features a bounty hunter named Randall. The script by Michael Patrick Goodman, Brian Taggert and director Gary Sherman goes nowhere - it doesn't even build up an interesting contrast between the hero and the villain. In a movie like Die Hard, which came a year later, the cat-and-mouse psychology played out between hero and villain gives the story a sense of focus and creates real tension. In this one, there's none of that.. Rahim and Randall have barely any scenes together, and their battle against each other carries no interest for the audience at all, other than an all-too-brief final showdown in which the good guy comes up with an admittedly novel way of disposing of his nemesis. Gene Simmons as the Arab terrorist looks suitably wild, but beyond that it's a nothing of a role. Hauer is similarly wasted as the hero  he wears a cool leather jacket and lives in a pretty mean bachelor pad, but that's about as deep and meaningful as the character gets! As anti-terrorism action movies go, this is one BOMB in urgent need of detonation, preferably on some island as far from intelligent civilisation as possible.


This has to be one of the lamest movies ever produced, despite the promise of a winning cast (Cindy Williams, Leslie Neilsen). However, if you can stick it out to about the middle of the film, you will find the cream filling inside the stale cupcake - a memorable song by a forgettable alien. I can still get my husband to throw things at me when I sing the first bar of that song...


Well... I know some folks herald this as intelligent satire, but... I had a hard time with it. The only redeeming moment was when Dr. Stark, asked if he wants any pie, says "Science is my pie." That pretty much saved the movie for about thirty seconds.

The problem was that there were lots and lots of "jokes" that were very flat. Not flat as in deadpan. Flat as in... what was so funny about it? Perhaps if I watched it over and over again it might make me laugh more, but as I had a difficult time getting through it even ONCE, I doubt I'll ever know.

I am a big fan of horrible movies, such as "Traxx" starring Shadoe Stevens where a Soldier of Fortune mercenary turns his attention to being a successful cookie maker, and of spoofs like "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra." But I could not find the spark that makes a bad movie great in Spaceship (a.k.a. The Creature Wasn't Nice).

Perhaps there was a lack of tension to make the characters pop? So they would seem less like they were just reading lines? Perhaps they all needed more pie, or more science. Or more Science Pie.

The world may never know.

Support your local piemaker.


Like many people I believed this to be funny because the title was Naked Space.

I am not sure, but I believe the title was invented after the success of the great naked gun movies that were made years after this horrible crap.

This is truly one meaningless movie.

No matter how much you try to laugh at the jokes, you can't because actually there are none. It is almost if they tried to make the most boring movie ever and succeeded.

I smiled once during this movie.


I picked up this movie thinking, "Hey it's got Leslie Nielsen in it"... I usually love the characters that Leslie Nielsen plays, but even he could not save this one. It was described as a "comedy" but I really can't remember laughing once. All I could do was sit there and shake my head and pray for a power failure.


The WORST movie ever? Get real. Check out Manos the Hands of Fate. Better yet check out Savage Instinct by Troma Pictures. THEN you will have seen the face of truly awful.

Yes The Creature Wasn't Nice is indeed painfully bad, much of the humor is flat and the plot hangs together like cottage cheese. But it also has redeeming features. The irreverent character Rodzinski is good for yucks, as is the insane Doctor Stark is over the top with his goofball lines. "What are they going to call it? The JOHN organism? It's MINE!" I agree parts of the movie are gallingly bad, but get past them, and there are moments of merit here and there. It ain't Shakespeare but there are times when it is just what I need.


I see a number of people felt the same way I did about this movie. The $4.88 I paid for this DVD was overpriced by about $4.78. I must have seen worse movies than this - films that were offensive or overly violent. However, for plain embarrassing ineptitude, this one takes the cake. It makes "Attack of the killer tomatoes" look like Ibsen in comparison. I'm reaching for new superlatives of bad, but I fall short. If you have a chance to see this movie, take a walk instead.


The title suggests this was supposed to be in the same spirit as The Naked Gun, but the only similarity is Leslie Nielson. Drastically unfunny, even when it is technically bad. It drags like a rainy Boxing day. The sets are straight out of a 60's TV Sci-fi soap, the songs excruciatingly dull (and badly sung) and the the only suspense is how they got the money to make this low-point of Nielson's career.

Go and see a good film, like Plan 9, or Robot Monster! If you want to see a good film in the same genre (and budget) try Dark Star. Its beach ball monster shames the rubber beast in this film right back to Toyo studios.


I have seen many movies. More than a lot of people i like to think. And with this vast knowledge of cinema, I try to appreciate every movie i see, and even if it is "bad", and try to find some redeemable quality in it. Upon saying this, I believe, and this is quite a statement if you knew me, that the motion picture "Spaceship" is the worst film ever made in the history of time. There is not a word invented yet that describes how absolutely horrible this is. There are no redeemable qualities in it. This movie was not enjoyable one bit. I got sick a little bit during it. It is an embarrassment to film, to society, to humans as a race. However, it is imperitive that everyone watches this movie, so as to remind them that this is the bottom of the barrel, that this is as low as it gets. Like the holocaust, we must be reminded on how bad film can be and to NEVER let this kind of thing happen again. Make copies of this movie and send it to everyone you know. Lest we forget.


I came into this expecting it to be bad. I had no idea how bad it was. The title suggested it might be in the Naked Gun/Airplane style of humor, which when it works is good, when it doesn't can be mildly amusing. I don't know what it was.

It makes me wonder if the director had actually even seen a movie in his life. Perhaps it was an experiment to see what would happen if you took someone who had lived his whole life in a dark mildewy closet with only half a moldy, mildewy rat for a playmate, and set him loose behind a movie camera.

Actually, 90 minutes of watching someone sitting in a dark mildewy closet, playing with a dismembered moldy mildewy rat would be more entertaining than this piece of garbage.


This film is so utterly horrible that it defies description.

Leslie Neilson does a great stony-faced captain, Patrick Macnee is almost good as a mad scientist (as the box claims him to be). In fact, the actors all actually do a fairly good job.

So what is wrong with this piece of garbage?

I guess it boils down to the script. The concept of a couple of musical numbers is cute, but they don't work. The special effects don't work. The fact that you can see the concrete floor of the studio doesn't work. The space ship models are so reprehensibly bad that they don't work.

The movie just doesn't work.

I remember the first time I saw the box for this DVD at Best Buy. They wanted $20. I read the box, saw the cast, and a cold shiver clutched my bowels. I _knew_ this was a horrible film.

But time passed, and I came upon a copy for $5 at a used book store and I should have passed on it. Instead I wasted 90 minutes of my life and whatever time it's taking me to write this warning, sorry, review.

I'll end with this: at the end of the credits you find out it was made in 1983 at a community college.

It shows.


This is a prime candidate for worst 'comedy' film ever made.

They came close to screwing up; there were a couple moments where I almost cracked a smilealmost. I have a friend who loves this film. His wife and I are considering having him committed to a sanitarium for just that reason. Neither of us can see what makes this film so amusing to him. At the same time, he can't see the entertainment value of "The Beyond" or "Dellamorte Dellamore" (aka Cemetery Man), two popular cult films.

What's wrong with "Naked Space"? It's not funny; it's uproariously unfunny. The attempts at jokes all fall flat. They even attempt an ill-advised musical number. They say that 'drama is easy, comedy is hard'. This is a textbook example of how badly a comedy film can fail.

The DVD I saw this on was where it was re-titled and called "Naked Space" in an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of Leslie Nielsen in the entertaining movie parody series "The Naked Gun" (based on the old "Police Squad!" TV series). The idea of this film was to parody old B grade sci-fi creature movies on obviously cheaply made sets. Even "The Seventh Planet", in all its awfulness, did a better job of that while probably attempting to be somewhat serious sci-fi.

Bruce Kimmel has never directed a good movie and probably never will. He helped write the story for Robert Rodriguez's "The Faculty", but it was simply a B grade sci-fi horror film idea that was made into a good film by Rodriguez's direction and a decent cast.

Leslie Nielsen can be very funny in parodies of a variety of film genres. This is not one of those movies. I rate this film only slightly higher than complete failures like such bad Z grade zombie films as "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" and "Dead Life". The only reason to watch this film is because you lost a bet (and that should put anyone off of gambling). One could be excused for thinking that the cast members appear in this film because they lost a bet with Kimmel.

Run, do not walk, away from your nearest video store to avoid this movie!


Leslie Nielsen and Patrick Macnee? How could they go so wrong? I've gone out of my way to watch really bad films, and in their own way they're often entertaining. This was painful.

Nonexistent plot, spun out for 75 minutes. Little discernible attempt at humour - and believe me I'm the target audience for spoof space film references.

There must be an amazing backstory to this film - good cast, but they clearly didn't want to be on that awful set in that forsaken community college. Perhaps this is in fact the funniest film ever - and the joke's on all the viewers who sit through it.


Flat, forgettable parody of "Alien" about small spaceship crew who land on newly discovered planet, bring back a tiny blob of grape jelly that mutates into a one-eyed, humanoid grape jelly thing that sings "I want to eat your face" and then proceeds to show the crew that he means what he sings.

Unfortunately, this is not in the same vein as the "Naked Gun" / "Airplane!" brand of parody movie-making, where the verbal and visual gags are almost non-stop. This movie seems to be aiming to be just silly. The jokes just die most of the time, and despite the efforts of a cast (including Leslie Nielsen, now a veteran of this kind of thing) that tries hard, the material just doesn't work. Writer / director / songwriter / co-star Bruce Kimmel (who had previously worked with co-star Cindy Williams in 1976's "The First Nudie Musical") gives it just a little bit of curiosity value with a few musical numbers (his songs actually ARE kind of catchy), but the film is ultimately lacking in real wit and basically has no energy. The lack of a big budget is hilariously obvious.

Despite Nielsen's presence, I actually thought that stalwart Brit thespian Patrick MacNee was the comic standout - he was amusingly loony. Gerrit Graham hams it up a lot as a sort of standard issue lewd, crude jerk character that you sometimes find in straight-faced films of this kind.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that I hated this film - it's not crummy enough to provoke that strong an emotion, and after all, it IS supposed to be a no-brainer comedy, but I just didn't it find to be very entertaining. If you really want to watch Nielsen act goofy, watch "Airplane!" or "The Naked Gun" and you'll be better off.

3/10


I think every movie deserves a chance but! The Creature wasnt nice does not deserve even one minute of the 90 plus minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of space waste!!!!!!!! My friend bought this attempt at a movie for $6 dollars Canadian at walmart I think that with todays exchange rate thats less than a dollar American.


Oh, what can I say about this movie. I only watched half an hour, and it was the worst I've ever seen. The movie has been re-sold because of Leslie Nielsen's success with Naked Gun, but this movie is very bad. - I feel sorry of Leslie Nielsen, but this movie deserves 1/10, the budget must have been very small.


Ok. I do respect movies. At least I always do what I can to see films also from other point of views.

BUT.

This is not a movie. It's really a piece of crap. Actually I myself have made better films than this one. I guess the point in this was to make a funny film, but actually nobody in the film crew or actors were interested about it.

I got the feeling that the camera men (if there even were any) were asleep behind the camera. Directing is something .. yes and music and graphics too. Actors couldn't care less about anything. Leslie Nielsen is infact the only guy even trying to do something of it, but I guess he stopped trying at some point.

Wait.

I remember some laughters.. Yes, when the keycode of a door made some familiar beeps and the other one was when Nielsen was evasing asteroids or something. But that's it. The rest wasn't even entertaining.

So everybody should cut the crap about "This is the worst movie I've ever seen". They actually haven't seen any movies if they say something like that about modern movies. To them I'll have to say: see this.

Actually the funniest thing was that the cover said that this film was released in 1994 and also that: After "Naked Guns" and "Spy Hard" Leslie Nielsen takes you to the funniest space trip you have ever experienced.

Geez. Do these guys ever watch what's in there...


In 'RV' Robin Williams plays Bob Munro, a business executive who is trying to get in touch with his family. Problem is, he is not cool anymore and is out of touch. Suddenly, he has to the family vacation plans from Hawaii to Colorado; else he could lose his job. So the idea is rent an RV and go driving, and that is where the fun begins.

It is refreshing to see Robin Williams back in the comedy seat. He is truly the life of this film. Unfortunately, he is probably the only funny one in the movie. I can not say it was that good; it is like 'Family Vacation' meets 'Cheaper by the Dozen 2'. Not entirely original, but there are some fun moments with the RV.

I did like the Gornickes (Jeff Daniels and Kristin Chenoweth), they were a little too unbelievable, but they did have a good report with Robin Williams. I think both Robin Williams and Jeff Daniels should do more projects together.


I won't say it was the worst movie ever, but this was written for the REAL, REAL simple to enjoy. If you've not watched TV sitcoms or any other movie in the past 30 years, you'll find this movie refreshing and original (has anyone seen National Lampoon's Vacation?). The theme (middle aged dad loses touch with his family and sets out on a trip to unite them, with calamity at every turn), has been done almost annually in Hollywood in one form or another. I won't criticize the movie for it's potty jokes or lack of insightful humor, or groan-inducing one-liners, but I will pan it for it's 100% lack of any originality. Especially the self-serving last 15 minutes which were a cookie-cutter version of any "life-realization" moment, with our hero delivering his big speech to his business colleagues (and, of course, his money-only-minded boss) where he chastises them for being all about business and not LOVE and family.....puke-inducing, patronizing, and done-before to exhaustion. Complete with family grouped together in the corner in a perfect photo-op portrait pose, this speech can be seen coming for miles. Guess what? He ends up quitting his job, BUT the other guys (Ben and Jerry-type hippie jillionaires)in attendance from the other company want to hire him on the spot for sharing their vision of a world where business doesn't do business....it makes LOVE grow. I have to go toss my cookies now.


Let me just say that I love Robin Williams. I've gone to his stand up shows, seen almost all of his movies, but this movie just didn't do it (for me). It tried very hard to be funny, but ended up being cheesy and predictable. I think I laughed at one thing, and I can't even remember what it was. I was excited to see GOB and Buster from Arrested Development in it, but that just made me sad that they took off a TV show that actually knew how to deliver comedy. Anyways, if you have little kids, they'll probably love it. If on the other hand you are the select few who enjoy laughing at The Office (UK) and Arrested Development, you probably won't like it.


Robin Williams is like a spastic chipmunk with Tourette's syndrome. It's a complete shame that a wide release of a turd like this equals box office success. All members of the cast must have received their money on the dresser as the producers left the hotel room. I can't believe Robin Willims could be more unfunny. He makes Robert Kline look like George Carlin. Robin has replaced Jerry Lewis as the person who is most out of touch with what is funny. On the plus side, I believe the French will be unveiling a croissant for Robin on their walk of fame. Is Cheryl Hines really this desperate to work in movies. The only thing that could make this movie worse would be if Paris Hilton would show up and try to be dramatic and then she would be consoled by Wanda Cykes wearing a thong and looking for a Brazillian wax. This movie is not only a complete waste of time and theater space, it would have been an improvement if they just ran the trailers on a continuous loop for 90 minutes.


everything that happens to this family, they deserve. the whole fact that they learnt a lesson is supposed to be a resolution at the end of the film. you have a man who is too wimpy to tell his boss he won't write a report when he's supposed to be going on holiday. employment laws are on his side, he is allowed holiday. his boss can't threaten his job the way he does, so that conflict would never arise.

he hires an RV and is given no instruction as to it's various functions and has not been asked if he has ever driven anything like it? that I find unlikely.

their trip to his business meeting is of course plagued with problems, all of which they fully deserve.

Even the way they treat the other campers who try to be friendly with them is excessive.

robin williams is supposed to be the main comedy name carrying this film but none of the situations he is put in are funny.

The seatbelt gag is stupid. there are tribes in the amazon who have never seen cars that would have worked out a seatbelt faster. the fact they insult us by trying the same gag twice?

he deserves to lose his laptop and is an idiot. he clearly should have said no to his boss when he asked him to do this report and just gone to hawaii and saved us the trouble of this terrible and contrived movie.

best avoided.


This movie is a bad ripoff of "The Long Trailer" and was a really sad attempt at humor. I am trying to remember the last entertaining movie I saw with Robin in it, maybe "Goodwill Hunting" or something back in that era. I am beginning to think he is just trying to finish out some contractual obligation because I honestly can't see where his heart was in it. Or else he just sucks these days because this movie stinks. The raccoon gag was completely idiotic and his kids make me hope Global Warming hurries up.

RV stands for Really Vacant of anything approaching comedy. Remorsefully Vapid, Ridiculous Vortex of stupidity, or Repulsively Vacuous.


I'm 15, I watched this movie with my younger brother (11). Please keep this is mind when reading this review.

This film is extremely cliché (SPOILER SPOILER ---workaholic father realises he does not know his family so hires an RV to go on the road with his "hardcore" son, sarcastic teenage daughter and "perfect" wife. Disaster of course, ensues, they meet a "madcap" family and try to avoid them but fail and after a lot of chaos eventually manage to become best friends and LOVE is returned!)SPOILER OVER.

We rented this movie as we believed it would be light hearted, clean family humour. It is actually probably the grossest movie in history.

The majority of the sentences refer to "crap" "poop" "t*rd" or "sh!t" and there is one particularly disgusting scene in which the Father (Robin Williams, this movie's selling point) gets sprayed in the stuff. It was then my brother said "Turn it off! Its gross and not even funny!" but, believed it would get better we carried on.

Direction was OK, plot was cliché, SOME STEREOTYPICAL acting was good (the "odd" family parents and the younger son) albeit "Jojo" whose sarcastic teenager whose lines left me saying "What?". This film is ideal for a 6-9 aged audience as only that audience would appreciate its toilet humour and supposed "hilarious" scenes.

If you consider "RV" funny, please compare with "Little Miss Sunshine" and realise what a "rolling t*rd" (which the family lovingly christen the RV) of a movie this is!

My Brothers comment? : Just DON'T watch "RV".


For a Robin Williams vehicle this is pretty slow. There are few humorous scenes, very few. In fact this movie has been done before. Replace Robin Williams with Chevy Chase and change the RV to a Truckster and you have "Vacation". The desert scenes are very reminiscent of Vacation. Sitting here trying to think of funny scenes and its almost impossible. THe scene where the kids realize they are going on an RV vacation rather than Hawaii, no. The scene where the RV crashes into the lake and Williams goes in and comes out on a bicycle..nope. Really there is very little to recommend about this movie. I don't have a lot to say about this movie really except boring, poor acting, annoying complaining kids, stupid RV tricks. The one redeeming quality about this movie is Jeff Daniels. No matter what that guy acts in, from Dumb and Dumber to Gettysburg to George Washington and everything in between, the guy is an acting genius. If you like Jeff Daniels, go see this movie. If not, then don't waste your money. It will be on late night cable in about 4 months.


This is perhaps the driest performance I have ever seen from Robin Williams.I might have smiled and almost chuckled a time or two,but this film never once made me laugh.Humor that involves raw sewage just isn't very entertaining to me.As a matter of fact(and I say this with no pun intended),it stinks.I have always thought that Robin Williams is at his best when he is improving,and it just seems here that he was not given enough room to do this.It seems like he is going a little too much by the script.It may not be his worst film ever,but it certainly ranks closer to the bottom of the list than it does to the top of it.I recommend all movie goers steer clear of RV and take another road.


Simply put, not even Robin Williams could make this movie funny. If you do decide to go out and see this, it shouldn't be for it's alleged humor, but for the sad but true depiction of today's modern family. A good movie to compare this to would be Christmas with the Krank's, both of which deliver the same amount of stale jokes, and no character development. At no point during the movie did I even chuckle. I am not kidding when I say that I did not laugh the whole time I was there, it almost felt down right stupid. And Coming from a guy who laughs at incredibly stupid commercials this should mean something. I feel cheated out of my money and time. So don't take any chances. Sit down with your family, order a pizza, and rent a copy of National Lampoon's Vacation instead. Trust me on this one.


Anyone associated with this movie should be subjected to one of two following punishments: Be stuck in a cave for 50 years and be forced to exist on small troglodytic mammals and insects; or Be forced to watch this movie over and over for 24 hours.

I would rather choose the first of these.

It is hard to imagine how this movie could be made and then released onto humanity. It will forever become the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. Death, famine, war, pestilence and RV will ride on that day of world ending.

Shock and awe. I cannot even begin to describe the feelings of waste that I feel for dropping $4 on it for a rental. Now, I would rather have paid $4 to have not seen it.

Poor Robin Williams...to drop to this level. I feel nothing but shame and sorrow for such a great performer.

I am aghast.


This movie was OK, not that funny, Josh Hutcherson did a TERRIBLE job, some of the jokes (including R.V. sewage line) were EXTREMELY unnecessary. Not very good direction. Really annoying singing. GOD it was just really kind of dumb. The ending was just plain dumb, "Dad, the R.V.'s rolling away!" Gosh.

I know they weren't trying to make "Schindler's List" or anything, but still the worst family comedy since "The Shaggy Dog.' The ending reminded me of "The Pink Panther" which also had a terrible ending. One of the things that really annoyed me was the PG. Sometimes i thought it should of been PG-13 (but of course a very mild one.) Pink panther was definitely better. Similar jokes, worse plot, worse acting etc. 4/10. Rent this one.


This movie should have been released on DVD first because its only worth a one day rental. Robin Williams is very bad in this flick - so is the director (who has seen better days). I could have written a much better and clever script. I guess producers think: lets take Sonnenfeld and a dd a bit Robin Williams - and voilà: we have a hit!

The story is predictable so are the actors. One has the feeling to have seen this or that scene in another movie already. For example: National Lampoon's Vacation on the other side was fresh and gaudy for the days it was shot. Everyone remembers that film. I spun off several sequels. Who would think that this poor movie would spin off anything. Let alone Robin Williams, I guess he would rather have his name removed from the credit. He has seen better days.

Well, this movie stinks and I am sorry for every cent and dime I paid to see it.


Robin Williams didn't outdo himself in RV. Instead, he used the same old tired failure and called this a movie. It was not a movie. It is garbage. I wouldn't waste my money to see it again if I knew before how sorry it was.

Obligagatory Note: Robin Williams did excel at two things in this garbage:

(1). Robin Williams sucked royally (2). Robin Williams made reference to Karl Marx and

Communism like it is a good thing. This garbage had a weak plot, weak characters and it couldn't even be called slap-stick comedy. It was certainly not clever and original.


Loved the gritty/real Manhattan / New York City scenes  somewhat like Law and Order or NYPD Blue. The sharp picture quality on the DVD was much better than if I had watched this show originally on a 1961 television. Many top-flight actors made guest appearances, and Paul Burke, the star of the show and who later appeared in Dynasty, was great. Watched several episodes from 1961 on one DVD: The Fault In Our Stars (a pretty good classic detective story), Take and Put (a funny farce), Make Believe Man (too "dark" a story  didn't watch much of it). Stories remind me somewhat of Twilight Zone. Since Twilight Zone isn't really my cup of tea, probably won't rent any more episodes.


Damn! This movie totally ruined my very own self-invented little theory stating that all cult/exploitation movies with the number "2000" are incredibly cool. You know, for example, obscure post-apocalyptic cult flicks like "Holocaust 2000", "Escape 2000" and "Death Race 2000" were tremendous fun to watch, so I was fairly confident that this one would be cool too, especially since the title refers to a type of heavy machine gun. Wrong again, of course, as "Equalizer 2000" is a gigantic yawner of a B-movie without any sort of suspense, coherence or ingenuity. This movie actually just is a non-stop 90 minutes lasting series of deafening shootouts, explosions and car chases. Now, this may very well sound like the ideal description for a cheap 80's B-movie, but trust me, the complete lack of a plot gets boring very fast. You know you're in trouble when watching a film of which the acting sequences are so dull that you start spotting the errors in geography instead. "Equalizer 2000" is supposedly set after the nuclear winter; in a time were the snowy grounds of Alaska turned into unbearably hot deserts. The intro states there isn't any type of vegetation on our planet any more, yet a couple of sequences later the characters are playing cat- and-mouse right next to a crystal clear lake surrounded with beautifully green plants. The story is really, really basic. The post-nuclear world is divided in small independent communities that are all rebelling against (and attempting to steal oil from) the powerful "Ownership". After they killed his father, former mercenary of the Ownership Slade flees into the desert and joins one of the rebel communities. There, he works on the Equalizer 2000, the most powerful gun in the world and the only weapon that can put a stop to all the rivalry and gang wars. "Equalizer 2000" literally just jumps from one overlong shootout scene towards the other, but we don't have a clue about who is fighting against who or why exactly. The battle sequences are also very unexciting and dire, without cruel violence or harsh bloodshed. They're just chaotic scenes in which a bunch of losers  that don't even bother to seek any cover  aim at each other and occasionally one falls down. Lead actor Richard Norton, a poor man's Chuck Norris, luckily doesn't speak too much because he's one of the most wooden actors I've ever seen. His love interest is Corinne Wahl, a stunningly ravishing girl with a fabulous rack and a tight leather pants, but the idiot only has eyes for the stupid titular gun! There's an early role for Robert Patrick as a sleazy independent gun smuggler. Boring, pitiable and infuriating waste of time; avoid like hell!


Here's an entirely undistinguished post apocalyptic yarn from the normally reliable Cirio H Santiago.

Dashing martial arts star Richard Norton has very little to do here other than run around with a souped up gun, alternatively shooting and blowing things up. Yes, if you like gun fire and explosions then this may well be blissful viewing but for those requisite of a bit more substance to their viewing this will prove a decidedly tedious watch.

Not wishing to stray from the main point of my review, but one thing that never ceases to irritate me about some of the reviews on IMDb is the swift tendency by many reviewers to label every single low budget flick as 'The greatest B-movie ever!'. OK, so I admit that tastes vary and it's very much a subjective issue but really  before awarding any such lofty accolade, do so with at least some perspective and knowledge of the genre to which the relevant film belongs. The film in question for instance is anything but a classic in any way, shape or form.

In fact the only reason I can think to watch this other than for Norton completists is to a) see the always superb Robert Patrick in an early role and b) to see the very beautiful (and buxom!) Corinne Wahl as the films heroine.

For a far more enjoyable Mad Max/Road Warrior inspired outing try instead some of the Italian entries in the genre which are infinitely more memorable and indeed so much more fun than this.


This movie really sucks, but still it´s fun to watch. For 90 minutes it´s just gunfights and explosions. No talking, just shooting. It´s amazing to see fully grown men act like this, and being serious about it! If you have nothing to do on a late Sunday night, then give this one a try!


If there is one thing I appreciate about director Cirio H. Santiago, it's that he seems to like strong female characters and includes them in many of his films. In "Equalizer 2000" we have the sexy Corinne Wahl, who handles her guns with proficiency and adds the only spice to the film. The lead is Richard Norton, whose (considerable, if you watch any of his HK work) talents are largely wasted in a few poorly filmed fights, and who is a total blank as a character (more the script's fault than his own). The action scenes are uninteresting and unexciting - chaotic battles between armies of anonymous people whom we don't know or care about. There is just very little worth seeing in this film, and almost all of it comes from Wahl. Even with her, however, your best option is to skip it. (*)


This movie was from an acting, production and plot standpoint awful. The movie is set in a post apocalyptic earth where oil is a natural resource is fought over by tribes of humans. The main character Slade dislikes the "evil empire" the Ownership, who controls most of the ownership. Through a random plot twist Slade joins Corrine Wahl's tribe and manages to build a 6 barreled super gun that shoots lasers and grenades and weird disks and all sorts of cool stuff. Of course the Ownership wants this gun, and tries to steal it. I'll let you figure the end out.

I think that this might have one of the lowest production values of any movie I have ever seen. The entire movie is shot in primarily two locations in one canyon. As far as props they asked every actor to bring their own props. About 3 people have matching outfits, while the rest are just hodgepodges of random stuff spray painted silver to try to be more consistent. The buildings are poorly made shacks from random building materials actors had. As for the weapons everyone asked their 5 year old for his toy gun, and brought it to work. If they didn't have kids they just used PCP pipe.

However the complete junkiness of everything, above average fight scenes and terrible acting makes this movie enjoyable. Although the plot was extremely simplistic it kept me gripped, and I actually wanted to finish the movie, which is more than i can say about a lot of movies with quality similar to this one.


Tobor, a fifty-gallon drum with legs, must rescue young Billy Chapin, the grandson of it's creator, from the evil commie bad guys (BOO!! HISS!!!) who want to use poor Tobor for their own evil purposes.

A movie that was way behind its time-even for 1954.

If you want a real classic boy-and-his-robot-friend story, check out IRON GIANT, BICENTENNIAL MAN, or even MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATER 3000, for that matter.

Rating: * out of *****


Beautiful model in New York has to decide between two marriage-minded suitors--unfortunately, the one she decides on turns out to be a jealous psychotic, turning her back into the arms of the first boyfriend. They marry and move to California, but the jilted, delusional maniac is close on their trail. TV-made stalker-drama from producer Aaron Spelling was ahead of its time in terms of subject matter, however the story is creepy and pointless. Lesley Warren works herself into a real tizzy worrying that new hubby Ryan O'Neal won't be able to protect them from crazy Peter Haskell, though apparently Ryan has been working out at the gym behind her back (resulting in an evening street brawl which fails to raise any concern from the neighbors). The finale is directed for melodramatic chills, rendering the potentially gripping plot dynamics mute. One can easily see why up-and-coming star O'Neal signed on for this movie: he gets to be the sensitive good guy while also protecting his helpless wife from the scary villain. His performance isn't bad--and Haskell is careful not to overdo the wild-eyed bit--yet the picture takes mere surface-swipes at its own possibilities. It was designed to be a paranoia thriller for housewives, and as such is a callow, forgettable enterprise.


I have to think that I am so out of step with the masses. What can others be seeing that I missed. I will say that in the restroom after the movie the other women were laughing at the movie and shaking their heads in disbelief of the hype. There will be many spoilers below. First of all, the acting was fine...that's about all the good I could see. The screen play was illogical. Why would Russell Crow's character continually miss opportunities to escape and the good guys continually miss opportunities to kill the bad guys? Why would they sit around a roaring fire in Apache territory and why wouldn't the Apaches just kill them as they most certainly would have? Why would Russell Crow's character kill all his guys who risked life and limb for him? Why would the writer put a stupid schtick in a chase scene where one character throws an explosive and another character shoots the explosive in mid air while riding full out on a horse? Why would the mine team just stand there and wait to be shot by men they knew to be psycho killers? Why would Russell Crow risk his life jumping over roofs just trying to get to the train? Why would the good guys miss the opportunity to shoot the bad guys in the street with a perfect shot from the bridal suite? How did Peter Fonda recover completely in a 24 hour period after being gut shot? How did Russell Crow's mouth heal completely after being beaten unmercifully by Peter Fonda? Why was Russell Crow's hands handcuffed in front and not in the back? I could go on and on, but I've already wasted enough time and money on this complete mess of a movie.