I love the original BRING IT ON, a fun, witty, lively look at rival cheerleading squads and I do think that most sequels aren't as good as the originals and don't expect them to be as good, but at least to have elements of the original to draw the viewer in. This movie, BRING IT ON AGAIN, is the anti-BRING IT ON! It is joyless, unfunny, witless and unlike the talented stars of the original, the stars in this turgid sequel have no personality whatsoever! There isn't a funny character, scene, or even moment in this movie!

While the original was about high school cheerleaders, the premise (if you can call it that) here is about college cheerleaders. What's weird is that in BRING IT ON, the stars (Kirsten Dunst, Gabrielle Union, Eliza Dushku) were playing high schoolers but looked and acted older, while here these supposed college-age girls (Andrea Judson-Yager, Bree Turner, Faune Chambers) could easily pass for high schoolers, in both appearance and maturity level!

The only real plus is when the 2 girls break off and form their own squad filled with those dormitory protesters. The movie started to get interesting there, but again, the humor just wasn't there! But I will admit that the ending routine was fairly impressive. But kind of anti-climactic I would say. And that post-movie 80s song ending overlapping the scene goofs was not nearly as good as the one at the end of BRING IT ON! Although I do prefer Pat Benatar to Toni Basil. But then again, who doesn't!


Well i liked the first one Bring it on, I mean, Kirsten Dunst, Eliza Dushku and Gabrielle Union..at least we know who they are and they rock on that movie..! Great music, great moves! Bring it on again..well one hour and a half, small, the story : cliché, some funny parts..really nothing special. It's a good movie to watch on a Sunday afternoon with your grandparents :)! Just kidding.. I'm just trying to say that this sequel is not very good. Makes me wanna say maybe they should just stop on the first one and everybody would be wow nice movie, know what i mean? I haven't seen the third one. But if it's something like this one, i rather not.. I liked the last performance by the renegades. I mean, trough the movie they suck, but in two days..wow awesome! Go renegades :P!


I need to wash my eyeballs and earholes after seeing this rubbish. Perhaps the entire cheerleading team borrowed a time stopping device from the bad plot department and studied choreographed performance arts for 2 years straight. Personally, I wish I had a time travelling device simply so I could travel back in time 2 hours, and smash the DVD player before my girlfriend subjected me to this tripe. I will never get my 2 hours back. In fact I'll stop typing this right now, because that movie is still occupying my time, and not another second... HOWEVER, Apparently to submit a review it needs to be 10 lines, with that in mind... Don't WASTE ANY TIME ON THIS MOVIE Perhaps a visit to the dentist would be more enjoyable.


Whittier is both nervous and excited. She's just made it onto the BEST cheer leading squad (best in WHAT is never clarified). Unfortunately, the captain is rude and cruel to the other cheerleaders, so she and her best friend Monica decide to create their own squad and have a cheer off to see who will go to nationals. At the same time she is falling for the shaggy Derrick who could be perfect for her.

From the beginning this film annoyed me. The lead girl is too naive and impressionable - after one talk with her "head cheerleader" she decides to cut down on her calories and ridicule her friends - even drop them for acceptance. (Don't most girls grow out of that by college?) When she finally stands up for herself, you'll wonder what took so long, and why she felt the need to strip to make her point.

The acting is okay at best, especially from the lead, who is out shined by the girls playing her best friend and her adversary. The "comedy" is minimal, with the gag of Penelope getting hurt being very overdone. The ending was predictable and completely unrealistic as well.

This film left me with a few questions:

*What was with the constant costuming of Whittier in yellow? *Why did the guy playing the mascot beat box to the costume head before going out onstage?

*Where did the new squad find the funding to get matching uniforms and how did they manage to unify their routine within two days?

Overall:

This is nothing more than mundane teen drivel. It's an unnecessary sequel trying to cash in on the success of it's predecessor. The acting is poor and the ending unrealistic and predictable. Skip this lame flick - you're not missing anything.


This movie is definitely the worst bring it on movies made, maybe the worst movie of the year.The Concept is stupid, with a bad lead actress {Anne Judson-Yager}. She cannot act in anyway possible. And maybe if they put a better person to play her part, the movie might have got a second star. But to my opinion,the movie isn't even worth half of a star. The plot is pointless, the way some of the actors {Anne Judson-Yager} cheer is very annoying.I'd rather watch a blank screen for days then watch this movie for even five minutes. And i know i'm speaking for a lot of people when i say this movie is horrible and should never be played on t.v for the rest of eternity.


OK so the first bring it on movie was NOT the best movie ever made, but at least it was good and made sense....bring it on "again" was in my opinion a sequel from hell...i mean, it's OK if people like this movie, but compared to the first one, it had really no point to it other than that the new cheerleader gets in a cat fight with head cheerleader, new cheerleader forms a squad of people who didn't even seem to know wut cheerleading was, in like, 3 days she trains them from freaks to actual cheerleaders, they oddly "win"....blah blah blah..it's storyline is like, the exact same as the first one. I mean, it wasn't required to have the same characters, but it should've at least had the same spunk and flare like the original...i'm sorry but i wasn't impressed by this movie at all...


Bring It On Again lacked the originality and flair of the first film. That's what it's problem was. It tried to be exactly like Bring It On and used the same format that the first movie used. The opening of both films were dream sequences of the main characters and something humiliating happening to them in the dream. Then both introduced us to the schools and the locations. Later, we get the audition scene that the first film has made a classic but the second film poorly imitated. Then the build up to the big final showdown and then the ending where the underdog wins somehow. Even the credits tried to be the same with the bloopers and text style.

That seems to be the major problem...the sequel tried too hard to be like the first film and didn't have the style or energy the first did. It trudged along trying it's hardest, but lacked everything that made the first film great.

The poorly written script, lacking the vivacity and cattiness of the predecessor, had no clever one liners or dialog. The direction was also terrible. There was no sense of personal style, but it seems as if they gave first year filmmakers some low budget cameras and told them to make it look like the first film. The cinematography slightly resembled BIOs style, but didn't have the flair that was introduced in the first.

It seems Bring It On Again was made as a quick-buck scheme. It would've made much more money and would've been a much better film if they had most of the original cast signed on and a better script that could've placed the cast in a college or elsewhere and brought on the same collaborative team that helmed the first.

Poor writing plus bad direction plus bad acting times unoriginality equals horrible strait-to-video sequels.


This movie was terrible, the plot the script the actors, all terrible. The first one at least had its funny moments like the part with Ian Roberts, and the girls were hot. This one no funny parts and the girls could definitely be hotter. As I was watching this movie all I could feel was embarrassment for everyone involved with this movie. At the end I was totally hoping they would fall in a close vote to the Varsity squad making the Rocky comment earlier in the movie warranted and the movie in general more believable, but no they will. At what was up with the fans at the end, they went from totally booing the squad to having home made and professionally made signs. This movie may be good if you have some time to waste and a lot of drugs, not just some but a lot.


In all my life, I have never seen such a horrible and quite frankly, disturbing movie. I thought I had seen the worse, but this is a disgrace to movie-making. I mean, who came with this? I borrowed the movie from a friend because I liked the first one. But I already had my doubts when there were different actresses and all. Even the title gave me a shudder of fear. Several points:

1) ACTING: None

2) PLOT: Must've have missed it, because I was probably protecting my eyes, from this tragedy

3) CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT: Does the main actress going from shy and idiotic to ghetto and idiotic, considered as "character development"? I think not

4) OVERALL MOVIE: Someone, get this director arrested and burn him with every copy of "Bring It On Again". This movie took every single stereotype about all sorts of people, and conglamorated it into this 90-minute Armageddon.

I beg of you, if you want to live a normal life, do not buy, not even rent this movie, for if you do, your eyes will sue for a capital lawsuit.


Why is it that so many movie companies, insist on producing so many DTV sequels now a days?. Bring It on Again is a prime example of why people detest DTV movies. It's lazy,it's amateurish,not only that there is not one character you can root for in the film. I was in the video store the other day and figured on renting it,since I'd just finished the 1st,but something told me not to waste my precious money,and just view it online instead. I made the right decision,Bring It On Again wasn't worthy of my money at all. This was clearly a movie to cash in on the success of the original,only they replaced a likable cast,with a bunch of whiny snobs,who couldn't act there way out of a paper bag!. The 1st one was far from a classic,but at least it had a sense of energy and a hint of likability,this Dosen't have any of those traits. Anne Judson-Yager|Whittier| is supposed to be our heroine,our darling so to speak,yet she's almost as whiny and disposable as Tina and Marni,so how on earth is a sequel gonna work like this,when there is no one to root for?. What's even worse is this turkey produced 3 more unrelated sequels,that nobody really wanted. The Cheerleading sequences are average at best,except for one excellent one at the very end,I will admit that was very well done.

Bring It On Again is a reason why I detest DTV Sequels,or even sequels in general. It's got no heart,no creativity,and most importantly it's downright dull.

Performances. Anne Judson-Yager. I read a review that said Anne looked like a poor woman's Reese Witherspoon,to be honest? That fits her perfectly. She can't act worth a lick,she's very unsympathetic,whiny and was almost as bad as the villainous. Bree Turner gives a typical B*tch performance. It was adequate I suppose. Bethany Joy Galeotti known for her One Tree Hill fame,certainly didn't show any of that here,I wanted to slap her one. Faune A. Chambers plays the best friend adequately,she was less annoying then Yager at least.

Bottom Line. Bring It On Again is a waste of film. I had to go through 80 minutes of torture to get one decent cheerleading sequence,let me tell you it isn't worth it my friends. I would advise you to avoid this sequel,unless your a die hard cheerleader fan. Now I just have 3 more sequels to go!,Uggh.

3/10


I was just thinking about the two word review for the album "Shark Sandwich" by Spinal Tap from the Movie, "This is Spinal Tap." The review for the album is the same review that I would give this movie. This movie is God Awful. I'd give it a 0 but the lowest you can give it is a one. The director of this movie should be ashamed for such a piece of crap that this movie is. I could write a better movie if I was suffering from total amnesia. Look at the cast for this movie, I have never heard of any of these spares. I could get better acting by watching a middle school drama production. I wonder if the casting director or the director approached any of the actors that were in the first "Bring It On?" I bet they read the script and were like, "No Thanks..." TERRIBLE MOVIE TERRIBLE MOVIE TERRIBLE MOVIE!!!!!!!


If your a big fan of the first movie this isn't the movie for you, its nearly as good as the first one. Bad cast members, bad story=bad movie. I didn't laugh even once throughout the whole movie, I couldn't even stand enough to watch the WHOLE movie! I guess its true that people only make sequels for the money.


So...I've seen Bring it on. Not one the greatest movies of all time, but fair enough; it's mindless entertainment for the whole family. And then came the sequel...I figured it would be a bit lame, a bit cheery and good for an hour and a half of killing time. I was wrong. The only way to see this is to gather all your friends just to make fun of it, preferably while drinking heavily. It's all American, and quite sickening preppy, and I can't imagine why anybody at all would paint such a picture of college-America, let alone watch it! People behind a flick such as this should be ashamed of themselves; honestly, how do you sleep at night?! As for me, I got physically sick just watching it, and will not attempt it again for the sake of my own sanity. Thank you!


Wow this movie was terrible. Compared to the first movie, it was the worst thing I have ever seen. Some moments were funny but the entire plot line was just a little too....cliché and rather stupid. The routines weren't nearly as good either. To follow the first movie, which combined routine-stealing and race issues, with this movie, with a plot that basically follows all cheerleader movies, is just bad. Bring it On is a movie that should be left alone, with no sequel, like the Mask. The central characters weren't in depth enough and it was just an all around bad movie. Also, there just wasn't enough diversity in this movie to me. Maybe that's just my opinion but this movie sucked.


First of all i would like to say that the producer of this is now labeled a moron because who would make a sequel with NONE OF THE SAME CHARACTERS okay? I would like to congratulate the producer on remembering the theme of these movies which is cheerleading...there are 4 main problems about this movie 1.your movie had NO plot line, 2.how can losers win a cheerleading competition who have never cheered before 3.the writing suck and there was nothing remotely funny about this movie 4. i want my money back for renting this poor excuse for a movie.Your writers are too lazy so they jack other ideas off of movies. STOP MAKING CRAPPY MOVIES PLEASE ITS KILLING ME TO SEE GOOD IDEAS GO TO WASTE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A Sequel TO BRING IT ON WITH THE SAME Characters THIS MOVIE SUCKS AND NEVER SEE IT, thank you lots of love me


This is a very average film. The acting is pedestrian at best, the characters are extremely one dimensional & the storyline is incredibly un-original. This film had no point other than to show the supremacy of the original film. Even by "made for cable" standards this film is totally unsatisfying. If you are a fan of the original - do not see this film - you will want those 90 minutes of your life back.


I just finished watching this movie about 2 hours ago and I want to cry that I actual spent money on this film! I loved the first one. It was fun, upbeat and the characters were really enjoyable. This movie, i just couldn't get into it.. the dialogue seemed fake and the characters, were unrelatable. Although it did deplict some of the "realities" of university life, the story line never went anywheres. The best part of the movie was the last 10 minutes, when cheerleading actually took place. I think thats what made the first one so much fun. It was actually about cheerleader. So for those who want to see it, don't bother! Stick to the original, cause you'll be disappointed by bring it on again!


I am a fan of Bring it on but Bring it on again isn't what i have expected it to be.I thought the actors were better in Bring it on.The routines were not as good in bring it on again.When the movie was over I thought it basically just started and that they never had a very good ending.It was definitely not as good as the first movie.I thought they were going to go to the nationals but then the movie was over!Bring it on again would of been more enjoyable if they continued the movie until the nationals...like we don't even know how it ended!From now on I am never going to watch a cheer leading movie again but i will watch it if Kirstine Dunce comes back in a cheer leading movie!


This movie put me to sleep. Classic example of how you can garner up all the great talent. But, with no script and bad direction, it just goes down the drain. Just keep walking past this one..... I was especially surprised since this group of actors usually is pretty picky about what they sign up for.


This is a waste of 90 minutes, starring some excellent actors. What happened?

I think this was intended to be another quirky English comedy. Unfortunately, the supposed humor generally feels mean-spirited. I kept expecting the plot was all about a scam or practical joke, and that the dead folks would pop up and start laughing. No such luck. The ending seems arbitrary and abrupt. The narration is pointless (was it intended to "fix" a major re-editing?).

The other comments talk about this being a wonderful example of droll English humor. Yes, I realize the English tend to have a different sense of humor, but I wouldn't have considered this an example.


Anyone who thinks this is a good example of British humour has obviously had a humour bypass. A good example of why the British film industry is going down the pan!

Do not encourage bad films like this...they'll only make more!


Poor Buffalo, New York! All the snow they get there and then a movie like this blows into town too. And when I say blows, I mean BA-LOWS! The best parts of this one belong to the stunning Russian babe. Without her soft-core porn scenes to keep your eyes peeled for there'd be no reason to tune in in the first place. Not unless you have a sick affinity for a violently aggregated body count that would make Tarantino blush! The bloodbath finale is so painful to watch that you end up hoping a stray dum-dum passes through your TV screen straight into your brain! I mean, they actually stage the scene in an all white room just so the blood will show up better when splattered on the walls! Well that's the ten line minimum that the IMDb forces upon reviewers. Yep, ten lines just to say "It Stinks!"


This thriller has Tarantino`s forged signature written all over it . It starts with a funky monologue which instantly revives memories of Tim Roth in a certain film . Add to this a shock revelation of a couple of villains who aren`t who they appear to be , some novelty violence involving a jealous wife and a coffee grinder , a running joke about a suit being ruined and the bizarre site of a member of the clergy tooled up . I was expecting someone to come out with a line about " I`m stuck in the middle with you " and the homage would have been complete . <br /><br />The other thing that struck me was this could only have been a HBO production . I didn`t know this at the time but later finding out it was made sense . Have you ever noticed watching an episode of OZ there always seems to be a sudden upsurge of profane dialogue in the slower episodes ? It`s almost as if the producers of the show have got round a table with the writers and said " Okay we`re pretty low on shankings and gang rapes this week so can you make sure the F word appears at least three times in every sentence just to indicate it`s an adult show " . Well in STILETTO DANCE when people aren`t getting blown away or getting limbs chopped off the characters often seem to revert to ridiculous amounts of swearing . I can`t really emphasise how false the dialogue sounds in these scenes , especially the bit where the police captain is explaining the plot to the two good guys in the car park .

One final comment . I know Eric Roberts career is now a bit of a joke starring in cable and straight to video films such as this , but he really does deserve much better and I look forward to seeing him play a memorable screen villain in a blockbuster someday


"Stiletto Dance" is all about Roberts as a deep cover cop who's inclined to go so "deep" even his own partner doesn't trust him. His mission is to stop Russian mob heavies from getting some red mercury which they need to make a nuclear bomb to nuke Americans. The film features the usual sensationalism (babes, shootouts, blood & guts, brawls, etc.) but fails to distinguish itself even in the B-movie category. Ultimately it plays out like a bad Seagal or Van Damme flick. Only for the most macho-minded couch potatoes. (D+)


Undercover New York police officers Eric Roberts (as Kit Adrian) and Romano Orzari (as Jay Flowers) go up against a ruthless Russian mafia, pretending to work for bleached-blond crime lord Shawn Doyle (as Anton Seaberg). Mr. Roberts invites even more danger by sleeping with the enemy's estranged wife, luscious Lucie Laurier (as Lena). This film's obvious intent is to bring female flesh and human blood to the home box office crowd, without resorting to anything hard-core. The female flesh is real, and the human blood is fake. On a cheap blood and guts level, "Stiletto Dance" is successful. Mr. Orzari and Yaphet Kotto (as Captain Sands) provide star Roberts with solid support. But, it's really Mr. Doyle's characterization of the temperamental bad guy, who keeps it moving.

**** Stiletto Dance (6/8/01) Mario Azzopardi ~ Eric Roberts, Shawn Doyle, Romano Orzari, Lucie Laurier


This movie was perverted, overly violent, and horribly acted. I can hardly consider it a B- movie. You couldn't help but hate the two so-called "good guys" about as much as you hated the "bad guys." The entire time Eric Roberts' character was taking part in all the crimes and murders alongside the mobsters, sleeping with countless women, and you even find out that he killed his former partner and it really is not explained why other than "he was in the way." Plus, the storyline is dark, depressing, and grimy and it contains a sex scene worthy of HBO late night. The only good part of the movie was the ending, and I mean the ENDING like when the credits were all done. If you ever see it on TV, turn it off immediately before you want to kill yourself.


OK, first of all. I was searching through all of Eric Roberts movies..wait! Let me finish!....to find out who the Spanish chick was in this movie. (the wife of the badass guy). I finally found out who it was and thank god i did because if i had to look at another terrible movie starring Julia Roberts brother, i was gonna pass out. As you probably already know, this movie is terrible. I mean, its such a joke and basically a spoof off a good crime/action flick. ITs laughable. Why is that no Eric Roberts movie on here has gotten more than an avg. vote of 6? Why is is that almost every movie he does has 3.3 avg? Well, its because Eric Roberts is made out of garbage. No, seriously, he drips empty soda cans and banana peels from his pockets because he literally is garbage. How many c- action flicks is the guy gonna make with the same premise? He's a rebel who still is mainly good inside but he gets in too deep and along the way gets to f**k insanely hot chicks. Why? Because he gets them cast in the movie for himself. How else do you explain all his movies having insanley attractive ladies? He knows his movies are jokes so he figures he might as well have some fun in the middle of making something terrible, which is every movie in which he was the star. If you haven't figured it out by now, i hate Eric Roberts. The guy has no talent, he's a piece of trash and he has never been on the set of a movie worth watching. Richard Grieco thinks this guy is washed up.


I went for this movie believing it had good ratings. Firstly, it is ridiculous that they're releasing a movie originally made in 2001, seven years later in 2008 here in India. Everything in the movie looks dated. Even for 2001 the movie looks like its been made on a shoe string budget. There is a scene where a taxi hits a man to elaborate how low budget you can get. Anthony Hopkins doesn't seem to know what he is doing in the film. He ends up giving a long monologue towards the end. If the film had bright sparks during that scene, I missed it as I was sleeping on my seat. Nothing about Jennifer Love Hewitt resembles a Devil. She wears ill-fitting trite clothes and scowls at random kids. As for Alec Baldwin a scene where he goes to meet Webster for the first time is not to be missed. What a waste of money! As Anthony Hopkins rightly put it, "Go back home and write better!"


Once again the same familiar story about a man (writer here) who sell his soul to the devil in order to have his most desired ambition in life: success. Unfunny script (we should "go home and write better"), ridiculous lines in order to understand the "strong" "Christmanish" message (our only aspiration in life is to find love, respect and a good friendship) and a very long trial scene at the end where the agent Hopkins beat the devil (Jennifer Love Hewitt is no sexy or evil at all) for all the bad things she made to this unlikable character. Not bad efforts from the actors (Baldwin also as a director, Cattrall in a "Sex and the City" role again, Aykroyd with some funny lines in his limited role). P.S. Try also a not so popular film from Greece called "Alloimono stous neous", a brilliant adaptation of this myth (an old man give his soul to the devil to get back his youth)


I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.

The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.

All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.


This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.


I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.


I laughed so hard watching this movie I nearly killed myself. It is so unbelievably bad and so completely unaware of how bad it is that you can't help staring in shocked disbelief. The dialogue is horrible, the acting sucks (save for a pretty OK performance by Monroe), and the directing is a textbook of cheesy bad timing. But what really makes the film worth watching is the action sequences. These little cut rate gems rival even the worst overseas, badly dubbed monstrosities. Examples: A guy dies from a gunshot wound to the shoulder; people jump off walls and fly 20 feet in the air; Every time somebody turns quickly or reaches for something, you get the ever popular "whoosh" sound effect. This movie is horrible, but it's a great late night choice if you want to see just how bad bad film making can be.


This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. Let me tell you the bad things about it.

1. Acting. It is so bad, I've seen home movies made by 12 year olds with better acting than this garbage.

2. Plot. It's so stupid, and it makes no sense. I've written better stories in elementary school.

3. Dialogue. Deplorable. And the delivery of it was so bad. If a big-budget film maker saw one of his actors talking the way they do, he'd kill them.

4. Sound Effects. Every time someone moved their arm or turned around, it'd make this "whoosh" sound.

5. Special Effects. Squibs were off-center, blood had no consistency between shots. (In one scene, a man gets shot in the head. The blood that splatters on the wall is dark red. The blood that leaks from the wound and smears on the wall is almost orange.) Avoid this movie at all costs. If you see a copy at the store, throw it down and smash it, you'll be doing everyone in the universe a favor.


Basically, most of the actors rush their lines, and except for the two Antonios (Lochlyn Munro somewhat OK), the acting basically sucked, which means the directing also sucked.

Weak story, weak writing. Worst of all was the music.

It's also funny that the writer (Mike Mains, the worst actor in the film) wrote himself the part of having the first primary relationship in the film. The interaction between the two of them is about as exciting as that between a turtle and a rock.

The positive reviews here are a joke. It is however, an adequate film for those who want to get high and laugh at how awful this film is.


....and I have to say this movie SUCKS. I loved Sakamoto's stunt coordination of his other movie "Drive" which featured some of the best martial arts choreography way before "Matrix." After watching "High Voltage" though, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. The script was beyond incoherent and don't get me started with the acting. Well what else can one expect from a B-movie. The action was obviously contrived from the numerous Gun-Fu, John Woo style movies and the director doesn't even add his own touch to it which leaves the action scenes bland. It is a shame for the guns was the reason why I rented the movie. I have to say to all those who want to kill time, you can do something much better, like read a book or go for a drive. By the way, I highly recommend you people rent "Drive" instead. Yeah, it has a bad script and mediocre acting but it far surpasses the fizzle known as "High Voltage."

The Movie 0 out **** The action scenes * out of ****


Western societies have come a long way in their tolerance and understanding of gay people. This film, which one poster disturbingly tells us is STILL shown in schools in some backward parts of the country, is the REEFER MADNESS of homosexuality.

What might have been a harmless, even helpful warning to kids about pedophiles becomes ridiculous and ugly by its pretense of revealing what all *homosexuals* are like. The despicable smear that gay men tend towards pedophilia (about as factual as the ancient anti-Semitic lie that Jews kill Christian infants and drink their blood) is what this "educational" cheapie is all about.

That one poster actually commends this absurd gay-bashing propaganda as a worthy film that should be remastered and shown to kids today suggests how much ignorance and unexamined bigotry is still out there.

Reactions to the recent Tom Foley scandal showed how easily some on the political left as well as the right can fall back into the old know-nothing equation of homosexuality with pedophilia. Every educated person knows homosexuals are no more likely to be drawn to children than heterosexuals are.

This 10-minute short is worth viewing to remember how recently this kind of ignorant calumny was considered "conventional wisdom".


After watching this, I have two conclusions: the time period in which this was made, immediately after the 50s, was not as idyllic a society as many seem to grieve. This was a sick, deluded world in which such a despicable film would be force fed to so many kids. Secondly, we've come a long way, except that black people are still often cast as the violent criminal in popular entertainment...just like in this one.

Important to watch if you are interested in how the media can be a factor in how the unthinking masses come to conclusions. I'm not sure I understand how this is averaging even 3 stars...I agree it's important to watch, but that doesn't make the film "good." Not even "okay." It's absolute rubbish. Even as propaganda, it's blown out of proportion, and the music is cheerful and inappropriate.


(this is part of an essay I wrote for my FHSS Sexuality Class on the film)

"Boys Beware", a film produced in 1959 and later shown around many American schools in 1961 has a catastrophically strong anti-Homosexual message attached to it. In a nutshell, it follows three 'sick' men who prey on young boys, sexually abusing and in one case, killing them. Had "boys beware" used the right logic, it could have been helpful to children and teenagers in preventing pedophilia and rape. Instead it hides behind bigotry and hatred, perfectly depicting the social attitudes of it's times.

"That looks innocent enough doesn't it? A lot of young people hitch hike. But sometimes there are dangers are involved that do not meet the eye. Jimmy didn't like walking home so he decided to thumb a ride. He'd done it one hundred times before and he didn't think anything was unusual when the driver struck up conversation. The stranger was a good listener too and it only seemed minutes before they pulled up in front of jimmy's house. When jimmy pulled out the stranger gave him a friendly pat." The opening moments of the film seem coherent and meaningful. Shots of a shady man offering a young boy a ride home are accompanied by omniscient voice over which is full of hints that the man is a pedophile or rapist and that the character Jimmy is of course in potential danger of harm both physically and emotionally. Any half educated person watching this film in todays times would be asserting that "Boys beware" was exploring a pedophilia sexuality and it's dangers. Had the film followed from its original connotations it would have made sense, but then of course it would not be folly for analysis on its promotion of heteronormativity. As the next scene begins, "Boys Beware" begins to erode in its coherence. Homophobia, and lack of understanding of other sexualities (which both exist inside of the heteronormative paradigm) will rear it's ugly head. "The following Saturday they went fishing together. By then they were using first names. Ralph said it was more friendly. Then during lunch, Ralph showed him some pornographic pictures. What Jimmy didn't know is that Ralph was sick. A sickness that was not visible like smallpox but no less dangerous and contagious. A sickness of the mind. You see, Ralph was a homosexual. A person who demands an intimate relationship with members of their own sex." Homosexuality is denounced here for the first time in the film, full of hysterical assumptions and fears that are so absurd one finds it impossible to believe any audiences even took the film seriously. Having defined the term "homosexuality," the film successfully promotes male/female relationships without even showing any. It does this simply by comparing homosexuality to a disease, labeling it dangerous and contagious going far enough to separate any form of sexuality that does not fit in with the heterosexual paradigm as sick. While media in popular culture in today's world tend to shy away from upfront and direct criticism of homosexuality, "boys beware" sheds light on the fact that the media can be a factor in how the unthinking masses come to conclusions. In the 1950s, most people were disgusted with Gay people outright- as shown and maybe in part because of this film. Today, most people are okay with Gay people but so long as they are not a close friend or family member. Popular culture reflects this, as evidenced by huge amounts of Gay characters used for comedic (but not dramatic) effect in television shows. What this hints is that heteronormativity will always be around any society until a sweeping majority of it's people accept other sexual orientations unconditionally. The heteronormativity in "boys beware" is just a testament to the hatred felt at the time, as is the passive heteronormativity shown through todays use of stereotypical Gay characters that are hardly ever made to connect to audiences on a meaningful level.

One should feel deeply sorry for the amount of Gay or confused teenagers who were shown this film after its release (as it was distributed for over twenty years). In promoting heteronormativity as the only accepted norm, the film magnifies how much Homosexuals are the "other." This would have been damaging to impressionable Gays: "But all homosexuals are not passive," the narrator begins, "The stranger agreed to give Mike a ride home. The companionship, the praise, the friendly attitude dispelled any misgivings about going with a stranger. He probably never realized until it was too late that he was riding in the shadow of death. But sometime that evening Mike Merric traded his life for a newspaper headline." "In the shadow of death"? Whoever made this film obviously learned scriptwriting lessons in hyperbole. 'I am going to become a killer'-- is what many young boys can not be faulted for thinking upon viewing this film fifty years ago. If one ever wondered why so many Homosexual men married into straight relationships and lived lives of lies, one has to look no further to this film, and films such as this that force Heterosexuality as the only human relationship by a hardline default. Anything else are labeled illnesses that can lead a homosexual to become a murderer. Comparing such a ludicrous film to most media today, we are quite tame. It is true that Gender opposites continue to be the overwhelming norm, and that heteronormativity (at least subconsciously) is hard to escape. However, being homosexual is no longer so separated from the heteronormative paradigm that it once was. Viewing historic, albeit, stupid films such as "Boys beware" is important in understanding that as a society we have made progress in our acceptance of things outside the heterosexual norm, but also sends a chilling reminder of the times we missed only by a few decades.


It's hard to understand the thinking of the creatures who made this thing. As everyone who's seen it is aware, the film's attitude toward Gays is utterly vile, but it is in keeping with opinions of the time-- it wasn't that long ago that the American Psychological Association decided that homosexuality isn't a mental illness (it is truly hilarious that the narrator labels it "contagious.")

One of the worst things about this film is that the filmmakers were so ignorant of the subject matter, and yet promoted this as an educational film. In doing so, they put the boys who were their intended audience MORE at risk, not less. Had they bothered to do the research, they might have found that many molesters are actually heterosexual-- some having families of their own; that the average Gay male does NOT engage in this behavior, and finally that, far from the *ahem* Gay men in cars shown in the film being the significant threat, that spot is reserved for people the boy already knows, and can include clergymen, Boy Scout leaders, neighbors and even friends and family members. Advice to be careful if the adult seems too friendly is useless in such a case.

I read a book several years ago about sexual abuse in the Scouting movement. One of the men the author profiled was one Thomas Hacker, who began to molest boys in the Scouts in 1961. A film like this must have been a godsend to men like him. What boy in 1961 would suspect the Scoutmaster of having designs on him after watching this?


i seen this poor done comic film.but it would been better if they used a family that wasn't based on nothing.the movie starts as Denise finds a dinosaur bone in his back yard,and a fake

who claims to be a dinosaur hunter comes to stay with the family.and he is real annoying too.the film did not deliver much laughs.the only two funny things in the movie was when Denise tries to sneak that fudge candy to his room and the scene where Mr Wilson's washer overflowed.it would be a better film if it involved a different character.the 93 version was a real one.this one wasn't a Denise the menace at all. and i saw this one 2 or 3 times a month when it was on HBO.


This movie hates you. No two ways about it. It wants to hurt you for seeing it.

Characters in this movie speak in a stream of continual profanities, fire flaming arrows and guns at the audience (while smiling), and the gorilla throws rocks at you and flips you the bird.

The acting is mostly abominable. The effects are worse. Nothing makes much sense. The editing is choppy. The shots are poorly composed. The locations are grey, barren, and aggressively ugly. Stock footage is piled on and looped.

Boring filler is shoved in wherever it will fit to pad out the slight story to 90 minutes. Then, it takes forever to finally end. (More punishment for you, the viewer.) Oh, and it's nominally in 3-D too.

A hateful, hateful movie.


Nowhere near as good as "Mighty Peking Man" as far as King Kong rip-offs, "Ape" is good to look at just to see the fair miniatures and little else. The best "bad" hilarious movies are those that never intended to be that; in "Ape", the Ape gets mad gives the finger in one scene, obviously in a deliberate attempt for laughs, which in turn, makes it pretty unfunny.

The sound effects are BAD, there's a decent 'bad' fight with a giant shark which couldn't look much more fake if they tried, plus the Ape trashes a few buildings. If you are a giant monster film fan, this probably won't get more than a few viewings in your entire lifetime but it's good to watch and take off your list of films to see, plus to examine how badly this one was made. All in all, some fun, but pretty bad.


This movie is so terrible, yet so funny. There are so many flaws with this movie. Many parts of the movie have nothing to do with the plot. The ape one time wears shoes, flicks the camera(and its no accident, he holds it for 4 seconds), and seems to be different sized throughout the movie. You cannot make a worse movie. Period. This movie must be seen, it is too funny to explain.


It's the same old story. King Kong's Korean kousin takes time off from stomping toy houses and wrestling rubber sharks and snakes to abduct a scantily clad starlet on a movie set. His intentions are totally misunderstood when he carts her away to his mountain hideaway. However, her screams soon turn to, "be gentle with me, big guy", and another giant ape and hot babe romance is born.

Her honeymoon with the big guy is soon broken up by jealous boyfriend, who steals her back, only to hear, "there was something oddly appealing about the way he held me". Can puny human boyfriend ever compete with a 36 foot ape's appealing grip?

Saddened by the loss of his girl, KKKk takes a hike to Seoul, Korea to see if he can get her back. Not one for polite inquiry, his peeping tom act and rude rooftop razing finally yields his prize blond babe and once again she gets to enjoy an appealing hairy paw ride. The local army brass takes issue with his ill manners, unleashing its most potent weapon, interminable phone conversations designed to bore everyone to death.

In the final battle royale, toy tanks fire their bottle rockets and a squad of infantry bravely charges forward, brandishing their rifle muzzles at the sensitive big guy, who responds with volleys of Styrofoam boulders hurled down sagging wires to smash and somehow blow up toy tanks with lethal 3-D efficiency.

Wrapping it up, the misunderstood big guy succumbs to a hail of fireworks and his babe goes on to make a movie in which she uses him for a rug.

Movie highlights: In the midst of fierce battle our nubby carpeted giant ape takes the time to smugly flip off a tormenting helicopter that crashes into a cliff.


Sometimes a movie is so bad it's enjoyable, and you can watch it again and again (like a lot of people feel about "Showgirls"). Other times, just once is enough to make you feel as if you've been beaten to a bloody pulp. "A*P*E" is more of the latter than the former. The curious will be lured in by the prospect of this movie, and they will suffer for it.

This is a ripoff of the King Kong story, specifically an attempt to cash in on the 1976 remake. It's a giant ape run amok, this time in Korea. Some people might get a kick out of it, considering it's so poorly realized on every imaginable level. Rubber monster suits, unconvincing miniature sets, awful acting chops, ridiculous situations. Even as a spoof, which it seems to have been intended as, "A*P*E" fails on one important level: entertaining the viewer. Even in terms of bad movies, it is about as enjoyable as the teeth of a vicious dog sinking into your leg.


The first time I watched this, I was so tired at the time, nothing made sense. This movie was no exception. I didn't even get the chance to finish it, I guess I just fell asleep. Well, I watched it again last night and it STILL doesn't make sense! None at all! It's just far too badly done. There are too many mistakes to list, so i won't even attempt to, all I want to know is if the film makers were serious when they made this movie. Because if they were, I pity them. I could make a better movie and look at me. I'm only 16! Ayy yay yay yay!

One out of many things that really bothered me in this movie was the monster. Now, I got over the whole fact that it is blatantly a man in a monkey suit, but some of the things that stuck around and I couldn't get out of my head were the fact that:

1.) The Ape flipped off the camera! What? Last time I checked, Apes don't intentionally flip off cameras or anybody else for that matter.

2.) At one point when the Ape was stomping a village by a mountain, the Ape was wearing high top tennis shoes. Tennis shoes!!!! No, I'm sorry Mr. Film director, Apes don't wear tennis shoes. Please, if you are going to make a movie, and it involves the portrayal of a wild animal with a human in an animal suit, remember, wild animals don't wear clothing. That's just a little fact of life of which everyone needs to be aware.

This was a terrible movie. But not too terrible in a bad way. It was more terrible in a good, funny way. It was fun to watch, it was easy to make fun of, it was an experience to remember. Movies cannot be made this bad on purpose, they are accidents. Terrible terrible accidents. Accidents like 3-Mile Island or the Jimmy Carter election. They are accidents that should have been prevented through careful evaluation of all people claiming to be film makers. Please, if you ever hear of a movie like this ever being made again, take a bat and start beating in the head of the director. Then take a lighter and some gasoline, and burn down the studio. Then go get a paper shredder and shred the film. Then take the remaining shreds and toss them into the fire at the movie studio. Nothing this bad should ever exist again. Good Day.


Mind you the "rubber shark" many reviewers mention isn't rubber at all...It's real! Only it's...obviously dead. A dead baby shark they must have bought at the local Korean fish market or something. Watching an extra, in a fake-looking ape suit, pretending to wrestle with a dead baby shark pretty much sums up the production values in this film.

See it so you can't believe it!

The movie's American ads actually stated "not to be confused with King Kong", but in some countries it was released as "The return King Kong". What also cracked me up was that the ape has apparently no vocal cords of any sort : he does not make a sound during the whole movie! The credits also thank the US military for their cooperation. How come all the tanks, etc, look like toys? Is this actually anti-American propaganda, aiming to pretend that the US have the crappiest army ever seen? Mind-numbing.


I must confess to liking giant monster movies, but this film is really just plain awful! Bad special effects, even worse acting, silly premise. By the way that big snake would be considered a monster! Anyway painful as it was I made it through to the end. I chuckled a few times while watching this mess, just not believing what I'm seeing or hearing.

1 out of 10, for bad movies beware 5 out of 10. Suffer with me.


Okay, going into this film, I knew it had a reputation as one of the worst films of all time. But I like good, ole cheesy monster movies. In fact, if it had a first run presentation in the 1970's, I'm very surprised I missed it then. Anyway, I finally caught up with it. And, guess what? It IS one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Usually, something stands out: effective acting, great miniatures or special effects, nifty dialogue, music, scenery, or just a general feeling of fun. This has almost nothing. Admittedly, Joanna Kerns does give a spirited performance, and you can see a glimmer of the solid comedic style she developed later. But, that's it. Even the monster is bad. Not laughingly bad, which is sometimes enjoyable... just bad, with unexplainable movements and no expression. If someone suggests you watch this movie, just say NO.


When "King Kong" was being remade in the mid-70's, a Korean company decided to cash in on the remake and produce their own version, in 3-D yet!!! Yeah, that'll show DiLaurentiis a thing or two. As bad as the Kong remake is, "A*P*E" is considerably worse. He's just another man in a monkey suit smashing cardboard sets and doing battle with a toy-tank army while clutching the pretty blonde heroine (Joanna Karns of "Growing Pains", then going by the name Joanna De Varona, and who can blame her for changing her name after this one). There is an embarrassment of riches here, but my favorite is where the army is shooting missiles at the big monkey, and he (and I am not making this up) GIVES THEM ALL THE FINGER!!!!! After having endured an hour and a half of this turkey, I leaned toward that sentiment myself.


If I could put a zero down for a number I would for this film. I am a King Kong fan and I have seen every King Kong even Kong vs Godzilla so naturally I was attracted to the movie cover of APE. So like an idiot I read the back of the box and say to myself "It sounds good" drop ten bucks for it and take it home. I slide it in the VCR and about 5 minutes into the film I turn it off. I couldn't watch the rest of until I had seen a brain doctor to tell me everything was OK. Well about three months later I decided to try and watch it. Its probably one of the worst films ever made. I believe its in the book of worst films ever made actually. Some reasons why the movie is horrible, the ape doesn't make any noises what so ever, he disco dancers why being shot with burning arrow's, flips off the camera, wears sneakers, and throws some nice sliders with rocks. I cant even think about this move any more its depressing. O out of 10.


This video is probably the worst film ever made. I have a feeling that the director and script writer wanted to make the worst film of all time.If that is the case they did it. Now a 36 foot ape that is in Korea. It kills jaws,flicks off a helichopter,does the disco,and gets killed by annoying soldiers that stick thier gun barrel right next to the lens of the camera all with out making a noise mind you. I think the ape doesn't have a voice box or tongue.It's seriously the worst film ever. I have this film at my house and i paid $10 for it about 13 years agon when i was 5 cuase i liked king kong and stuff right so i thought hey looks good. when I got home and put it in i couldn't watch more then 5 minutes of it. A 5 year old i tell you couldn't satnd it Barney is better this peice of poo.


I caught this flick on cable one night and couldn't believe the sheer awfulness of it. Even if the borrowed footage and the cheap toy props were supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, it sure didn't work! And did anyone else notice that in the big "battle scene", they kept showing the exact same tank footage over and over and over and over and... well, you get the idea. Even if they had cast Leslie Nielsen, that couldn't have saved this mess. I gave this movie a rating of 1 only because zero wasn't an option. Don't say I didn't warn you!


You've never seen such a funny and cheesy monster movie at all! This is a must for all of you, who wants to see cheesy and funny movies!


This is a great bad movie and many of the scenes are hilarious. If you'd enjoy watching a 60-sec slow-motion scene where a guy in a gorilla costume wrestles an obviously dead shark, thrashing it around and pretending to be in the throes of death, look no further. This whole movie is full of great scenes like that, and if it weren't for an overly drawn out love story subplot, "A.P.E." would be a 5-star unintentional comedy. You get a little bit of everything in this South Korean flick: "Godzilla"-style miniature sets, toy model animals and people, remote control helicopters, firework explosions, and of course, a guy in a gorilla suit. The plot is not important, really, and the film gets right down to brass tacks after about 2-min of backstory. Just know that there is a 35-ft tall ape, and he is going to rampage Korea. Throw in an American actress (Joanna Kerns, of "Growing Pains" fame), her reporter boyfriend, and a pair of Army officers bent on killing the beast, and you have "A.P.E." The direction and editing are sometimes stunningly inept, resulting in several great "WTF moments," including my favorite when a character is hanging off the outside door of a moving jeep, for seemingly no reason. Anyhow, I could go on forever with this one. As far as bad movies go, "A.P.E." is a definite keeper. You are going to get laughs out of this one.


This film begins with an obvious toy boat being destroyed by a guy in a cheap gorilla suit--the sort you'd rent for just a few dollars at a costume shop. Then, he proceeds to destroy a bunch of buildings that look even cheaper and sillier than those found in the Japanese giant monster films from Toho Studios! Most of the time, he moves about in super-slow motion and does a whole lot of nothing. And, as he does not much at all, you hear circus-like music. This time, however, the movie is a bit different, as the extras are all Korean AND their command of English is amazingly bad--so bad that it's rather funny to hear some of them stumble over even the simplest words.

Sadly, however, as the movie progresses, you learn that the cheap sets and guy in the gorilla suit and Koreans who can't speak English are the BEST aspects of the film!! That's because the acting is abysmal, the editing was done by a chimp, many scenes featuring screaming Korean peasants went on too long, the music highly inappropriate as well as annoying and the dialog is among the worst I've ever heard. Believe me, Ed Wood couldn't have made a gorilla film any worse than this (including his own BRIDE AND THE MONSTER).

There are unnecessary subplots involving a rather bland-looking actress and her boyfriend as well as a Colonel who is a total idiot (and needs a good haircut to even remotely look military) and curses CONSTANTLY--possibly more than any character in the 1970s. Aside from these stupid subplots, the rest of the film is essentially KING KONG but set in a Korea that is chock-full of crappy sets.

Overall, there really is nothing to recommend this film--unless you really need to see a guy in a gorilla suit flipping off the army (I kid you not--this REALLY happened in the movie). It's so bad, that it's a film almost exclusively for bad movie fans. It's also a great film for Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange or Dino De Laurentiis to watch so that they can see that by comparison, the poor 1976 KING KONG film is like a Merchant-Ivory production! However, I do NOT recommend that Kim Jong-Il see the film--he might be tempted to nuke South Korea, since they were responsible for this atrocity of a movie!


A*P*E is both stupid and follows the King Kong storyline, and is probably the worst movie I have ever seen.

Everything from King Kong and even Godzilla is copied by A*P*E. 1 - The ape escapes from an oil tanker. 2 - Giant footprints are found. 3 - They want to show the Ape off to the public. 4 - Ape kidnaps girl. 5 - Girl feels somehow attracted to the Ape. 6 - Army attacks Ape.

Besides having a duplicate plot, A*P*E has many technical problems as well.

1 - The Ape is 36 feet tall, but the shark and snake are the size of him. 2 - He towers over buildings, but he's 36 feet tall. 3 - The Ape throws the snake at the camera, knocking it down. 4 - You can see the Ape actor's shirt underneath the costume. 5 - Tons of plastic toys in this film.

And you can tell the actor who played the Ape is pretty angry over him playing the role. He flips off the camera at one point.

A*P*E fails as a movie, but as a comedy, it's really good. Get a bunch of friends and do a MST3K kind of thing.


This was intended to be a serious movie which came out at the same time as the big budget remake of KING KONG. I remember as a kid, reading the poster in line at the theater which stated "not to be confused with King Kong", which is hilarious in itself. I ended up walking out (after the dumb guy in the ape suit wrestles the plastic shark in the pool scene) near the beginning and got a refund.

If they spent more than $50.00 to make this movie, they were fools.

You will be too if you watch this piece of crap.


At first glance, A*P*E* would appear to be the worst movie in history. Perhaps this is true. I mean, everything about this movie sucks. The ape looks fake, the acting is virtually non-existent, the music is something you would hear in a bad porn movie, and the special effects (if that's what you want to call them) look as if they were done by 6 year old kids. What could possibly save this movie?

What saves this movie is the fact that it was SUPPOSED to be this way. Anybody could have made a realistic movie with great special effects and talented actors, but that would be boring. I'd much rather see a piece of crap film like this one and laugh my ass off at it. This movie reminds me of Ed Wood's Plan 9 from Outer Space. It is one of the cheesiest movies ever made, and yet it has a cult following. In other words, it made its mark by being terrible. Let's face it, some movies just shouldn't be good, and A*P*E* is one of those movies. It's a special talent to be able to make a bad movie that is fun to watch, and the makers of A*P*E* definitely have that talent. That is why I give this movie a 10, because it was made exactly how it was intended to be made. Sadly, this talent is not recognized in hollywood, and not many bad movies of this caliber are made anymore. Truly a tragedy. Check out A*P*E*, though, and you won't be disappointed. I mean, you will be, but it will be a good disappointment...nevermind, just watch it.


*This review has some minor spoilers.

I didn't want to watch This movie when I saw it listed. The description wasn't much, and the only stars it mentioned were Portia de Rossi and Dean Cain. I have liked Cain since his `Lois & Clark' days, but he along (I was not too familiar with de Rossi and am now not interested in being familiar with her) wasn't going to get me to see a suspense thriller. I accidentally flipped it to the channel it was playing on during the opening credits and spotted Hal Linden's name. Now that was enough to make me reconsider. But now I wish I hadn't. That's not saying that `The Glow' was a disaster, but it is far from good, unfortunately.

Cain and de Rossi play Matt and Jackie Lawrence, a well-off couple looking for a new place to live and hoping to have a baby. You know, it's kind of funny how pregnancy is treated in thrillers like this. People either live like everyone on the planet is sterile and doesn't have to worry about it or they desperately want a baby and can't get pregnant. Anyway, one day, while jogging in a park, Matt is mugged and his wallet and watch are stolen. Some elderly people that happen to be jogging in the same park see the incident and offer Matt their assistance. They take him to their home, a large, fancy apartment complex, where he meets all the residents, consisting of seven elderly people and a young married couple. One of the elderly couples own the building, and they like Matt so much that they offer him a recently vacated apartment for a reasonable price. And so Matt and Jackie move in. It doesn't take either Jackie or the viewer long to realize something is rotten in Denmark. The old people are sneaky, protective of the basement, and all develop a flu-like sickness whenever the seasons change. Most strangely is the way they are all health-conscious, jogging and working out all the time, drinking odd health drinks, and barking at Jackie for not exercising. Then the young couple upstairs disappears, leaving a vague note about how they moved away to the Caribbean. Suspicious (in a sort of stupid manner), Jackie has a friend start researching both the elderly couples and the previous tenants, which, naturally, leads to grim results which I won't reveal (though they are fairly predictable).

Perhaps I shouldn't expect a whole lot from a TV thriller, and I really didn't. I do expect a certain degree of logic like I would from any other movie, though. The twists in this movie aren't surprising to the viewer, but I wouldn't expect the characters to figure out what was happening too quickly because it is so ludicrous. I knew what was going on about fifteen minutes into the movie. What I didn't know was how all the sinister deeds were being committed. The movie was going along at a mediocre rating throughout, and the explanation would be what decided it all. I was still waiting for an explanation when the credits rolled. I was pretty annoyed by that, but you'll just have to experience it for yourself to understand. I will say that the unanswered questions (concerning how EVERYTHING was done, who the mysterious female jogger really is, and other dumb things) ruined everything. Craig R. Baxley is no slouch, but I can't figure out why he would spend so much time in the build up of the mystery and quickly wrap up the conclusion in the final ridiculous ten minutes. Worst of all, Hal Linden was misused. After playing such a good villain in `The Colony,' I was disappointed how he and the other elderly people were missing everything in terms of characterization. And then there is the confusing title. If you aren't listening carefully during the final ten minutes, you might miss what it means. Not that it really helps, since the final moments make the whole of `The Glow' pretty dim-witted. Zantara's Score: 4 out of 10.


The movie is clearly made for TV quality, i.e. it does not present much of a reason to be watched and leaves some questions unanswered but not the ones about the cigarettes or the glow the other user commented on. If you pay attention to the movie, you will discover that the cigarettes come from a discarded purse found in the trash pile that Jackie Lawrence (Portia de Rossi's character) hid in after escaping what is referred to as "the vault" in the movie and which turns out to be some kind of makeshift lab in the basement. The glow itself, appears to be the energy the building owners need to extend their longevity... Just my $0.02!


This movie is perhaps the worst made for TV movie I've ever seen. The plot is predictable, trite, and COMPLETELY LAME. Dean Cain is his usual self, with the same facial expression for every occasion and same mannerisms as "Lois and Clark". He's a 1 character clown. Portia de Rossi was decent at best (she looks like Kate Winslet and Angelina Jolie) but the script wasn't helping her at all. The whole idea of this movie just doesn't work. The ending was so laughable, I swear I will never watch FOX again. Well, I probably will, but never again a TV movie.


SPOILERS!! This is without a doubt one the funniest thrillers I've ever seen on television. The basic premise is this... each person has something called a Glow (sort of like a soul) that keeps them youthful and energetic and as we age, we lose that Glow. So how do the villains of the story (cliched old men and women) retain that Glow? They steal them from their youthful neighbors, HA-HA-HA-HA, and them dump their wasted bodies into the basement dumpster. The directing was pretty good actually considering how incredibly horrible the script was. The acting was equally atrocious. Every sort of cliche you can think of (dump cops, clueless neighbors, silly contrivances of the story) can be found in here. It's amazing, LOL.

This movie is about as ridiculous and ludicrous as its horrible ending where the nosy cop bites the big one but luckily for the female protagonist who needed a weapon, the body was buried with his gun together.

1/10


I didn't actually intend to watch this. It was one of those movies of the week with incredibly low production values and a script weaker than aged parchment.

I don't actually need to get into details here. The film is predictable enough that anybody watching it should have it figured out within about ten minutes. However, to give you a brief clue, yes, it's exactly what you think.

Worst film I've seen in a while.


On a boring day of constant reruns, i caught this crap on TV. At first it held my interest, until I saw the similarities to "Rosemary's Baby" up to a point. The elderly clan in the same house. I was waiting for Dean's character to change to lucifer or something evil.

BTW, where did she get those cigarettes to set off the alarm? Why didn't she get that gun the first time she saw it? What were the motives of the elderly people? Questions, questions!!! To be honest, I missed the first 15 minutes of this..and should of missed the rest. I think Portia did a good job of acting considering the shortcomings of the script. I didn't know she had it in her.


I don't really think that letter would have gotten far, but it would be fun to try. Because this movie, is one bad piece of ****. But i really should see it coming when it starts and you see Dean Cain running. Dean Cain means crappy. At least in my book. And this movie is crappy with cream on it. I don't want to ruin the movie if you actually are going to watch it but i can say this. DON'T WATCH IT!!! Stay away from "The Glow". It is suppose to be a thriller movie with suspense but all it has is some old people with ugly make up. The movie has a lot of plot holes as would be expected and it isn't really worth anything except the off button on your TV. I rate this movie 2/10.


Totally pretentious bunch of crap. Do yourself a favor and avoid it at all cost. Save the money for something more productive (and there are so many things more productive than going to this movie) Also... never believe a word of the stuff they write in film festival catalogues... trust your instincts.


First of all, let's get one thing straight....I love foreign films. I even love Iranian films (at least I loved Colours of Paradise). And yet I didn't think I would ever get through this movie and it's not that long. I would have no idea what it was about if I hadn't read the back of the box.

In brief, the "movie" consists of a long series of interminable vignettes, usually with no dialogue, no character development, and no point. Every 20 minutes or so (seems like longer), there is an actual scene with some interesting characters who for the most part are not heard from again. Then there's some nonsense about a Palestinian woman who gets hold of a Police CB. I was looking forward to seeing a Palestinian film to see what a Palestinian director would have to say...Not necessarily about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (though that would be interesting too...) but about SOMETHING, damn it! This film was a huge disappointment. Don't watch it unless you are expecting a documentary, and a dull one at that.


This is the single worst film that I have ever seen in my life. Just to clarify, I do not regularly make this statement and I am not one of those people who sees a bad movie and then calls it the worst they've ever seen. In fact, I can't remember the last time that I said a film was the worst I've ever seen. That's how infrequently I say it.

I sat through this film even though around the 20 minute mark I wanted it to be over. Badly. I don't know why, it's just something I always do. No matter how bad a film is, I'll never shut it off without coming to the end. That way I feel that I can make a clear headed and complete decision on what I thought of the film.

Well, with Stacy, I can't think of a single thing that was done well. Everything - and I mean everything - from the screenplay to the direction to the lighting, was AWFUL. A note to aspiring filmmakers everywhere: if you're going to make a film, take your time and come up with a story that is interesting and that you can confidently tell. When people rush into things, we end up with dross like Stacy.

I'm not going to tell people to stay away from this film, however. It is worth watching simply to see the mistakes that make a truly terrible film truly terrible. At the very least, the violence is cartoonish enough to make you laugh with its over the top depictions of decapitations and gut yanking. That isn't enough to actually entertain you, but you'll come away from the experience never wanting to put an audience through similar visual torture. And the fewer films like Stacy that ever see the light of day, the better.


Young girls between 14 and 17 are falling into a coma and dying. When they wake up they are flesh eating zombies called Stacys. Weird gore horror comedy social commentary that never quite comes together. Its too gross (blood goes everywhere), too knowing (the zombie fighters are called Romeros, a chainsaw is a Campbell) and too odd ball to ever really have a shot at any audience. Give the film points for trying, but the low brow humor mixed with not very pointed social commentary doesn't seem to go anywhere. I won't even mention how the blood and guts quickly become too much to take. I had read a couple pieces that invested the film with some great purpose and meaning, I never saw it in the sea of severed limbs and chainsawed faces. If you like blood and guts try it, but I'd steer clear.


Okay, so here's your premise. A bunch of nubile Japanese girls running around in the stereotypical schoolgirl outfits with lots of potential for violence and teen sex: how could you screw this idea up?!

Well, look no further than Stacy, a movie built more around odd voice overs rather than the typical tenants that drive the zombie film genre. The idea was there: girls turning into flesh-eating creatures coupled with dark sinister overtones of Fascism and pre-apocalyptic tension. Unfortunately, the production had the budget of a film school short and relied heavily on ridiculous single-shot scenes that dragged on forever. The production looked shabby at best, and the acting was hammy even for a foreign film.

To make matters worse, the ending absolutely made no sense, and the bad gore scenes couldn't make up for all of the downfalls to the film.


This was 79 minutes of my life that I will never be able to get back.

The movie is absolutely terrible, I don't have the faintest idea how somebody could watch this nonsense and actually appreciate it. The filming is terrible, the special effects utterly suck (and I've seen my share of low-budget movies), there is no storyline - absolutely none - and even if there was then the utterly crap acting would make you instantly forget any storyline.

The movie is filled with absolutely pointless "deep thoughts" that do little else than annoy the hell out of you, accompanied with annoying bell sounds that will slowly drive you nuts.

If total boredom won't make you run away screaming, then please take my advice and stay as far away from this movie as possible.


A virus is killing young girls from 15 to seventeen, right before they die they go through a Near Death Happiness or NDH, if you will then die. Once dead they rise again as zombies The government has commissioned the "Romero re-kill Squad" to dispatch said zombiefied school-girls. There's also illegal re-kill teams to pick up some slack. Sad to say, but this movie didn't really work for me. Satire is more then merely naming something after Georg Romero or having a chainsaw weapon after Bruce Campbell (shouldn't it be 'Ash's Righ Hand' anyway). It also tries to tell us a message. What that message is, who the hell knows. It tries to be a love story between an middle-aged man and a under-aged school girl, this too is misguided and contrived. The gore will keep your attention for maybe 10 minutes at the most before you keep checking your watch wondering when this mis-fire will finally end.

My Grade: D+

DVD Extras: Uncut version, other then that just a Theatrical Trailer


Don't really like the whole hopeless sorrow thing, too black. Marrying an emotionless zombie girl as solution?! Evolution? This is just plain sick. Besides the zombie thing, it's somewhat similar to a manga I read: by the end of 21th century, mysterious illness spreads out, teenage girls suddenly becoming more and more beautiful day by day, and so as weaker and weaker, then eventually die off. End of humanity... Come on, horror film should leave some space for hope (not a twisted one).


Well, this is so horrible it's brilliant! I just watched this in my horror film class (the professor didn't show it willingly, but after the suggestion of a fellow professor) and my classmates and I were laughing our heads off! This movie is even too awful to show on "Mystery Science Theater." It is a joke within itself. I've read some reviews, saying that it's parody. Let's not kid ourselves. "Airplane" is a parody. This is plain ol' silliness. If there's anything I have to say, you can't fall asleep through a movie like this, because you can't wait to see what ridiculous thing will happen next! If this is parody, then critics aren't lying when they classify it as the laziest genre. When you're laughing at a film, rather than with it, it's trespassed the lines of parody. It's hard to describe my feelings about the movie, because I think it's one of the worst films I've ever seen, yet at the same time I suggest people check it out (if you get the chance; don't spend a hell of a lot of money to purchase a copy of it!). But as long as you're in the mood for a good laugh. If you want to learn what NOT to do when making a horror film, then watch "Stacy." You can't play elevator music during a horror film, because it brings it to a complete halt--or any film for that matter, but especially in horror. That's what happened whenever one of the Stacys would start speaking, and camera zoomed in on her--that damn cheesy elevator music would start playing. I wrote a horrible parody of film noir when I was taking a screenwriting class. I felt like reading that screenplay after watching this, because as horrible as I think it is, it can't be as horrible as this movie. The same goes with an awful student film I made in high school. This is like a Japanese Ed Wood flick. This is the "Plan 9" of Japan. It gotta be seen to be believed! Horrible dialogue, horrible acting, horrible effects, horrible story, horrible camerawork, horrible everything!

My score: 1 (out of 10)


Oi Vey, what can I say about this film? It's starts strong with seemingly good potential gore wise, and an OK storyline, but as the minutes pass by the storyline just gets worse, and worse, until finally at the end, the only thing you can say is "WTF?" The film does have some positives though, the special effects/gore is above par and done very well, and it's fun to watch the cute "Eiko" prance around, I'd like to see her in more films, hopefully in a more serious role though next time. (like Battle Royale II maybe?) The film also gives some nice nods to Romero and Bruce Campbell, and for that you have to respect it, as it's paying homage to the great zombie/gore films that are it's precedent.

My recommendation is this: If you are a fan of zombies AND Japanese culture, give this film a go, but I wouldn't go out of my way to see it, it's really a case of 'take it or leave it'.


I feel like I need to sleep for a month to recover from watching this garbage; god knows how many brain cells I've lost. Asian horror seems to fall into two categories; you've got the boring ghost stories, with films such as Dark Water and The Grudge, and then you've got the ridiculous attempts at 'schlock' horror, with films like Versus and this rubbish. I'm not sure which one I hate more, but I know one thing is for sure; I'm not going to see any more horror films originating from that part of the world. You can only be stung so many times. So anyway, onto this film; Stacy is Japan's attempt at a zombie flick. The film takes obvious influence from stuff like 'Anime' and 'Manga', and this is shown by way of the ridiculous comic plotting. The film works on the idea of women catching the zombie virus and coming back as zombies, which have been nicknamed 'Stacie's'. This is a problem across Japan, and so the government has implemented several initiatives to deal with the problem, including the zombie search and destroy squad, named Romero (the phrase 'ham-fisted' springs to mind). The main plot seems to be the one dealing with some guy called Shibukawa and a soon-to-be-Stacy.

The main problem with this is film is that it's just ridiculous. The plotting is illogical in the extreme, and as the film flicks between various different plots; it bypasses entertainment and only serves in being boring. This movie made me want to chop myself up with a chainsaw, just for something to do. Quite how anyone can draw any kind of enjoyment from a messy load of rubbish like this is beyond me. Speaking of mess...this film features a lot of gore, some of which is actually quite good, but it's so comically over the top that it can't be taken seriously. Stacy relies a lot on the fact that it's "zombie schoolgirls", but seriously...so what? Stacy does feature some originality in the zombie stakes, which we don't often see; things such as the teleshopping channel selling chainsaws shows ingenuity; but it's too little in a film with so many negative elements. The tributes to zombie classics only serve in reminding the audience how much better this type of film can be, and calling the zombie squad Romero is as lame as the rest of the movie. All in all, this is bad even for an Asian horror film. Getting to the end is akin to running a marathon. See it only if you are in dire need of sleep.


Most anime, especially those from the 80s got a major mauling from companies rolling over themselves trying to get them into English. Nowadays, dubbing is much better and normally exactly the same as the subtitled screenplay, but back around '89-'96 it was a different matter, and anime was viewed mainly as fodder for action movie buffs and cyberpunks, so it was dubbed as so. Didn't matter how sensitive the original was, the western version sounded like Die Hard. With more swearing. I start with this anecdote because Angel Cop is so bad, the cheesy and unnecessarily vulgar 80s dubbing is the least of its problems.

Even in the original Japanese, Angel Cop would have still limped in over the finish line somewhere around the 99th place mark. The animation is so unnervingly rigid and stagnant it makes La Jetee look action-packed, the character design makes it almost impossible to discern what gender characters are without looking at their chest or waiting for their first line of hideously cheap, unpleasant dialogue, and it manages to pretty much clinch the victory for the most vile main character in history with the titular Angel.

Angel makes Bad Leutenant look like Willy freaking Wonka. This woman is mean, unpleasant and difficult to get along with from the get-go. When she's not indiscriminately shooting anyone not in a police uniform Death Wish style, she's either espousing patriotic garbage about how great the government in her society is, or she's yelling at people for no obvious reason. Dysfunctional characters are one thing, but Angel is about as much fun to spend screen-time with as a bad case of the mumps.

That's pretty much enough to wreck it, given that all movies and TV series need a key character or two you can relate to, but there's more. The plot is awful, a generic Z Grade political thriller come Blade Runner rip-off that should have been shot by snipers as it attempted to enter the building. Add to that an alarming level of pointlessly tasteless violence, bad mecha design from the 'I can't be bothered to draw today I'm going to trace Shinji Aramaki's...WHOOPS I SLIPPED' school of production design, and Angel Cop is hobbling down the track with two busted kneecaps. Seriously, avoid this series. Like you'd avoid a giant rat with rabies.

If it serves any purpose to society and culture at all, Angel Cop is a footnote and a dire warning as to how far even generic, lowest-common-denominator anime has come, and how far it potentially has to fall. It's a badly dubbed, nasty, sloppily put together heap of anime waste product, and as such should be avoided as carefully as possible.


I saw the whole movie. Am Greek and this is a very recent film. I thought it could be good. After the first 15 minutes the film was like this : Every time the main character(a man) meets a woman , the woman attacks to him sexually and... The film was repeating itself, every scene was the same ... One of the actresses is very famous in Greek, and i like her in the "hot" scenes .. but come on... is this art ? Am really sorry that the director - whose film Loufa and Parallagy I can watch 100 times per day- made this movie. No story .. if in the same scenes the actors were more nude.. it would be porn. I am very open-minded... it reminded me of another movie Lucia y el Sexo, especially the scene in the water (blue sea and sex) but i cant really understand what was the purpose of this movie. Am really sorry for my bad critic, am not an expert. This is my personal opinion.


I took my two kids aged 7 and 10 to see this movie. They seemed to enjoy it, but I found it to be one of the worst movies I have ever had to sit through.

The plot seems okay on the surface - A chimp who works as a spy. However it all goes downhill from there. There are many silly twists, characters that just don't fit and situations that are completely unbelievable. The film was obviously made on a tight budget and it shows. Nothing seems even remotely real.

The director has made a number of animal movies in the past, specifically the MVP (Most Valuable Primate) and Airbud movies. This is easily his worst yet.

Save your money and go see ANY other kids movie.


This was most likely the worst movie I have ever seen. The recipe of putting a monkey named 'Minky', and old lady who can't fit into her leather suit, a stupid bad guy, and an old man spy creates a horrific gumbo of unfunny jokes and 'humorous' actions that aren't even funny to children. I will say, however, that it is a fun movie to watch if you need something to make fun of. The pitiful acting and poor filming make this movie a travesty to modern day movies. Even the extras just make you laugh at their completely unprofessional acting and painful imitations of Japanese people. The plot line is this: super smart girl gets an opportunity to go to a special conference to show her amazing laser. Shock, shock, as it ends up she does not go to any conference, but ends up having to help an evil doctor recreate the impossible 'oxygen laser'. Her father, an ex-spy, finds out and goes to rescue her from the doctor, enlisting the help of his good friend 'Minky' the monkey. Unfunny plot points such as the one in Jamaica in which the monkey speaks in Jamaican to a guy he's is beating up, are all to common. Do not see this movie with the intention of laughing with it. See it with every intention of laughing AT it.


Not only is this movie awfully directed with plenty of unbelievable (and impossible) situations, but it's blatantly racist. The worst: it's meant for kids!! Talk about encouraging racism! A dangerous movie, probably made by crazed Zionists. The first message conveyed is that Arabs are evil and behind attempts to sabotage peace talks. The chimp is wearing a kind of a Saudi garment. Hint to Arabs looking bad too?? Or not Humans? Sounds like some Zionist leaders calling Palestinians "cockroaches". Then the chimp saves Japan and beats Japanese ninjas worshiping some kind of monkey-god... Wow! What Pat Morita does in that garbage is beyond comprehension! The whole is a vile propaganda stunt from the evil elites of this world.


I am a huge Charlton Heston fan. He is without a doubt one of the greatest actors of all time, but what was he thinking when he made this movie. Normally if he made a bad movie I could blame it on the screenwriter or director, but in this case it's all him. The suckiness of this movie is all his fault. It proves that not even Heston can make a Shakespeare story interesting. I wasted 2 and a half hours of my life on this snooze fest and I'll never get that time back. This is by far THE WORST Heston movie that I've ever seen. If you are a Shakespeare fan maybe you'll find this movie entertaining, but if you're not don't waste your time, you'll regret it in the long run.


I'll be frank: SUPERMAN III is NOT a good film. Having heard both from people who loved the movie and hated the movie, I watched it with an open mind, but in the end it was clear to me that this movie is weak. Very weak.

Half of the movie revolves around Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor!), a dim-witted computer programmer who becomes involved in crime when he begins working for millionaire Ross Webster (Robert Vaughn). The other half of the film revolves around Superman (Christopher Reeve), as he is reunited with high school sweetheart Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole) and becomes evil when exposed to synthetic kryptonite.

One can't help but wonder what David and Leslie Newman, who co-wrote the previous two SUPERMAN films, were thinking when they wrote this film. It opens with a cringe-worthy slapstick sequence, and gets worse from there. Any and all scenes involving Richard Pryor are completely out of place in this film, making it seem more like an unfunny comedy than a superhero film. Director Richard Lester tries his best to make the movie work, but ultimately, it doesn't, thanks in part to the absence of Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor and the near-absence of Margot Kidder as Lois Lane (Kidder has a total of about three minutes on-screen). Christopher Reeve, however, is excellent as always, and Annette O'Toole is a good fit for the part of Lana Lang; interestingly, she portrayed Clark's mother, Martha Kent, on the hit Superman TV series SMALLVILLE.

SUPERMAN III is mediocre at best, a failed attempt to continue an excellent series. While it couldn't hold my attention for the 125 minute runtime, I can think of worse movies to watch late at night with a bowl of popcorn and a Coke. Superman fans may want to check it out; all others, steer clear.


The sequence of accidents at the start is garbage. The guy hitting the metal post would fall right back, not to his right. The girl on skates could easily avoid him and not hit the cart.

What are the little flaming things that catch the penguin on fire? If they are road hazard markings, surely a reflective one would be used or a battery powered light, NOT a naked flame. The guide-dog would not run after the other dog, they are specifically trained not to.

Why don't the people in front of Clark notice the burning penguin or put it out and why doesn't Clark take his paper of the pile thats very visible.

No bank guard would fire in a crowded street and the guy in the car had plenty of time to open a window/door and get free. None of the bystanders try to break any of the windows either, which is easy.

The photo-booth would not take pictures so quickly after having money put in and most take money from the inside of the booth anyway. The guy with the bucket on his head could easily have taken it off. The 2 men who fall over are actors but the public walk over the slippery gum-balls easily.

The pie man could have stepped over the gum-balls easily also. Why is the Daily Planet in the same street as the Empire State Building? (visible from the front on the street).

The "hacking" that Gus does is impossible. He uses his employee number to hack into the company system. He's a data processor, he'd have little to limited system access. His terminal would be limited to the task he was doing and nothing else at that time. And any hack would be traced back to his employee number.

Being a data processor certainly wouldn't involve a light-pen in any way. And it's unlikely the Webscoe system would accept commands typed in plain English. There was plenty of space on the road by the chemical plant for the bus to get past if the police car had moved.

Inflammable? Doesn't that mean won't catch fire? Why didn't Superman freeze the acid when he was talking to the scientist. Now it's clearly stated that no-one knows where the half cents are going and aren't accounted for so how do they work out they are being defrauded?

And how does Gus whose only just learned to be a data processor learn so much about hacking so quickly? (like he was taught it when he was taught DP). And Gus "hacking" a weather computer would NOT effect a bank ATM, or Bloomingdales Billing Department, or traffic control (they are totally independent systems). Traffic lights are very basic circuits built into the light itself.

Vulcan can only monitor weather, that's all it's designed for, it would never make weather. This is totally beyond belief, that a novice hacker could reprogram a weather monitor system to actually create weather.

And Gus would have smashed right through the window he landed on when he fell down the building. How can a satellite designed to predict and monitor weather analyze chemicals from an asteroid?

Ricky only told his friends that Superman was coming (who wouldn't believe him anyway), so how did the whole town find out Superman was coming? And more to the point how did Gus, who isn't even in Smallville find out? Superman knows Kryptonite is green, why didn't he suspect the gift from Gus right away? Why do Lana and Ricky live in such a big house? No wonder her rent costs so much.

Superman blowing out the Olympic flame is no big deal, it could easily be re-lit when he left. Oil ship steering isn't computer controlled. They might get instructions by computer but they are steered by humans as the sea is too unpredictable. No ships captain is going to take notice of orders to go to the middle of the sea and stay there. They know the lack of oil would cause chaos. Oh, and why isn't the British Reliance flying either the Union Flag or The White Ensign which she would do if she was British registered.

How did Gus design a computer? He was only ever trained in data processing, Not like he learned computer architecture there. And once again we see The Statue Of Liberty (In New York) but heavily featured as near Metropolis.

Am I the only one who thought the tanker should explode when Superman is welding the side closed? And how DO the Websters balloons stay inflated when they have no heat source inflating them?

The instructions Websters sister gives are useless unless the people she's giving them to designed the computer. And she would have no idea how to operate the computer seeing as she's never seen it before and Gus designed it to his specifications. The screens attacking Superman are from the Atari 2600 Superman game, the sound effects are from Pac-man.

Superman in a bubble with no air is no big deal, he can fly in space in a vacuum. Oh, and the string of a yo-yo would not support the weight of a fully grown man. Why didn't Gus just throw the power switch that Lorilei used to activate the computer at the cave entrance?

The end for this is weak and the whole film hasn't lasted well under the passing of time.