I shouldn't even get this piece of waste of time one star. I'm sitting here considering this one of the worst movies i have ever seen - and i've seen some crap in my time.

The sorry piece of movie will of course give us all some bad taste in our mouth when they make awkward and embarrassing scenes like seeing a retarded son trying to help his mother when she is seriously ill and crying, scenes where the retard tries to force his mother to eat pills because "the more you take, the better you will get". But that doesn't make the movie better, touching, scary or anything else than a bad taste in my mouth and wanting to seeing this sorry movie. So lets just say that the one star i'm giving is for making me feel bad.

The effects are really annoying - fast forward style effects, annoying sound. Mental-patient seeing visions effect look like a joke with a painted guy with something weird on top of his head - i guess he is supposed to look dead (and even with this they fail miserably) and he has got something that looks like a new years party decoration on top his head.

Even the ever so faulty and stupid story of the family with a sick son and mother has so many annoying mistakes and just poor judgments in it that i hate this movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone, not even my worst enemy or as looser-practical-joke recommendation to my best friends... DO NOT WASTE YOUR LIFE ON THIS!


Joe Hitchcock, that is. One reviewer said Rumley is no Werner Herzog or David Lynch. Hell, he's not even Werner Klemperer or Richard Lynch.

In all fairness to "The Living and the Dead," the actors do a fine job in portraying their parts. However, the film suffers from numerous plot holes because it feels like Rumley has absolutely no knowledge of caring for a terminally ill or disabled person. If someone needs a wheelchair to get around or assistance to go to the toilet, you don't put the toilet chair or the wheelchair far from the person that needs them. And what in the hell was the telephone doing on the first floor? In "Sorry, Wrong Number," Barbara Stanwyck had the phone next to her bed, and that was during Hollywood's Golden Age. Had I been in Donald's shoes, I would have made sure the house was more accessible, made it so that there was a phone near my wife's bed and didn't leave for London until Nurse Mary was in the house. However, that's just me.

Another problem with this film is that various camera tricks and scenes lead the viewer to think that there will be a twist ending. However, the only thing we are given is seemingly endless and irritating scenes of James running through the house at speeds similar to John Wesley Shipp in "The Flash" television series. At least there was a reason for Shipp running fast. There's no reason for James doing this. Perhaps Simon Rumley confused artistic with annoying and redundant.

"The Living and the Dead" tries to pass itself off as a film like "Memento" or "The Usual Suspects," but it comes off as something that disappoints the viewer in the end.


How could anybody have not seen through this sham of writing?! 1. This man-child would have been locked up YEARS ago! 2. Who, in God's name, let's someone in that condition be responsible for their own medication? 3. The "Lord" leaves the mansion BEFORE the nurse arrives? Ridiculous!! 4. After killing his mother, he's still loose? Then, apparently not searched, he still has the knife at the funeral!!! I don't care how bad off the family were financially, in their position this neglect would never have been realistic. I literally wanted to confiscate the world's copy's and destroy them!! This was LAUGHABLY bad. Infintile in it's ridiculous depictions. Pathetic!


Unwritten rule in horror #1: ALWAYS remain somewhat skeptical whenever you rent a movie of which the DVD cover is literally bespattered with praising quotes from acclaimed horror magazines and/or listings of awards won at Festivals no one ever heard of. This might be an indication that the distributors need extra reasons to convince people into renting/buying their film, because the plot summary and the still images on the back of the box aren't convincing enough. The box of "The Living and the Dead" features quotes stating "Brilliant", "Disturbing", "Harrowing" and "The Greatest Film Ever Made", but personally I don't think the film deserves any of those compliments. The tagline, on the other hand, is very truthful. It says "Terror by good intentions" and not only does this simple sentence summarize the whole plot, it also accurately describes the entire film production! The story revolves on the physical, financial and mental downfall of a once-eminent family of three living in a massive mansion in rural Britain. The father is nearly bankrupt, the mother is terminally ill and the twenty-something son James is mentally handicapped. When the father is forced to travel to London to solve his financial issues, James insists to look after his mother instead of an expensive nurse. Naturally his intentions are good, but his lack of realism and intellect make it a long period of pure agony and humiliation for his poor old mother. Ah, good intentions Writer/director Simon Rumley obviously had plenty. The concept of the film is original and fairly engaging, but it's too little to revolve a whole movie around. "The Living and the Dead" suffers from far too many dreadfully dull moments and Rumley only seems to fill those moments up with lame visual gimmicks and pointless padding footage. He particularly seems to be fond of the fast-forward filming style. Very often we just see accelerated images of James running up and down the house for no real reason other than to kill a few extra minutes of playtime or to set up the viewers with a dreadful headache. If anything, "The Living and the Dead" is the type of film that can make even the calmest person nervous and irritated. The pointlessness of this film is really frustrating, good intentions or no good intentions. The finale is highly implausible, the film honestly isn't that shocking as it thinks it is and Rumley's atypical directing skills almost feel pretentious and arrogant. Seriously, you're not Werner Herzog or David Lynch, mister.


I'm just going to get this out of the way before I trash: I liked The Living and the Dead for what it was. A simple, psychological horror/drama that was brilliant and did exactly what it set out to do. So why the low score? Because as brilliant and disturbing as it was, there was nothing really special about it. It was short film turned into a full-length movie. It fit more into the "that's cute" category than the "I got my entire money's worth here" category. That was the major problem I had with it: it wasn't anything that deserved a full-length movie, necessarily. If the runtime and price were both cut in half, this would have gotten a much higher score for me.

I guess I'll just start out with saying that this was one of the few movies I've ever seen that genuinely disturbed me. There was little to no blood, but the subject matter gripped me emotionally and hit home and it disturbed me. Will it disturb everyone? No. Will it disturb most? Maybe, but I doubt it. It's an acquired taste. The movie banks on you being emotionally affected, and if you're not, there really is no point in watching it because you'll be bored out of your mind. The Living and the Dead is relative in every aspect of the word, and I can't give it a definitive "this sucks" or "this was good" because it varies person to person. That isn't true about most movies, unlike what people want to believe, but that does apply here. It's your call.

As for the aspects of the film that aren't relative: The acting is pretty good. The story isn't entirely original, but it isn't typical either. The camera-work is well-done for the kind of movie it is. The pacing gets a little bloated, but nowhere near as bad as it could have been. Everything was well-done in the technical stance. The story was borderline brilliant, though I can see why people would disagree.

Overall, if you're looking for a psychological movie that will disturb you, this is worth a shot. I haven't seen a truly disturbing movie in years, but this was almost a little too much for me to handle. Almost. But that was based on my emotional engagement, and that is relative. Just watch it and make up your own opinion.

2/10


'The Living and the Dead' portrays the lives of a British noble, his wife and their adult son set in a spectacular country estate. The good days are long past. The estate is in disrepair and at risk of forfeiture, the wife bedridden most of the film and the son clinically psychotic. That sums up the bulk of what can be said with relative certainty about the plot.

The rest is a tumbling mash of conflicting alternate realities, displaced time-lines, hallucinatory visions and fast motion. Director/writer/producer Simon Rumley loves the fast motion. Leo Bill as the son spends much of the film at ten-fold speed, racing through vast expanses of interior, arms and face animated in a failed attempt to impart the viewer his perspective. It doesn't work, quickly growing tiresome and obvious. Rumley's so committed to the technique that clouds, the advancing sun, branches, vehicles, doctors and nurses eventually join the fray. Repeatedly. It's difficult to comprehend why since it has no bearing on the quiet desperation Rumley's grasping at, instead evoking the feel of an Eighties music video or a VW commercial.

It's symptomatic of the film's jettisoning coherency for atmosphere. The first half contradicts the back with no hint of resolution offered. The son proves more criminally insane than clinically yet no reason offered why he wasn't institutionalized. Early in the film when still portrayed as a happy idiot the father is constantly abusive and stern. Fatherly warmth doesn't appear until unconscionable acts are committed. The son roams free past the point any modern Western nation would have seen him incarcerated. We never know why. Likewise the rest of the plot is so artificial and bent to the requirements of intense moments all believability is lost and with it any concern for the characters. The one bright spot is Kate Fahy's terrific portrayal of the wife. She creates the few and fleeting scenes in which the film works as intended. Not content with these minor successes Rumley brushes them aside to make room for more mind-bending plot twists, snatching total failure from the jaws of mediocre success. A movie for the patient only.


If you enjoy movies about retards running rampant and elder abuse than this is the movie for you! Some of the best scenes of a naked sick old woman being humiliated that I have ever seen in a movie. Also includes spastic idiot drug abuse and fecal covered sheets! I stopped watching when the retard started force feeding his sick mother pills to "make her better".

Truly a horror to watch, and not in a good way. If this is your kind of thing, your time would be better spent watching an expose on abuse in nursing homes.

This movie should not have been made.


That I can't believe I'm even giving it 2/10. If the goal was to make a movie that was dull, boring, tedious and depressing, it was achieved. Thank God its only 80 minutes. Anymore and I may have knifed myself..hahaha. If you have nothing better to do and need something to put you to sleep late at night, place this in the DVD player and nod off. The dream sequence is a highlight in creative stupidity. Whats that on the father's head but a crown of burning candles??...you have to be kidding me......BOO! What a waste of time...whomever wrote the "One of the best film's I've ever seen" on the cover was either paid by the director or has been living in a cave for the last 20 years.


This is definitely a bad movie, especially taking into account the over-positive magazine quotes on the DVD cover: "The best movie I have ever seen.", must have been his first.

The retard is a miscast of the worst possible case, he does not even come close to scary at any point in the movie. The plot is thin and the characters are not detailed.

The retard should have been treated when he first struck but then the movie would have ended half an hour after it started. It does not make any sense.

It would have made a nice last year school project, but should never have been released!!!


I've learned only one thing after seeing this movie, about taste you can't discuss. the DVD cover was full with compliments about this movie, but don't ask me why. I would have never published such a movie. The plot is boringly simple, there are only 3 characters, a mother who's ill, a father that has to leave the house for a while, and a son who according to the movie summary suffers from szicofrenia. everything happens in the family house. 2 things were the most terrible in this movie, the annoying way how someone who suffers szicofrenia is pictured here, mainly as a mentally retard who can't say any word of sense, and secondly the boring dialog that repeat over and over. the movie was all about the son, but he can only act as a mentally retarded guy, not as someone who suffers from szicofrenia. it's hard to believe that this movie got still so much of positive feedback...


On the Cover of the rental DVD it said that is was one of the best movie some movie critic had ever seen. I have to say that I love movies that contain a certain depth and make you think and the quotes on the cover promised just that. I actually had to start this movie twice because I stopped it at the first try after 15 minutes not being able to concentrate on the "storyline"(there actually is not really much of a storyline to begin with).What I am trying to get across is that this is just not a movie that captures you in the first couple of minutes and also this is definitely not a horror movie. The horror is supposedly rooted in the fact that there are two very sick people (one mentally and one physically) that are locked in together and try to care for each other.

The deranged or mentally ill son might be portrayed in a realistic fashion but that does not make it less annoying to watch his character rummage through this movie. What I found most annoying is the overuse of fast paced pictures combined with nasty techno music. I do get it that this is meant to emphasize his progressing madness but I would say that the audience would have understood this without using this stylistic device 5 times in a row. Another maddening element are certain jumps in the time line that make it even harder to follow the already chaotic "storyline" I found also utterly unrealistic that a concerned father would leave his terminally ill wive and his deranged son who, as he notes earlier is "not very good with strange people".

Altogether a very unpleasant movie not only because of its content but because it is very hard to follow and even harder to connect to any of the characters portrayed in it!


This is possibly the worst film i have ever seen. I actually saw the premiere in Rotterdam Film Festival, and whilst many people walked out I stayed to the bitter end. But that was mainly because I didn't want to lose my friends. Self indulgent is a word often overused in the arts, and some of the best music and film is incredibly self indulgent, but behind that indulgence there is often genius. Unfortunately here there is nothing, not even a plot. The mistake the director Simon Rumley makes is to dwell on the suffering of the characters, all in a kind of 'gross out' adolescent way, without any insight, or any freshness. All the best films now tend not to be so mawkish, making The Living and The Dead seem like a bad student project from the 1970s. There's no lightness of touch here and no humour. Perhaps we're supposed to laugh at mentalist James in the same way we laugh at Julian Donkey Boy. But he's just not that funny and he has none of the demented hilarity of Donkey Boy. Like the rest of the cast, he's just a stereotype, an extremely annoying stereotype. All you'll learn from The Living and The Dead is that some people clearly have much more money than sense. And I'm not talking about any of the characters in the film here.


In Paris, fifteen days before her summer vacation, the lonely secretary Delphine (Marie Rivière) receives a call from her friend Caroline telling her that she would not travel with her to Scotland. Delphine does not want to travel alone and has difficulties to have relationship with unknown people, and she decides to travel to Cherbourg with a friend. A couple of days later, she is bored and decides to return to Paris. Then she calls a friend in La Plagne, but she returns on the same day to her place in Saint German. While walking on the streets of Paris, she meets an old friend that offers her house in Biarritz. Once there, a young stranger flirts with Delphine, invites her to go to Bayonne and they spend the afternoon together and watch the sunset until its last green ray.

I have had another huge disappointment with the director Eric Rohmer after watching "Le Rayon Vert". I found this movie an overrated, boring and dull tale of loneliness with an annoying lead character. It is very easy to understand the solitude of the unpleasant Delphine and I recommend to see this movie on DVD, since the viewer will be able to use the rewind (when he or she takes an involuntary nap) or the fast forward button in case of unbearable boredom. In my case I was forced to rewind the movie three or four times. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Raio Verde" ("The Green Ray")


Saw this movie at 3am on the 'Bad movies' channel. It certainly deserves it's place there. Badly acted, boring, explotitive and just plain silly. Still, if you're drunk or on any naughty illegal substances you just might enjoy it.

Basically a load of boys at military school get involved in the swinging 60s drug culture. They get high on banana skins, meet girls in mini skirts, drink a lot and generally stick it to the man. There's not exactly a lot of plot, or dialogue. Just seems to be a random assortment of odd little scenes.

But hey in the end the guy meets a groovy chick and they go to san Francisco and probably live happily ever after in a camper van.


Lovely concert singer Isabel Lewis (Evelyn Ankers) is engaged to marry medical student Ted Allison (David Bruce.) When she unexpectedly falls in love with her pianist Eric Iverson (a very suave Turhan Bey), she turns to Ted's laboratory boss Dr. Morris (George Zucco.) But it happens that Dr. Morris is in love with Isabel himself, and he decides to get rid of his assistant by subjecting him to ancient Mayan gas! Unfortunately for Ted, this gas is of a particularly nasty sort: it transforms him into a zombie-like creature. Under the control of Dr. Morris, Ted then participates in gathering the human hearts he must have for injections that allow him to return, temporarily, to normal.

The idea for this story seems to arise from a number of sources, most particularly the silent classic THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, the various versions of DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, and THE RETURN OF DR. X--the latter a particularly peculiar B-flick featuring an unexpected Humphrey Bogart as a lab-created vampire of sorts. It other hands, the concept might have worked quite well, but although the cast is accomplished and the production values are generally quite good, the make-up effects are hardly up to the Universal standard, the pace is slow, and the script is quite dire.

The film makes no effort to create any sort of "transformation" when actor David Bruce goes from golly-gee lab assistant to shambling zombie; it is a straight cut-away, cut-back-to shot, and the latter finds him in uninspired make-up and with very untidy hair. Director James P. Hogan maintains a pace every bit as leaden-footed as the zombie, and as for the script... well, it is probably this sort of script that Evelyn Ankers, the studio's "Scream Queen" of the 1940s, had in mind when she walked away from Universal a year later. Given the talents of the cast and the overall look of the film, which (make-up effects aside) is handsomely mounted, I find it difficult to give this film less than three stars. All the same, I greatly doubt that THE MAD GHOUL will have any appeal for those outside the circle die-hard Universal horror fans.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


huge spoiler alert.i'm about to give away the whole movie,in the hopes that no one else will ever watch this piece of excrement.a man gets off on taping people and getting their reactions before killing them, usually in a horribly disgusting way.oh yeah, he also talks to his victims as if it's all nothing more than a stroll in the park.he gives them little pep talks. for example, something along the lines of "Hey,it's okay,everything will be alright.keep your chin up".this is a paraphrase of some of the so called dialogue. that's pretty much the whole story.Oh, yeah we also get to hear him narrate too.what a joke.this is without a doubt the most vile,wretched thing anyone could make into a movie.it is not thrilling or exciting in any way,but stomach churning.less than 0/10


The is one of the most boring films I've EVER seen! Its got a good premise and would probably have been mildly entertaining in a shorter format (would have made an okay episode of Urban Gothic) but as it is its just one yawn-some killing after another. Max is one of the most unlikeable characters I've ever encountered (even for a serial killer obviously). The 'twist' is heavily signposted throughout and can be figured out by about fifteen minutes in. Max's speech implying that we the viewers are as bad as him because we have watched the killings didn't really seem relevant when we had been talking through most of them they were so dull.


I'm just writing here to warn people so they not get to be deceived (like I did) by the good reviews some have been giving to this crappy film. It's a disaster of a movie, and, considering it never actually gets to "move" anything, it should more be consider as a "still" than as a "movie".

I have to say that there were a couple good ideas in it, but its really just a couple: the first one, at the very beginning of the movie, and the last one, let's say the two final minutes. The 75 minutes left were very, extremely, undeniable boring. There is no suspense whatsoever, and all we get is to see a crazy psycho boring us with his tedious blablabla theories of murders , psychology and human kind, looking directly to the camera, while he shows shorts scenes of his murders. I was so bored that I started counting the wrinkles on his face, cause he's that much of time on screen, just talking.

I need to repeat it: What a lame movie! I really hated it. I don't remember being bored like this since I was on detention at high school. This movie really should be used as a punishment device.It was that boring. I wish I'd bought this darn film so I got to burn it. Now that would've been fun!.


The Last Horror Movie thinks that it's more clever than it actually is. It begins by telling us that we've never quite seen horror as intense as this and that we're truly in for the ride of our lives. While some of the following murders are interesting, it completely fails at living up to such high self-regard.

It's a film within a film. Sort of. We begin by watching a the REAL Last Horror movie, a direct to video slasher with bad acting and wobbly sets, but after a few minutes of that (a cunning ploy to make what follows look good by comparison) some guy appears and claims to have taped over it with his own home-made horror (obviously he has a full editing suite somewhere in his house) and tells his own story of killing and torture.

Why would be bother watching this? Well we supposedly rented the fake horror movie so what's wrong with wanting to witness some real horror? He never seems to shut up about this.

The guy in question is Max Parry, a mild-mannered (to the point of being a bit camp) wedding planner with a healthy relationship with his family, despite not being married himself. He's nice to his grandmother and good with the kids. No one would ever think him a psycho killer. But death and torture are his thing indeed.

He's hired a homeless cameraman (who is Scottish, therefor by English law must be portrayed as a total mongo) to follow him around and capture his killings on film. Some of them are innocent and would really rather not be dead, but others are twats who deserve it. Max has no quibbles about killing old or young, man or woman, black or white. He never explains why he does it, but only justifies his actions by waffling on about twisted morals.

Max claims the best part of horror movies is witnessing the kill. But most of his murders occur off-camera, which is a bit of a rip-off. I'll admit there is one cool scene in which a bully is immolated and another where he stabs a housewife, but I wanted more blood and perhaps some dismemberment. So much for being the last word in horror movies.

Another problem is that the convoluted narrative constantly conflicts itself and could never actually add up in real life. Sad people like me notice this and it kind of distracts from the point the film is trying to make. And the ending could only ever be scary if one is half-baked. I can't imagine any clear-headed person getting even the slightest bit chilled by it at all.

It's an ambitious project and I feel bad for rating it so poorly, but it's rather pretentious and just doesn't offer enough gruesomeness for the particularly blood-thirsty.

If this really is the Last Horror Movie then it's a shame that the genre had end on such a weak note.


I love westerns and I love Jeff Bridges. After seeing A Door in the Floor again I remain mystified as to why he doesn't have a shelf full of Oscars. That said, Bad Company is not a terrible movie but it surely isn't great. It is a stretch to call it uneven because it is evenly ordinary. It lacks the lyric quality of McCabe and Mrs. Miller or the iconic quality of The Searchers. As a matter of fact, it is not really comparable to any of the great westerns because it is inherently small and my bottom line is that to the extent that it is worth watching, it is because it was a sincere effort but that is the best I can do and it is faint praise indeed. I don't think that it is a neglected masterpiece but think it is neglected precisely because it is not a masterpiece.


There's two good things in here: the animation and the (very) basic premise. Once the veil of mystery is lifted about half an hour in, and explanations start being offered, the whole film degenerates pretty quickly. We have an evil genius type of bad guy with thin motivation for...taking over the world, of course, because he needs test subjects for an experiment. Does that sound believable to you? Granted, it's all fiction, but it has to be at least a little authentic. Anyway, the good guys aren't much better. In fact, they're extremely generic: we have the main girl, who's extremely emotional in spite of being part of the film's version of SWAT (who also carry out CIA-type missions). Then we have a hard ass girl, who's the main girl's ex. Both girls are pretty much eye candy and nothing more. Then we have the dude they're both after, who does nothing except getting captured, thus being in need of rescuing by the two girls. Then we have...the plot. Which is full of holes so big Leonidas could throw in the whole Persian army inside it in the blink of an eye. You'll see what I mean if you decide to watch this. If you don't...well, basically there's a company taking over Japan, on its own, and turning it into a wasteland. How does a single company take over a whole country? How does it fall so easily after two girls infiltrate it when it's supposed to be so powerful? Beats me. So much more could have been done with this with some more thought. That's really all it required. The writers sitting down and figuring out some tighter storyline rather than getting the easy way out and shrugging off all coherence.


Ping Pong is one of the greatest and most well-directed sports movie ever made. I am quite disappointed Souri Fumihiro's second attempt turned out to be such a failure. The setting of this film was extremely creative and promising. Japan became a closed nation in 2067 in retaliation against international restriction on robotic technology. "In the past 10 years, no one has seen the true Japan" was an extremely impacting quote to begin the story. Unfortunately, things take a downturn once the heroine reaches Japan.

====SPOILER BEGINS HERE====

Surprisingly, people in Japan was living in a nearly homeless condition, and Tokyo had turned into one large slum. I must say I was a bit disappointed I wouldn't see all the amazing technologies, but it was a nice twist that offered another promising story. What really disappointed me was how there were so many things that didn't make sense. If no one had seen Japan for 10 years and their guard was so perfect, how did Vexille and team so effortlessly infiltrate Japan? The very existence of those "Jags" were way too random and its structure makes absolutely no sense. What was its power source? Why the worm structure? It just felt like they needed a device to show off the computer graphics. Another thing is, how can a company become so powerful that it completely control Japanese government? No amount of corruption can allow virus injection to the entire population. And why, oh, why nobody in the street was surprised to see a white girl walking around, when no foreigner had visited Japan for 10 years? I understand this movie is a science FICTION, but all stories must be plausible. Even SF films must give its viewers acceptable explanations.

====SPOILER ENDS HERE====

Other than its story, this movie had many other disappointments. Some scenes were excessively cheesy, even for an anime, and other than intro, music choice was very poor. The most disturbing thing was the inconsistency in computer graphics. Background scenes, various machines, and special effects were fascinating, yet all the characters and some other objects were in extremely low quality that reminded me of Playstation polygons. Characters also seemed to be very stiff and movements seemed very unnatural. I know Japanese films have lower budget than American films, but a 2007 3D animated film with less convincing CG than Toy Story is simply unacceptable.


I guess I went into this movie with my hopes too high.

Don't get me wrong about the work that went into this technically, and in that regard the movie is fairly solid. The CGI is a bit too crisp and a bit too clean and a bit too reminiscent of "Appleseed: Ex Machina," but it's well done. The visual details are well done. It looks pretty, but that's a problem, because even the ghetto Tokyo has turned into is pretty to an extent. Technically, this movie is well done, and that's why I haven't marked it lower.

But a technically good movie doesn't make it one worth watching. Think about it: any Michael Bay movie, or something like Miller's "The Spirit," or even "Titanic" may be technically good and sound, but does that make it worth watching? My opinion is "No, it doesn't."

But there's no spirit here and even in some of the most lame and tame anime, there is at least one character with something that will draw a viewer in. There's nothing in the characters that makes me want to carry on with their stories, and the least of them is the title character, Vexille Serra. Honestly, it feels like this is supposed to be part of the universe "Appleseed" exists in because I get the expectation that we're supposed to already know who Vexille and Leon are (especially since it comes across much like Deunan and Briareos), so I seriously wonder if this was a retrofitted story that was rejected for the "Appleseed" series. I mean, shouldn't there have been something that made me feel sorry for Takashi when he died? Granted, this is science fiction, but that can't be an excuse for an empty feeling after watching it. Isn't dramatic tension and character development and the need to engage the viewer still a necessity for a successful story?

Could I forgive the lack of character development if it was a decent action movie? Maybe. But it's not a decent action movie. The choreography is bland and the chase sequences are predictable. Who didn't know that Maria and Vexille would be the only ones to make it to the island? Who didn't know that Takashi was doomed from the start? Who didn't see Leon and Maria's past coming a mile away? I guess if you're relatively unaware of the conventions this movie is heavily using that these things might be a surprise... but it amazes me that anyone would be surprised by anything that happened in the movie.

I also have to say I was greatly disappointed with the Jags. They are such an atrocious visual rip-off of Frank Herbert's sandworms in "Dune" that I was great disappointed as soon as I saw them. The creators should be ashamed of themselves for so blatantly stealing an idea from such a well known story.

With no character development, especially with Vexille herself, I think this movie fails on many, many levels, which is too bad. This could have been a decent movie that might have created a decent franchise... but I'm really hoping for a "one and done" on this.


This was a very good looking film. The characters were well done and the machines and robots looked excellent as well. Just as its known that for every time you have a good experience you tell one person, when you have a bad experience you tell ten, so goes this plot-less film. I thought that this looked very similar to the animation of the "Appleseed" movies as the screenplay was written by the same guy. Too bad that the first "Appleseed" (although not too great in itself) did circles around this utterly meandering story. I am not sure who thought that this had a complete story to begin with. It very much seemed like they just decided to do a bunch of cool CG then decided to fit in some sort of storyline as an afterthought. As I wrote in my heading, you will probably get just as much out of this with the mute button on as you would with it off. I would suggest skipping this unless you are a hardcore Japanese Anime fan. If you want to see something good, try watching "Appleseed" or the classic "Ghost in the Shell, Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, or Akira."


This is a bizarre and very heavy-handed film. Instead of showing adults at war, this film does war on a small scale--with children playing war. This isn't just kids playing war, but they have ranks, follow orders and act much like adults would in war. And, almost the entire film consists of kids acting--with only a few adults here and there. This strange idea seemed to impress most of the reviewers but I couldn't get into it--mostly because it all seemed rather fake and I also thought that children playing war and acting as if it's all lots of fun just seemed a bit grotesque. Although I know it was meant as an allegory about war and heroism and the futility of war--it seemed like it could also be taken as a pro-war film as well! As for the kids, all but Frankie Darro were unknowns and the acting, for kids, was pretty good. But it was also sappy from start to finish--and also made war seem pretty cool--like a recruitment film for the next war.

I guess I am a voice of dissent, but I didn't like the film--though I did at least respect the acting (for the most part) and give it a 4 simply for technical merit. Also, I nominate George P. Breakston for a special award for Best Performance By a Crazy Kid for his acting at the 61 minute mark. It has to be seen to be believed. Further, I nominate all the parents for the Most Irresponsible Parenting award for encouraging their little ragamuffins to become little warmongers.


Despite a compelling theme, some truly sparkling dialogue, and terrific performances by misters Plummer, Wagner, and Walsh, this film comes across rather uneven. The direction is heavy-handed, at times bordering on trite, the production design doesn't contribute much, and the photography is pretentious and annoying -- more appropriate to a music video, than a heartfelt drama. An older, more experienced DP could've made this infinitely more watchable! The script has a lot of potential, but could have, definitely, used another re-write (or two) and a bit of patching of some truly gaping holes, before going into production. The editing is, likewise, uninspired -- most of the shots linger a couple of beats too long, making the overall pace just tedious enough to lose tension.


This is an unfortunate film. One of its biggest problems is its lack of direction. Many of Schroeder's ideas are only half developed, and this lack of decisiveness shows. In a Q&A after the screening, Schroeder said that he did not want his film to be full of "Hollywood" clichés; unfortunately this is exactly what happens. As previously mentioned by my fellow critics, the hand-crank technique is used incorrectly and lends the film a music video tone. Add several non sequitur contrivances (e.g. the whole dog pound sequence(s) with its obvious use of stock footage, the way that Cameron receives funding for his film, the sabotage vignette, etc.) and you have a film that is chock full of holes. It also has a problem finding a true voice, which is something a film of this nature hinges on. It never sticks to one subject for long, and when it veers off in another direction, it fails to solidify into anything worthwhile. The one good thing it has going for it is Christopher Plummer. His performance is admirable in the way that he carefully delivers fairly pedantic dialogue. Although many characters were one-dimensional, the cast members did an adequate job. In brief, this is a forgettable film that will wow many people with its "heart." However, if you look more closely, you will see that it is shallow and mediocre at best.


I saw this screened at the Dallas AFI International Film Fest. It was one of the big buzz movies at the fest and it was disappointing -- despite Christopher Plummber's awesome performance

This film suffers from an inappropriate dichotomy: a good-natured family feel married to an F-bomb familiar script. This makes the film come across as indecisive and, as it will probably prove later, unmarketable. Michael Schroeder, who is not necessarily a bad director, crafts a tale of young Cameron Kincade's aspiration to win a student film competition. Also established from the beginning is this crusty old character Flash (played brilliantly by Christopher Plummber) moseying his way through life, taunting old-time actors during classic film screenings. We later find out that Flash is upset because he has been left behind twofold: by Hollywood (he was a former gaffer) and by his family. Kincaid works out an agreement that if Flash helps him win the competition, he will buy him booze and cigars (tough supplies for a 17 year old to buy -- but I won't nitpick).

The shots are beautiful and the performances are tender, but the problem lies within the film's "man in the chair". Michael Schroeder can't decide what he wants to do with this film. The film's indecisiveness comes across in an obvious way: is it a family film? It seems that way because the protagonist is "mischievious"/morally ambiguous (like a mild John Connor) but his crimes are not taken seriously. He is never punished nor has to appear in court (?!). Likewise, a very warm-hearted series of relationships bud between Kincaid and his elderly friends (showing that this kid is goodhearted -- even though he's a bada**). So now you see how it delves into family genre.

Foul language throws a monkey wrench into this because now the script tries to be realistic and 'non-fluffy'. Big mistake: if your film is fluffy, IT'S FLUFFY-- you can't disguise it. If Schroeder thinks a non-Hollywood ending (which is actually becoming Hollywood if you think about it --think the end of "Little Miss Sunshine" if you've seen it) can save this movie from fluff, he's way off. An example of teen issues being dealt with realistically can be found in "L.I.E." or any Larry Clark film. The kids are mischievous and there are CONSEQUENCES from that. Those films aren't fluffy, they are authentic observations of life. "Man in the Chair" is not authentic -- it's Cinema Paradiso light. It treats BIG ISSUES like grand theft auto as petty mischief which is simply NOT realistic. It's more like a character you'd see in a movie like "Jack Frost" -- the Michael Keaton one.

Is it social commentary on nursing home abuse? No. More of a public service announcement. Because it deals with elderly neglect, this film takes on a (1990s-ish) sense of importance. But this is negated because the issue isn't graphically explored within the context of the story or its characters (with the exception of one elderly character's apartment being infested). In fact, the issue is insulted by having characters literally list statistics off Google. High school English essays and PSAs do that, not R-rated films. It's not about nursing home abuse SO DON'T ADD IT INTO THE SCRIPT AND CALL IT SOCIAL CRITICISM. That is called taking the easy way out.

is it an R-rated comedy for adults? No. It's a feel-good film that does not have a realistic tone, realistic situations, or realistic characters. That makes them too two dimensional for an adult movie. Let's face it, these characters belong in "Blank Check"!

There's too many elements being tampered with! What does this film want to be, You pick! The director didn't!

Also, an unfaithful cameo by "Orson Welles" (played by Jodi Ashworth who does a more faithful job sounding like Ben Stiller in "Dodgeball" than he does Welles) and an overall moral ambiguity weigh down this film's potential.

I'd give it a 3 out of ten for technical reasons and effort.


Get some decent Americn actors on the cheap, film in the mountains outside of Madrid to cut expenses, play it for the U.S. market and you end up with this film. I think that is the main reason so many male reviewers on this site think this is a terrific film. Because of the European sleaze factor of one pretty single woman in a mountain cabin with men with guns. The plot has been explained by many others but (Spoiler alert) most missed the fact that Fonda had fathered a child years earlier when he and his "clean-cut" pals gang raped Holden's daughter and got away Scot-free. That's why Holden shows up at the end to exact revenge and to stop these guys. I just watched a tape of it and am selling it fast and cheap so it won't contaminate my library of films.


Open Season is a terribly unpleasant melange of The Most Dangerous Game and Deliverance. It was a critical and commercial flop in its day, and was further criticised for wasting the talents of some usually reliable actors like Peter Fonda, William Holden and John Philip Law. I'm a fan of William Holden, and as a completist I was eager to seek out the film. However, having finally tracked it down and watched it, I can honestly say that it was not worth the effort. This is a poor movie indeed.

The wafer thin plot has three ex Vietnam vets heading off in the autumn to their remote hunting lodge. En route, they kidnap a young, romantic couple and imprison them once they reach the lodge. After fattening them up and sexually degrading them, the delightful trio turn their prisoners loose and pursue them to their death.

The plot is such a nasty concoction of themes that it needed sensitive handling to avoid becoming an exploitation piece. Peter Collinson directs with a sledgehammer, stripping the film of any dignity that it may have had and making it a truly horrid little item. The arrival of William Holden at the end, in a half-decent climactic shootout, is the only moment that the film comes to life, but by then most discerning viewers will have bolted for the exits (if in a cinema) or pressed the stop button (if watching a video or DVD). Open Season is a bad, bad film, offensive and unpersuasive throughout and utterly deserving of all the negative reviews it has received over the years.


We threw out the Television and broke its picture tube in the middle of this film.

I'm not kidding.

In my life I have only been fully repulsed by the theme, story, acting and directing of a movie a couple of times. Orca, the Killer Whale comes to mind....

Not just bad, but disgusting and disturbing. The mixture of sexual violence and mayhem/murder, a combination I have reported on before, is below any line any film-goer can draw.

Coprophagia and cannibalism are all that's left to sink to, and there's no bottom to hit.


This is one of Leslie Nielsen's worst movies ever, even though he's not really the main character. I laughed about 0.4 times during this dragging crapfest that seemed to last forever and made me question why I enjoy movies at all. The studio was wise to make it a straight-to-video release because it would have made about $40 in theaters.


Perhaps the worst film I've seen in a long time. All cliche all the time. Leslie Nielson plays his Airplane, Naked Gun, etc. etc. character, Judge Reinhold is awful and those are the good things abut this bomb!


Absolutely the worst acting I have ever seen, camerawork the kind of which you would expect of a six year old with a camcorder and downright awful sound such as the background music which gave the impression of having been taken from the menu screen of a really bad low budget computer game and was just all over the place. Truly horrible in every way to see and hear, which, frankly, doesn't make for a good movie.


I don't know what scares me most, the fact that someone could put the time, money and effort into producing what is undoubtedly the worse movie I've ever seen (and that's up against some pretty stiff competition) or that numerous people here seem to actually have enjoyed it.

They say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Patently not true, if you were someone who saw any merit whatsoever in this 'movie', trust me, your opinion would be best kept to yourself.

Horribly shot, with characters so wooden you need a joiner not a producer and dialogue that tour average four year old could better, this clichéd pile of turds should be avoided like the plague.

Apparently the director has served time himself and I'd have to say he ought to be sent straight back to the slammer for inflicting this upon us.


I thought the acting in this film(except for the lead actor) was some of the worst I've seen. It reminded me of a high school drama production with a videocam. IF the scenes in jail/prison were actually shot there with real inmates, then they can be excused. This isn't a documentary; it's portrayed as fiction. I followed the exploits of the lead character with some interest. The others around him were almost cartoons. Having never been inside,I can't say the story is anywhere near accurate. It SEEMED to be accurate to those of us who have never had the misfortune of being jailed. Here's some things to ponder: in the opening the cops are banging in the door as the drug bust in going down. The partners are all together. We see the lead get busted as he comes out the door. So where could he stash 300K in that length of time where his two partners also wouldn't have known about it?

In the end when he is out,(this is, I presume, eight years later) he gets the money(so well hidden in 60 seconds eight years before that no one found it by accident in 8 years, including the police) and heads over to "his place". Keep in mind his female friend doesn't live with him anymore. So, who has a place just sitting there for eight years? He didn't pay taxes, etc. and it would be confiscated.

Rewind the shooting scene at the home and see if any of this acting adds up to an Oscar. It reminded me of the level of acting in a porn film(so did the set). So, he shoots a cop and drives nine hours unmolested to cross the U.S. Mexican border. Certainly the authorities would never put out an advisory.

Overall, it kept my interest, but I felt the effort to make it "real" made it look "unreal".


I don't understand how the reviews on this are all good and rating the abysmal film between 8-10 stars... what a joke! Somehow I think the reviews are fake or written by people with the absolute minimal taste.

This film is unwatchable. From watching the first 30 minutes only (or maybe even less I cant recall, but I do know I could not go on any further) I know that the acting is absolutely atrocious, as was the script and the whole set up... Who in the hell distributed this mess? I have two friends who also bought the same film (it was going cheap on a street corner) and they too were unable to finish watching it. It wasn't even funny hahaha awful... just straight Awful!


OK. i respect Singleton's work in Boyz in the Hood and Poetic Justice.i was greatly disappointed with Baby Boy. i think we could start with the terribly racist and sexist roles represented by the main actors. some might applaud the work for showing "the way things are" but every perspective has a bias. his perspective is mirrored by racist and sexist thinking from the Moynihan report in the 60s suggesting that black males are children, and should be sent to war. his film echoes sexist sentiments that black women are the cause of black men's plight.

the film did not challenge racism or white supremacy at any level, in fact conversely it coaxed the men to live up to the "American dream" of individualism. it just showed a few idiots trying to gain ground without a cent of integrity, strategy, or intelligence. it fed into stereotypes of black men and women as sexually overactive and temperamental. surrounding that theme was an animal-like, consumerist, macho-ism that speaks to black men as irrational, hormone-driven, dangerous and brutish. i must say the worst scene was the "rape" incident. for one thing this girl played the nagging role, another stereotype for black women, who actually never communicated with her partner. they yelled and had sex, but that was about it. why can't there be a movie where black people actually have a real conversation and understand one another instead of a dog-eat-dog fight? the longest conversation they had was about who had sex who when. which reminds me, the worst scene was when Jody hits his girlfriend, and then goes down on her. what was that about? mixing domestic violence with sex glamorizes and condones it. the girlfriend did not defend herself against her rapist. in fact she only cared about her child watching,not her own safety. instead of kicking him out, she complains to Jody in an effort to induce pity in him. bad acting, and a weak acting role combined.i don't believe that this portrays urban youth culture. the most pressing decision of these young people's lives was to find out who to have sex with, and if the person they cared about was cheating on them. it also portrays people driven by base desires who live within a fantasy exemplary in the neighborhood without cops, garbage in the streets, druggies or prostitutes, only and fresh lawns with plush green grass, and gardens. i think Singleton can do better.


This is not an uplifting film, nor does it try to be. A young black man trying to survive in the hood and dealing with the mess he created. The typical stereotypes abound. Unemployed, illegitimate child and crime. The main character is always conscious of the possibility of being killed on the streets. Part of the plot is that a part of him wants to escape, but he knows no other way to exist.

You could sit in the passenger seat of a car driving through Compton or Watts, run a camcorder out the window for about 90 minutes and come up with the same thing.(Provided you survive the trip) There are a few strange twists in this film, such as the mother-son dynamic and the battle of good vs. evil featuring Snoop Doggy Dogg.


The male characters were amoral and one dimensional, whose primary interest were sex, money, and violence. The women were just as bad, but with a pinch of "neediness". If this were the only film that a non-black viewed about African-Americans, they would have an entirely wrong impression of black people in America. There was not one level headed, clear thinking person in this whole movie. The mother came close, but was still a few bullets short of a full clip.


(Spoiler) So, the moral of the story is that you transition from being a boy into being a man by moving into your "baby's mamma"s dilapidated apartment and sell stolen clothes on the streets, while probably still cheating on her. Or is it that you become a man by killing another man? Real good role model for young black men. This movie had some good acting and realistic dialogue, but the story line was bad. It's supposed to be a coming of age film, but you start with a loser that lives with his mother, and end with a loser who is mooching off of one of his TWO "baby's mammas". How did that term even become a real way to refer to relationships in black culture? That's a sad statement in and of itself. John Singleton should be using his influence to show stories of men who got OUT of the hood and became contributing members of society. Someone tell John Singleton that selling stolen clothes is not a real job, and killing a man doesn't make you a man. 'Boys in the Hood' was a far better movie!


I really, really hate this movie. I bought it based on my love for John Singleton's past films like Boyz N The Hood, Rosewood and Higher Learning. These were great films that I felt had thought put into them plus had a social commentary that was valid at the time of these films releases. Baby Boy not only lacks a conscious, it also lacks the realism that John Singleton's earlier movies had. I could say that I don't know why John Singleton made this film but I understand all too well. When John Singleton made Higher Learning,it received vitriolic reviews from pseudo-intellectual charlatans that label every film that dealt with issues race as propaganda. The rest of the masses just slept-on it or allowed clownish so-called hip hop ragazines like Jive...oops I meant Vibe magazine to persuade their opinions. So I understand why he would make brainless MTV-style fodder like 2 Fast 2 Furious, Illegal Tender and Baby Boy. I believe he would have still made movies of substance like Higher Learning if Higher Learning was universally accepted(with all its flaws) and not universally panned.

The whole story of the film revolves around Jody(Tyrese Gibson) and his problems in his life revolving his mother's new boyfriend Melvin(Ving Rhames), His baby mother Yvette(Taraji P. Henson) and his day to day struggle around making ends meet with his partner Sweetpea(Omar Gooding). Tyrese does a decent job as Jody but the character is flat out despicable. Now lets look at the characters of the main people in this film.

Tyrese as Jody: Irresponsible idiot that cheats on his woman and has another baby mother by the name of Peanut(Tamara Leseon Bass). He still lives with his mother and seems to think that is cool for a man his age to do that. He cheats on his woman and treats her like dirt. He is basically the sick caricature that Follywood promotes as the true definition of black manhood.

A.J. Johnson as Juanita: A mother that dresses like a Malibu hooker and tries to look cool at her age. She never pushes Jody to do anything with his life and gets into a relationship with a convict that grows weed in her garden and has no job.

Taraji P Henson as Yvette: a very naive young woman that sense that Jody is cheating on her and still sticks with him. She is given to fits of rage for the most simplest things and never talks to Jody with respect period.

Ving Rhames as Melvin: Stupid and psychotic former criminal that brags about his past misdeeds as if that was cool. He grows weed in his girlfriend's backyard and allows Jody to take the blame. He mumbles nonsense about bread and butter and has the nerve to wonder why Jody doesn't like him to date his mother. Hell, I would have let Hannibal Lecter date my mother over this fool any day!

Omar Gooding as Sweatpea: A numbskull that curses out the same girlfriend and her mother that allowed his stupid a** to stay with them when he had no place to go. He has no conscious and seems to do things out of impulse not logic.

Now tell me, are these the people you want to spend two hours of your life with? Tyrese and Snoop Dogg were the most convincing of characters in this movie. and to say that Cuba Gooding Jr's cousin cant act is the least of his problems. Its not like Ving Rhames, A.J. Johnson, Taraji P Henson cant act but their characters are underdeveloped and poorly written Shouting and arguments turn into sexual situations and the most asinine scene in the movie has to be when Jody backhands Yvette after she punched him. He takes her to the room and proceeds to give her funnylinguis. WTF? That scene is still a head-scratcher till this day. I'll admit that I laughed at the scene where Jody and Sweetpea beat the hell out of a bunch of teenage punks that jumped Jody earlier but the laughter turned to disgust as soon as Sweetpea pulls out his belt and starts whipping the final victim for showing no fear.

Closing comments: Baby Boy is a mess and will set black cinema back a couple of years. Nobody with a conscious exist in Baby Boy. Nobody of sound Mind exists in Baby Boy. Boyz N The hood has Furious(Laurence Fisburne) to add insight to that film. Where is his equivalent in Baby Boy? Nowhere to be found. No insight went into this film. Nobody with a conscious exists in Baby Boy. Just a bunch of despicable and ignorant caricatures . If you want see better movies from John Singleton see his earlier works like the movies I mentioned earlier in this review and forget that this overtly preachy joke exists if you can.


Sociologists would have a field day with this film. Given the current state of things, it's amazing that African-Americans have not picketed this film due to its extremely negative stereotyping of black life in America.

Black men are depicted as shiftless tramps, hustlers and just general low-lives. Ditto for women.

The language here is absolutely disgusting to say the least. You can't get through a sentence without b and f bombs being hurled at each other.

How old is Tyrese Gibson's mom in this film? She must have had him when she was 14 or so.

How horrible that the killing is never solved by police officials.

These negative things being said, our sociologists would view this film positively claiming that it gives an adequate description of black life.

Where are our so called black activists in protesting this film? I thought I was back in the New York City classroom or other large urban school setting. What a disgusting film to show to all groups. Talk of reviving of racial prejudice, this was really off the wall.


BABY BOY(2001)

Developed and published by Columbia Pictures

Pros:

>Die-hard fans of Tyrese, Snoop Dogg, and Ving Rhames will be pleased with this movie.

Cons:

>Most people will get the message about a half-hour into the film.

>With the exception of Ving Rhames(just barely), all the characters in this movie suck and you really don't give a damn about neither of them.

>People who aren't fond of foul language will probably not like this movie.

Plot summary: Jody(Tyrese) is a 20-something slacker who still lives at home with his mother but is also the father of two children from different mothers, drives his girlfriend's car like he owns it, and basically is living off them both without a actual job. Recently, his mother got a boyfriend whom she lets move in with them, and from then on, the plot goes downhill and gets lost in a plethora of senseless foul language, shameless and gratuitous sex, and drugs.

Review: Baby Boy starts off as interesting, but after a half-hour into the film, it feels like John Singleton just stands up and shouts "The hell with it!" Basically, the movie's message was about the main character to get off his lazy a** and take care of his responsibilites. None of these characters in this movie would be someone I'd like to know, and I don't who was worse in this movie -- the black males or the black females. On the plus side, Tyrese proves that he can act. Too bad he does it in the wrong film. In closing, I think it would have been better if Singleton did a sequel to Boyz N the Hood that takes places 10 years after the original with Cuba Gooding, Jr.(Note: Cuba's brother, Omar, is in this film), Nia Long, and Laurence Fishburne returning rather than making this movie.

My final 2 cents: Boyz N the Hood it ain't, Baby Boy has got to the worst film ever made by John Singleton.

My rating: 1 out of 10


Oh my goodness.

Movies like this, that are more pervasive than rare in Hollywood these days, are the reason why "The Cosby Show" was seen as so 'unbelievable' in the 80s.

This film is so FULL of negative, degrading and pitiful stereotypes that I am SURPRISED that John Singleton was responsible for it.

The oft-maligned film (at least here on IMDB) "Higher Learning," was FAR superior to this crap. At least there was SOME intelligent dialogue and POSITIVE images. This entire film was like an average black person's nightmare and racists' wet dream.

I have a friend who is trying to stake his claim in Hollywood right now, but I'm OH so GLAD that he hasn't sold his soul to appear in utter crap like this.

Hollywood makes no more Eve's Bayou's, but plenty of Booty Calls, Undercover Brothers and bile such as this flick. The unfortunate truth is that THESE are the films that sell these days. So as long as people believe and attempt to justify these modern day minstrel shows, decent black cinema won't have a chance.

For those of you who find irony in this in the wake of Halle Berry and Denzel Washington's (much deserved) Oscar wins this year, remember what they won them for: A corrupt, evil, immoral black cop, and an ignorant, poor, single black mother.

You know- Just like REAL life.

Or is it?

I say 'no', but then again.. who am I? Just (yet another) disappointed black film goer.


Wow, what an unpleasant mess. Not ONE intelligent, moral or otherwise responsible character in the entire film. John Singleton is certainly a competent director as he has proven with Boyz In the Hood and well, Boyz in the Hood. The Actors were all good to Above average. Especially Ving Rames and surprisingly Tyrese. The film was well lit and in focus. Technically the production was sound. The actual Content of the film was very disappointing at best - disgustingly condescending at worst. The main character is a very unlikable, 20ish, lazy, obnoxious jerk. His friends and family are not any better. His mother tries and often comes close to being an actual, honest-to-goodness, responsible Adult Person, yet ultimately falls short. Rames has the most interesting character (Too bad the movie was not about him), a hard-boiled yet childish and irresponsible as a father figure. Believe it or not each character portrays the negative stereotypes that racists have been spouting on about for decades. Why Singleton chose to portray all of these African-Americans in the 'hood as dim, shallow, dishonest, foul-mouthed, materialistic, sexually amoral and completely irresponsible is beyond me. They are nothing like the wide variety of real-life African-Americans that populate my world. There are many scenes in this film that I could only imagine would make the KKK proud. Why indeed! And by the way, when a criminal moves into your home uninvited-CALL THE POLICE!! A sad commentary on the state of the depiction of African-Americans in film. If John Singleton is willing to depict his community this way-then what will mainstream Hollywood sink to in the future? My heart goes out to those who bother to care.


I disliked this as much as I enjoyed the earlier, London, released in 1994. The reason, I think is that I know more about and care more about London, and much as the first film was almost gleefully depressing in its portrayal of a dead place under the Conservative party, I know the predictions were wrong. The London film remained interesting because of the difference between how it was seen by Keiller 15 years ago and how it is today. Whereas here I am less intimately involved with the various places depicted and Scofield's uninterested and expressionless verbalisation of the drivel of a soundtrack helped not a lot. It is also interesting to note that the general socialist drift of this film has also been shown to be wrong. All those sarcastic remarks about lack of British manufacturing and dark murmurings about the Japanese taking over, all seem irrelevant as an expanded service industry and tourism helped by cheaper imports from China and India, seems to have more than filled the gap.


I was only 10 years old at the time. Ah, my very own 5 seconds of fame! I know, it's lame but I had never seen the film before today and then it all came back to me when I saw the scene. I can clearly make out one of my friends too. I think we were both on our way to the store and stumbled onto the film set and somehow ended up in the scene. We are in the crowd that follows Claude Atkins as he carries away the kid who is bitten after being stupid enough to climb atop a truck carrying orange crates in a fatal attempt to catch a spider with his bare hands. The scene is filmed in Moorpark, California in front of the Cactus Patch restaurant on High Street (the restaurant is still there and I highly recommend the breakfast plate called the "Riley Special")

The movie would put most people to sleep but I enjoyed watching it because it was filmed almost entirely in my home town of Moorpark as well as Piru and Fillmore, which were all combined to comprise the fictional "Finleytown." It was very cool to see all the scenes shot from the air and to realize how much has changed in 30 years.

Anyway, its a made for TV flick so don't expect too much and you won't be too disappointed. Then again, you might have better things to do.


Some animals just lend themselves to horror movies, and as movies such as Tarantula, Kingdom of the Spiders and Arachnophobia have proved; big spiders are one of them. Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo was made for television, so it's probably unfair to expect great things from it; and while the film does have its moments, I really wouldn't add it to the list of films that prove spiders are prime candidates for having horror films made about them. The plot is pretty simplistic, which isn't really surprising considering the television origins and basically focuses on a bunch of tarantulas from South America being released in a town in California. We focus on a small airplane carrying coffee beans that have spent a lot of time in storage. Unbeknown to the crew, these particular beans have become infested with huge spiders that kill some of the crew and cause the plane to crash in the aforementioned Californian town. It's not long before the spiders have got off the plane and begin killing local residents; causing the authorities to take action.

Most horror films about spiders have the antagonists with something about them - perhaps they're genetically modified, a new type of spider, absolutely huge or maybe there's just thousands of them - this film doesn't bother with all that, all we get is just a bunch of pretty average looking spiders, and it's really not all that menacing - I constantly wondered why the lead characters didn't just put on a big pair of boots and go round stomping on them all. The film was obviously a pretty cheap production as there is no special effects and the sets are very minimal. Unfortunately it would seem that they couldn't afford to hire someone to write an imaginative screenplay either, as despite some standout moments - there aren't a lot of them, and the main sequence in a warehouse, while well done, is really too silly to take seriously if you take a minute to think about it. The conclusion to the film includes an interesting method of getting rid of the spiders - I have no idea whether or not it would work in real life, but one thing is for sure - a big pair of boots would have worked better and wouldn't have involved so much messing about. If only I were there to lend a hand


Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo starts in Ecuador in South America where two partners Fred (Howard Hesseman) & Buddy (Tom Atkins) are about to fly off to San Francisco with a cargo bay full of coffee beans that they intend to sell for a huge profit, unfortunately they fail to realise that lots of deadly tarantulas have gotten on board... As Fred & Buddy head for San Francisco their plane develops a technical problem which forces them to land in the small Californian town of Finley Ville, however before they get the opportunity Buddy is bitten by a tarantula & the plane crashes in a field. Fire Chief Bert Springer (Claude Akins), Sheriff Beasley (Sandy McPeak) & the town's mayor Jack Douglas (Bert Remsen) are on the scene in no time. As they fight to rescue the trapped pilots the tarantulas make their escape & scatter. Within minutes Frank (Edwin Owens) has become the tarantulas first victim, shortly after Gloria (Penelope Windust) has become the second & Dr. Hodgins (Pat Hingle) soon realises what's happening. However Finley Ville is an orange producing town & unless the oranges go out on time the town will be financially crippled, but can they send out oranges infested with deadly tarantulas? Plus any chemical treatment to them will destroy the unique flavour...

Directed by Stuart Hagmann Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo is a pretty obscure & hard to find made-for-TV film & to be brutally honest that's a bit of a blessing as it's rather crap. The script by John Groves & Guerdon Trueblood is painfully slow as it's over half an hour of boring exposition before the tarantulas even start to leave the plane, it's dull as there are very few attack scenes & it concentrates on the deeply uninteresting drama surrounding the oranges more than the fact that these tarantulas are killing people & is stupid as it seems to take itself far too seriously & features a silly climax where a guy holds a cage full of wasp's up to a microphone to scare the tarantulas into a comatose state. As I've already said Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo is a really slow film but I think it needs saying again, for a film that lasts over 90 minutes not very much happens. The character's are clichéd, the hero & his missus, the corrupt official who only cares for money, the local Doctor who tries to warn the town, the annoying kid who becomes involved & the level headed reasonable character who has a plan in every situation. They are all dull, have little personality & there is a brief sub plot about Gloria having an affair which last for about 5 minutes & then completely forgotten about. Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo is a very unfocused & uneven film that doesn't seem to know what it wants to be, is it a horror? A drama? A thriller? I suppose it tries to be all three but fails miserably at being any & doesn't satisfy in any regard. The only good thing I can say about it is that tarantulas are cool, it has some reasonably nice location shooting & while it's dull I suppose it's sort of watchable & it's just a shame it doesn't deliver much in the way of entertainment as it definitely had potential.

Director Hagmann does nothing to liven the dull proceedings up, there is no style or visual flair & he fails to create any excitement, atmosphere or tension which is a real killer as far as the film goes. The tarantulas themselves just crawl across things very slowly & we get shot after shot like this which becomes boring as they never do anything else & it's hard to feel scared by something so slow. There is no blood or gore so forget about that. Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo maybe good for one thing though, to stretch the running time out Hagmann pads the film with seemingly endless shots of the orange factory & it's inner workings so if you've ever wanted to know what happens in an (70's) orange factory here's your chance!

Technically the film is alright, nothing special but is professionally made although I thought the music was crap & it annoyed me, basically Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo has cheap made-for-TV film written all over it which is not a good thing. The acting was OK as well but that sentimental ending is embarrassing to watch.

Trantulas: The Deadly Cargo is pretty crap stuff all the way, it has no excitement, it's slow, it's dull & since Arachnophobia (1990) is ten times better & much more widely available there is no need whatsoever to be wasting your time on this. For die-hard killer spider film fans only, if such people exist.


I used to catch all the made-for-TV horror/thriller stuff in the 70's, because there were no VCR's or DVD players & this was all there was (well, except for movies at the theater, most of which I couldn't go see because of the ratings and because I was too young to have money to go see them). Now though, this particular films makes for a rather nostalgic time, but it's truly not a very good movie. Two hot-shot "importers" (Howard Hessman & Tom Atkins) are flying a planeload full of Ecuadorian coffee & a few stowaways to San Francisco, but they have engine problems & are looking for a place to land. They pick the small town of Finleyville but before they can land the inside of the plane is swarmed with tarantulas and the plane crashes. Of course, the townspeople swarm the site and the fire department shows up, with fire chief Claude Akins, a TV movie staple. We're also treated to a stellar performance by Charles Frank, who plays Joe, and who RUNS everywhere shouting and waving his arms. Now, the tarantulas, of course, disembark, and before you know it they've made their presence known over apparently SEVERAL square miles, which is pretty silly considering how slowly they seem to move. They do manage to bite a few people too, and after one teacher at a school for autistic children is bitten, another teacher captures one & good old Doc sees what's biting (and killing) the folks that have expired in his exam room. An expert is called in and finds that this is not your everyday household tarantula, it's not even a true tarantula, but it's extremely aggressive & its bite is poisonous. No kidding. Eventually the things all converge on the local warehouse which is full of oranges, and the townspeople rig some kind of ridiculous device up that will cause the spiders to go into a sort of immobile state when they hear amplified wasp sounds. And those that are alive still live happily ever after..or do they? This has several familiar faces in it, and a little boy played by Matthew Laborteaux, who was an 80's teen-film face. Deborah Winters & Charles Siebert were also in another film together (the same year?) called "Blue Sunshine", which is NOT made for TV and is a far better film. "Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo" is not really unwatchable, but it's also not particularly good, unless you're up for a nostalgic "movie of the week" fix. 4 out of 10.


Two guys, looking to make a quick buck, buy a plane load of Ecuadorian coffee to resale in the United States. On the way to San Francisco, their plane develops engine trouble and goes down in a field near Finleyville. But there's more than coffee on this plane. Unfortunately for the people of this small town, the coffee is infested with killer tarantulas. And now they're loose.

Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo is another in the long line of nature vs. human movies that were so popular during the 1970s. This one was made for TV so it comes with the limitations of that medium. Namely, other than a scene where a boy is killed, it's all pretty tame. The movie is also poorly paced and, at about 95 minutes, it's about 20 minutes too long. You could cut out a lot of the talk about shipping oranges and no one would miss it. Most of the acting isn't too bad. Claude Akins and Howard Hesseman (using some sort of crazy accent) are probably the best known members of the cast. But, I suppose my biggest problem with Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo is that it's just not fun. I'm all about entertainment and I wasn't entertained. If you want to see a cheesy spider movie that's also entertaining, check out The Giant Spider Invasion. As bad as that movie is, at least it's fun!

Finally, there's a scene near the end of the movie where the characters are scooping up the spiders by the bucket-full. Well, that's just not possible. There weren't anywhere near that many spiders on the plane when it left Ecuador. In the beginning, the movie shows a few stowaway spiders getting on the plane  not enough for an army. Besides, there wouldn't have been room for coffee on the plane for all the spiders.


This movie is so crap, there is no suspense whatsoever, actors seem to perform a repetition, and even the spiders are insipid. The idea was not so bad one could have made a good movie, even a TV movie, unfortunately it is far from being the case. Bad Bad Movie.


Man how could I fell into this? Anyways, the movie is as bad as you can get. I don't know if the director tried to make this movie look like a "real" footage or something but it has a feeling of raw that makes the movie effective for some moments.

But overall this movie is very bad. It's poorly done, directed, and I won't even get on the f/x. The idea is not that bad and could've been better with more budget but oh well, you can't have everything.

The acting is atrocious but it's good for it's B-movie standard. I'd recommend this movie only if it airs only on cable. Don't waste your money on it please. This is an objective review for a movie this bad.


Although It could be worse, this movie may have done it's job Too well. Especially James Belushi playing a "jerk-friend." It feels like he has a lot of practice playing this role (know what I mean?). But Demi Moore's friend isn't much better. On the plus side, Rob Lowe's acting is very good & Moore's (such an underrated actress!) is excellent. Maybe a good movie showing young people not to rush into anything, but be warned: the medicine isn't especially good tasting.


That's not to say there's not something of worth in it, but someone here

claims that Mamet wrote this- the truth is, he SOLD it, and it became

'Hollywoodized', sanitized and beaten down from it's pure and shocking

form. On stage this was a howl, a rage against the inevitable- falling

in love. On film, it's a little gooey and sweet, not much bite there,

but a few interesting lines (usually all taken from Mamets play) that

hit home about the difficulty of sacrificing 'self' to become a

'couple'. Lowe and Moore are pretty, but it's the surrounding

characters that actually act and are interesting, and if you look hard

you can see some good actors in small roles, such as Megan Mullaly (Will

and Grace) Catherine Keener (Walking and Talking) and Ray Wohl

(Arli$$). This is definitely a film of and for it's time, although not

quite as painfully dated as St. Elmos Fire, you'll still laugh at some

of the hair styles and fashions and music. The director went on to

create "thirtysomething", which tells you right there that he didn't

have much in common with David Mamet. A curiosity, this film. .


This movie considers what life is like when 2 people attempt to build a relationship with sex as its foundation. The question asked of the viewer is `What would a relationship be like if the only connection the couple makes is sexual?' The answer is quite obvious.

** Possible Minor Spoilers ***

Each main character is consumed by sex. One-night stand type sex or sex without meaning. This is all well and good but problems arise when 2 of the characters mistakenly try to have a real relationship based on their like appetites for sex. Demi Moore and Rob Lowe quickly learn workable relationships are much, much more than great sex. Most people, including myself, at one time or another think sex is the single most important part of a relationship. This thinking could not be further from the truth as this movie tries to illustrate.

Unfortunately the movie is not real effective. Nor is it very funny. All 4 characters are complete sluts and seem to lack any type of intelligence. James Belushi is funny but Demi's friend, Elizabeth Perkins, is simply annoying until the very end of the movie. Let's face it, Rob Lowe is not a great actor and it shows. Demi, with her utter beauty and sexy voice, is extremely sensual and naked in the movie. She makes the entire film worth watching in my estimation. The ending is decent but the story is told in a choppy way. The scenes do not flow together very well. The characters, Lowe and Demi, do seem to learn something thru their experience but overall they are both shallow people.

Overall this film is watchable and somewhat enjoyable but does not do a good job developing the character's thoughts and emotions. Plus, this comedy is simply not very funny other than a few stories and lines by Belushi. This film is more `eye candy' than a true portrayal of a couple's trials. 4 out of 10.


The original title of the film was going to be 'Sexual Perversity in Chicago' from David Mamet's stage play that this is based on, and the name change is understandable. Sexual Perversity is an intriguing name but it's also a bit too harsh. My biggest guess as to why the name was changed is because the film itself is nowhere near as intelligent or perceptive as a film with that risky a title should have.

About Last Night explores the meeting of 20-something's Demi Moore and Rob Lowe and their relationship that follows. Moore is an advertising executive just getting out of a relationship with her boss. Lowe is working in a warehouse that ships restaurant goods. They meet during a baseball game and then again at a bar. Lowe invited Moore back to her place and they have sex and fall for each other, blah blah blah. Lowe's best friend (James Belushi) doesn't like this 'broad' - a phrase spoken constantly throughout; and Moore's roommate (Elizabeth Perkins) - is a cold hearted, selfish, cry-baby.

Yes, that whole synopsis was mundane for a reason. About Last Night is not an interesting movie. We've seen how relationships form and progress and fall apart - so what does this film have to offer that's fresh and new? Well it's certainly not perspective. What we get are four young actors who whine, shout at each other, deliver bad one liners, and plain aggravate the audience.

Who cheers for these people? There is no intelligence to these characters as in a scene when Lowe starts yelling at Moore because she won't throw her tampons away which 1 minute later results in Moore storming out of the apartment. Who acts like this?! Granted, I'm sure there is an audience for this movie as it currently has a 5.8 rating. I myself found no redeeming qualities in the characters, their actions, or in the film itself.

I'm sure there are people out there in the world who act this petty and childish - but it's awfully hard to put up with these people for so long. The film itself clocks in just shy of two hours. There are not one, not two, but SIX montages. Including;

The 'We're falling in love!' montage.

The 'We're moving in together!' montage.

The 'Our relationship is becoming deep and meaningful and full of sex clips' montage.

The 'I'm Robe Lowe and where did I go wrong?' montage.

There are two more. But I don't want to give away too much, although I'm sure most of you will be able to pick up on every little thing that will happen plot-wise after the first twenty minutes.

And for those of you who have seen About Last Night there are many scenes that had me scratching my head saying "Why is THIS scene in the movie?"...The scene with Elizabeth Perkins reading to the children in her kindergarten class and then discussing sex briefly...That scene is just plain awful. Enough to make me see what other horrific moments this film would put me through. An excruciatingly annoying film filled with repellent characters. Lowe and Moore are pretty to look at, and if that does it for you, rent it. If not, avoid at all costs.


This movie is bad. One of the worst romantic comedies i have seen lately. The plot is simple - a guy and a girl fall in love, move in together, start fighting, try to save their relationship. About Last Night doesn't bring anything new to the genre. Same predictable so-called comedy - believe me, there is nothing in this movie that comes even close to the word "funny", same stupid lines, and same bad acting. There are many scenes that just don't seem real. Many moments in which Zwick wants to get somewhere with the plot and just doesn't know how to do that. So come up some really bad scenes, that just don't work at all. And then there's the acting. Rob Lowe is not a great actor at all. His role is simple and still he doesn't seem believeble at all. And Demi Moore... she's alright throughout most of the film. Except when she cries and really tries to express some feelings. In those moments she is really bad.

All in all, this movie doesn't bring anything new. It's just a waste of two hours. Vote: 3 out of 10.


'About Last Night' is the story of a guy and girl who fall in and out of love, repeatedly mixed in with about an hour of raunchy, eye-crossing sex. I think the long-lasting appeal of this movie was soft porn and a popular 80s cast (Demi Moore and Rob Lowe in the leads).

However, the love story would have been more sincere and convincing had Lowe's character not behaved like a prepubescent boy throughout the film. Demi's character actually seemed like she was looking for true love, while he just seemed to be an unsure floater.

Resist the temptation to see it purely for the stars, you've been warned about what you're getting yourself into.


This movie should be required viewing for all students of film making. It proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you make a movie about two incredibly boring people, you're going to end up with an incredibly boring movie. Somehow this didn't occur to those who chose to inflict this turkey on the viewing public.

The movie revolves around the ups and downs in the romantic relationship between Danny (Rob Lowe) and Debbie (Demi Moore). Demi spends a lot of her time crying and looking wounded. So does Lowe, except that he also does a fine job of looking bored while he's making this dud. (At least he's honest!) James Belushi and Elizabeth Perkins seem to have been added to the cast to provide some comedy relief. That would have been welcome, except that neither one of them was very funny. Their performances as the best friends of Danny and Debbie who get consumed by jealousy starts to grate after about 15 minutes. However, in fairness, it was them who kept me watching. Two or three times there were hints that these two polar opposite characters might have a romance of their own beginning to bud, and I really wanted to see if it happened. That was the only thing that raised this movie from a 2 to a 4. Watching Demi and Rob was about as exciting as watching ice cubes melt.


I watched this movie years ago, force to by my ex-girlfriend, and I can tell you this: this movie sucked! Chick flick movies suck! Is that the only thing Hollywood makes nowadays? Anyway did I say this movie really sucked? I'd rather work in godless Texas again, than watch this ugh! movie.

1 (I wish a 0) out of 10. By the way did I say this movie exceptionally sucked?


Laura Carson (Charlotte Austin) has just married big game hunter Dan Fuller (Lance Fuller.) On her wedding night she finds herself strangely attracted to Spanky, a gorilla gone bad that Dan keeps locked up in a basement cage. Before you can say "Ed Wood wrote this," there are gun shots, nightmares, hypnotism, and Dan's unhappy discover that bride Laura may be the reincarnation of a gorilla queen! Can you dig it? Now and then a bad movie becomes unintentionally hilarious, but most of the time bad movies are simply bad. BRIDE AND THE BEAST actually teeters between the two, and this is largely due to the two leads: even in the face of producer-director Adrian Weiss' obvious lack of talent, Austin and Fuller prove unexpectedly competent, and they actually manage to hold the worst of the dialogue at bay. What this means, however, is that BRIDE never self-destructs in the ludicrous way of such films as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE--and in consequence it isn't so much unintentionally hilarious as it is unintentionally amusing in a mild sort of way.

The film is full of absurdities. Dan Fuller's basement, where the ill-fated gorilla Spanky is caged, has a refrigerator, but illumination is provided by torch. Servant Taro (Johnny Roth, in what seems to be his only film role) is very obviously a white man in bad "native" make-up; he runs around saying "Bwana" a lot. There is a lot of canned wild animal footage, shots of Africa that look suspiciously like shots of South America, and men in bad gorilla costumes. And Ed Wood being Ed Wood, he just can't resist writing references to angora sweaters into the script.

The print is mediocre, but it is worth pointing out that it was probably never very good to begin with, and the DVD release comes with several bonuses of no interest. Fans of cult films, and especially die hard fans of Ed Wood, will enjoy it--and for their sake I give it three stars. But just about every one else should give it a miss.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


"The Bride and the Beast" starts off well with lots of potential that this could be a pretty good movie. The plot revolves around a man, his newlywed wife, and her strange connection with gorillas. Then the couple goes to Africa and the movie unravels. Forget all about the first part of the movie. Put it on the shelf for a while because you won't need to remember it again until you get to the end. You next get lots of terrible stock footage of African animals and the plot takes a side road as the husband hunts down two tigers. It's almost as though it turned into a Safari movie and a boring one at that. As you watch the different animals, the background scenery changes dramatically from shot to shot. The scenes, especially of the animals are shot in all different kinds of terrain. Very poorly done. At this point there is barely a string connecting the beginning of the movie to the middle. This goes on for quite a while. Nearing the end of the movie, they drop the safari and hunting and go back to the man, woman, gorilla plot to end the movie. It's too bad because this one had a chance if they just stuck with the original plot throughout the film. The Bride and the Beast" is disjointed and boring, not recommended.


Here's a good concept wasted. It's a mixture of Ed Wood's bizarre writing talents and a text book example of bad movie making.

On their honeymoon at his mountain home, Dan Fuller's wife, Laura, (played by Charlotte Austin) encounter his gorilla, Spanky, which he keeps in the basement-- Dan is apparently a big game hunter. In one of the several high points of the film, she shows an almost animal attraction for the gorilla, and vice versa. Later that night in the bridal chamber, the gorilla sneaks in and they again have another smoldering staring session, climaxed by Spanky pulling off her nightgown. (Is Ed Wood trying to tell us something?) Naturally, the husband shoots and kills the gorilla.

Dan then has a psychiatrist conduct hypnotic regression sessions on Laura, as she had been previously talking to him about the possibility of having had past lives. We then discover that in her past life, she had been a gorilla! Of course, the 'hypnotic regression' theme was obviously drawn from the number one best selling book of 1956, 'The Search for Bridey Murphy,' in which a doctor regressed an American housewife who spoke in an Irish brogue and recounted in great detail her previous life as Bridey Murphy in Cork County, Ireland in the 18th century. We also can't help catching a little spin here on 'King Kong' (1933), for in this case the girl has a thing for the gorilla too!

Dan then decides to take Laura with him to 'Africa' on safari for new animals. Here the film takes a sharp turn into obvious bad movie making with a Must To Avoid in capital letters: the dual personality theme is abruptly dropped and forgotten for the next 30 minutes or so. Instead we are subjected to pointless sequences of a tiger running through the jungle, fighting what appears to be a crocodile, and finally attacking Dan, who had been cluelessly stalking towards the camera seemingly oblivious to Laura's screams or the roars of the tiger, in non tension building shots.

Finally, in the last five or six minutes of the film, Wood's ambivalent identity theme returns, as does a gorilla, who sweeps a sexually hungry looking Laura off her feet and takes her to the Bronson caves where she becomes queen of the gorillas. The end.

As others have noted, Charlotte Austin's sexual stares are the high point of the film, and the low point is the needless and extended middle section that could have been totally dropped. If only the tightly done and well scripted first fifteen minutes could have continued with the development of Laura's sexual 'awakening!' We keep waiting to see her turn into a gorilla, as was done by Raymond Burr in the much better 'Bride of the Gorilla' (1951), but it never happens; we get the tedious tiger segments instead. A good concept has been disappointingly wasted here.

Charlotte Austin's sexual stares linger in the mind, but not the rest of the film. I'll have to give it a two and half.


This is not exactly an Ed Wood movie, though when I got it from Netflix his name was plastered on it--not the director and co-writer's, Adrian Weiss. Wood co-wrote this low-budget and creepy film but it lacks the tackiness and cheapness of his own directorial efforts--though it is pretty close. The use of lots of stock footage, while boring, wasn't as ineptly handled and the acting isn't quite as bad as you'd expect in a true Ed Wood picture. In addition, while this is a bad film, so much of it is rather dull and had NOTHING to do with the plot, so it really failed to excite the bad movie buff within me as well.

The film starts off very well for a tacky 50s monster film and I wish they'd have stuck with this story idea throughout the film. However, the beginning and ending are all about a lady who is strangely attracted to gorillas but the middle is just some knucklehead shooting at stock footage of animals and wrestling with stuffed tigers. It's too bad because the plot about a woman who was a gorilla in a previous life is so goofy I wanted to see more. But, after about 20 minutes of this non-sense where she is hypnotized and talks about this past life--nothing else is said about this until about two minutes until the end of the film!! It's like they either forgot or they pieced two different stories together. Either way, when the film finally ends, it gets REALLY creepy, as the male gorilla doesn't exactly kidnap the lady but she goes off with him willingly--supposedly to become his lover. It's never exactly said, but it's strongly implied and you know that's what they were getting at in the final scene with her and her simian lover. Her expression is even happier than Ed Wood's in GLEN OR GLENDA when he first tries on an angora sweater! Talk about kinky!

So is it worth seeing? Well, if you have any taste, definitely not. If you are a bad movie buff, by all means see it. However, if you get bored, fast-forward through the middle--you aren't missing anything you haven't already seen in a Tarzan film! Stupid, but not exactly classic Ed Wood stupid.


This awful flick offers little scope for screenwriter Ed Wood's unique, uh, "talents," being mostly made up of boring stock footage. There's hardly even a plot, which may be a mercy considering what Ed Wood's plots tend to be like.

The whole "queen of the gorillas" thing is introduced early in the film, and then just dropped until about seven minutes from the end, as our protagonists head off to Africa to capture some giraffes and rhinos (Howard Hawks so ripped this off for HATARI!) and hunt panthers and tigers.

Yes, tigers. Much of the stock footage they had featured a pair of tigers, so either Adrian Weiss or Ed Wood came up with the notion that a ship carrying a pair of tigers had wrecked on the African coast.

Uh, yeah.


I rented this movie on a whim and it started off pretty good. Unfortunately, things went downhill from there and it went from being funny bad movie to being a "kind of painful and only occasionally funny" bad movie. There was some good nudity in it, but those scenes were spoiled by the camera cutting away to some nerd fantasizing or some other crap. If it's really late, and there's nothing else on, and you're really bored, you might as well give it a shot. Heck, if you have a free rental and you like crappy movies that know they're crappy and have some fun with themselves, you might like this okay... just keep you hand on the fast-forward button. Also, there are WAY too many fart and masturbation jokes and the movie tends to drag out towards the end.

Overall, I give it a 3 out of 10. (On my scale of 10 being perfection and 1 being Ang Lee's Hulk.)


This poorly filmed collection of already overused gags completely lacks anything that might possibly be construed as entertainment. It's not bad-funny, it's not good-funny, it's not anything-funny. It's the complete absence of funny.

Did I mention it's not funny?

In comparison, watching floor wax dry is a moving intellectual experience. If there is any justice in the universe, everyone concerned with this alleged film, their relatives, friends, passing acquaintances and orthodontists will accrue massively negative karma and eventually be collectively re-incarnated as Dom DeLuis' loofah.


i can proudly say i didn't rent this. my buddies rented this film and made me watch it. it was by far the worst movie i have ever seen. the fight scenes were done with inflatable dolls. the special effects looked like they were done by grade school children. and the only redeeming factor was the nudity which does not make up for all that is lacking in this movie. the acting was horrible as well as was the humor. the parody of the power rangers was very annoying after 3 or more spots in the movie. the soundtrack seemed like it was ripped from a collection of atari games. the star trek references got old after the 2nd jab. and the potty humor was very tiring.


The most important thing to remember here is that this is not a well done movie. Now, I've seen bad films, like Ghost Ship, and Dark Waters, but this is different. It's almost like it is a high school student making this film with all his friends and neighbors in it. I was glad I saw it, as it has set the benchmark for years. Rent it if you want, but realize that the title is the best part about it.

I too wanted to give this half a star. Oh, and this Kevin Campbell guy is amazing. The fact that RCN carries this in On Demand is some sort of coup.

I think 10 dollars, a polaroid and some of my worst enemies could make a better film than this.