Bad acting (except Mädchen Amick, who is OK), awful dialogs, poor plot but could pass if not the dialogs and acting. Predictable and boring plot. I can go on and on with negativity. Just awful. The first 10 minutes is interesting and intriguing although poor acting is obvious almost from the beginning. Police finds dead men whose wife thought that he had died in boating accident five years ago. There were so many ways to keep the film interesting. I do not think that even good acting could save the film unless somebody would rewrite the script. The rest of the 90 minutes I consider as a wasted time. You can check if you have the same taste but I warned you.


This rates as high as it does for me because of the cinematography. It is dazzling and Blanchett can't be denied, but "Elizabeth: The Golden Age" is like a chick-flick with explosions plus costumes, super hair, and loud, intrusive music. The result is faux epic.

My wife summed it up well as we left the theater: "I feel like I've just flipped through a coffee table picture book for two hours and somebody turned up the stereo." History wrote this plot but Nicholson and Hirst thought they could do better. They couldn't, or certainly didn't. Freshmen composition classes come up with better stuff. Trite, forced, predictable. Did they even run this by an expert in English history? You gotta wonder. The script is oozing with 21st century mores and clichés. It made me think (during the movie, mind you) of the way Dutch painters depicted Homer and Aristotle in the garb of 17th century Holland. Are we that dumb? Sir Walter Raleigh is a caricature and Sir Francis Drake, never properly introduced, was a throwaway. Geoffrey Rush is wasted as Walsingham. Come to think of it, nearly everybody is wasted. Every single character is underdeveloped, with the possible exception of the title characterpossible exception.

"Golden Age" set the target high and then turned and fired in the opposite direction. Realizing the script had missed, Director tried to make up for it with window dressing. Substance would have served this queen better. With the colon in the title, I almost expected to see Bruce Willis saving the day.

You can see why "Golden Age" came out in October because it's not going to compete for Oscars in categories that anybody cares about. With all the budget they had for this movie, you'd Universal could have found better writers.


We had been looking forward to seeing this film - and made a point of re-watching the original 'Elizabeth' from 1998 a week before making the trip to the theater.

I will say that this film is technically beautiful in the grand cinematic style which was once associated with the epic films from the bygone era of the Hollywood studios with it's fantastic costuming and sets.

But - I am sad to say that this film was a disappointment. It suffers from numerous over-dramatic sequences which rely much too heavily on symbolism. After all, how many times & ways should one be forced to view Cate Blanchett posed in an angelic persona?

Unfortunately, as one sits through this film, one must wonder what the writers & director were thinking. It is obvious that someone was unsure of which direction(s) they wished to steer this film toward - romance, war epic, drama,etc.

The awkwardness of this film projected a feeling that various pages of the script must have been stuck together as it continues along - giving it a feel that can only be described as disjointed and forced.

The problems with this film seem to be caused by a combination of a weak script, bad direction, and bad editing which resulted in this short-changed follow-up to the well-done original 1998 epic of 'Elizabeth'.

Cate Blanchett and the entire cast are good actors & do not disappoint in their character portrayals. But sadly, this film was not up to the performances of these fine actors and we left the theater wondering why the director, the editors, and screenwriters all failed to do their jobs.


Taken separately, Clive Owen, Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush were all brilliant. Clive is certainly convincing as Walter Raleigh, and Cate is brilliant but this film did not flow at all.

I blame the direction, editing and script as being all very very weak.

The resultant mess is a colossal waste of talent! I love the story, and have read and re-read the historical facts pertinent to the film. The premise main was not entirely flawed, although it does gloss over and leave out a lot. (where are you Sir Francis?)

Actually if they had left out Raleigh and had Clive play Drake this might have worked! ) coulda ... shoulda ... woulda .... oh well !!!! Drake was the bigger player than Raleigh and burned the Spanish fleet at Cadiz the year before.

It's possible that Mary Queen of Scots may have been setup by Phillip the Second, although, no one can really say whether that's true, it seems highly unlikely.

Also I doubt that Elizabeth was as uncertain of herself and conflicted as portrayed by the film. By then she was a survivor's survivor and new all the in's and out's of Renaissance Europe's Machiavellian politics. I did give Cate a great opportunity however. Unfortunately the movie just did not carry the story of England and Elizabeth's triumph over the Spanish as well as it could, actually it doesn't carry the story at all.


The producers of this film took one of the most dramatic moments in English history and turned it into a beautifully costumed and artistic piece of garbage. Having seen Helen Mirren's version, this one pales in all categories-drama, plot, dialog, history and actors. With the rich history of record and the countless rumors from the period, the producers decided to make up their own out of whole cloth! Sir Francis Drake gets maybe a dozen words, and the Armada facts are turned upside down. I don't recall the English losing a single ship, and the Spanish only a few-and though the fire ships will wreak havoc on the Armada, it will come about as they travel home-not as in the film in a giant conflagration. But then, the focus was to make a fairy tale. And, interestingly, not the fairy tale of English legend, "God blew and they were scattered." Instead, the fairy tale is of high school melodrama.


I gave this movie one solitary star, and I suppose I will attribute that one to the actress who played Mary, the rival queen as hers was the only acting that stood out to me. Beyond her it seemed that the director had no ability to utilize the skill set of otherwise such great actors such as Geoffrey Rush.

Worst of all, the movie bordered propaganda in its political incorrectness and it is becoming more and more of a frustration - as a non Anglo-Saxon - to watch movies such as these. Opening and ending titles which pitch England as the soul country to have fought Spain in those times and the immediate superpower afterwards, leave a wry taste in my mouth. If one makes historical costume dramas then at least tread the genre with some responsibility and don't grossly twist and distort history. As, during this particular episode in history, the French were fighting Spain and the Dutch were waging their war of independence from Spanish rule.

Then, to end the movie with the words that England entered an era of peace and prosperity could have used the word 'relative'. As within half a century the country would plunge into civil war and declare one war after another over petty commercial rivalry.

Make a fiction film if one cannot tell a story honestly. Otherwise you're a colleague of Leni Rievenstahl.


this movie wasn't about the interesting part. The story was rather boring. The costumes were very appealing as well as the make up. In this version, Elizabeth is battling Spain. Spain is trying to conquer the world. King of Spain, Phillip is Catholic, and Elizabeth is protestant. Elizabeth has a crush on Sir Walter Releigh whom has returned from the New World. She becomes highly upset when learning one of her court maidens is having his baby. Also, Elizabeth survives an assignation attempt by rival Mary Stuart, whom wants the throne. The conclusion is the famous battle between the Spanish Armada and the Brits.

FINAL VERDICT: Not that great. Only for history buffs.


In retrospect, the only good things about this film were a) we saw it in a spanking new theater, b) aside from me and my wife, there was only an elderly couple in the 100+ seat theater, which allowed me to fart freely, without distracting sneers from those I might offend with bowel scents, and c) it was stadium seating, which meant I could rest my feet up. Other than that, this film was the Al Pacino Scarface, sans drugs and bad Cuban accents but plus gaudy costumes: i.e.- bad, but highly mockable. Can I recommend such a melodrama? I don't know, I really don't- unless shadow puppeteering is your bag. Move over, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, here comes Lousy Liz and the Spanish Armada!


I was very excited when I was going to rent this movie. I started watching it immediately I fell in love with costumes, fabrics, sets, great production design; casting was pretty good most of Pirates Of The Caribbean team, and of course Cate Blanchett she was amazing in this movie, but Geoffrey Rush was very underused. I realized, what was bad in this movie is a director, everyone else did a great job. Continuity of events is often broken, confusing scenes at the beginning with young Queen and a doll, hard cuts between shots, loss of drama in events, it doesn't look like a feature film to me, it's more like Discovery Channel DVD to me. Seems like it has a small budget problem, but again bringing great actors together doesn't always mean that movie will become great one, director was obviously very inspired by Pirates Of The Caribbean. However, I really admire what Guy Dyas did as a production designer, all VFX, and costumes were absolutely stunning. For directors shooting movie such as Elisabeth comes with great responsibility, when Ridley Scott was watching this movie he was probably laughing


I also saw this movie at a film festival in Philadelphia. I knew it was going to be bad when the presenter of the film described it as a "guilty pleasure." To me, a guilty pleasure is some awful movie you sit through just because one of the performers is hot. And I guess that's what happened here, except I didn't even really find the cowboy to be that hot with his fake southern accent. I think both he and the actress who played the wife are decent actors, but any actor, good or bad, would choke on the lines these poor actors were given... I wanted to walk out but had made the mistake of sitting in the middle of the row, and so to be polite to my neighbors, I sat through it all. As if the directing, writing, acting, music, sets, lighting, and cinematography all were not bad enough, this film actually adds insult to injury by introducing an unnecessary plot detail in the final moments that makes the already flimsy plot absolutely incomprehensible. Best I can say about this is that if you're in the mood for a stunningly amateur movie, this could be fun to mock, if you're not trapped in a darkened theater where you're expected to be respectful.


Did I miss something....because the review by NormaDesmond69 must be about a different picture....

The main problem here....as is so often the case with 'indie' movies, is that the key creative responsibilities such as producing, writing, directing and playing the lead get filled by one person, the one who had the 'vision' for the movie.... in this scenario the ability for real objectivity becomes lost as that individual is far too close to the project.... the reality with this film is that the story was not strong to begin with and judging from the credits, there appears to be no one adding perspective or any objective input... I would suggest the picture was in trouble before principal photography even begun.

Clearly though, James Michael Bobby was the absolute saving grace in what would have been an otherwise dire and unwatchable movie. Contrary to other views, I would argue that he totally pulled his weight and did exactly what his character was supposed to do, be menacing, vulnerable and the catalyst for action at a turning/breaking point in a deeply dull and empty marriage (frankly I would have turned gay had I been married to that dreary, needy woman)...I don't agree with anyone who thought that Gregory Christian delivered anything more than a lack lustre energy-less performance in a highly confusing, self-indulgent, yet ultimately predictable storyline for the genre.

In Sunset Boulevard, the 'real' Norma Desmond said, "We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!" Sadly in this case NormaDesmond69 seems to have missed the irony that in 'Cowboy Junction' they had neither !


Oh Lord...haven't we had enough??? Another predictable, stereotypical "gay" movie. Admittedly I was expecting much more from this film, based on the plot summary on the DVD case. What I experienced was a slow, painful-to-watch piece of drivel that I just couldn't wait for to end. Fortunately the film was mercifully short, and I was left with "huh???" The hit-and-run plot was so thin it was practically invisible. Couldn't they at least have provided some backstory as to why the cowboy was so distraught over the death of this unseen "boyfriend"? This movie was nothing more than the worst of the worse in soft porn, with the physical attributes of the cowboy being the only thing that this movie has to offer. NEXT!!!


This movie is a rather quaint combination of a very thin plot idea stretched way too far and the seldomly successful occurrence of the writer, the producer, the director and one of the main characters being the same person, in this case Gregory Christian. Now sometimes people get away with doing that, but through watching "Cowboy Junction" I think it is obvious that Gregory Christian would have more than just a hard time getting the opportunity to do any of those four jobs in anything but a very low budgeted indie for the simple reason that he does not show mentionable talent in any of the four fields of work! To be fair Gregory Christian was not the only bad thing that happened to this movie (all though he happened a lot) the other two principal actors are not much better although James Michael Bobby compensates greatly for lack of acting skills by his very good looks and sexy/charming smile! The plot in it self is so thin that it didn't take too long to figure out the "big secret" that "turns out" to be pivotal to the plot towards the end! Another disappointment to me was that the sex scenes weren't even that good for a movie that tries to play the sexual notes. I would actually go as far as to say that the best thing about this movie was the music, and the music wasn't even that good!!!


Even by the lowest indie movie standards, this is a piece of total excrement, made occasionally bearable only - and ONLY - for the occasional flash of flesh of Matt Austin. This is the kind of stereotypical film which gay media should denounce for what it is: a bit of eye candy in the midst of an implausibly tragic and ridiculously predictable story, with bad actors (excruciatingly bad in most cases) in a screenplay that almost seams dreamed up by the Christian Right rather than the egregiously untalented (not to mention unattractive as a "leading man") Gregory Christian (producer, director, writer, and star). Did it wreck Austin's legit career, or is he doing porn someplace? Now THAT I'd pay to see!


As with Streetcar Named Desire, I've seen this twice now, and still can't say I'd recommend it, except for James Michael Bobby (the Cowboy) as its seductive, off-kilter Blanche Dubois. Whether he's pursuing his fate by lolling, cavorting, or chopping wood in desert heat, the Cowboy is an odd, heartfelt portrayal of a tender, lost boy on the edge of crazy, especially in scenes with Elyse Mirto as the crazy, lost Mrs. who's still tender, despite being crazed by Gregory Christian as her manipulative, cowardly, deceitful Hubby (imagine Jeff Goldblum without charm).

Still, the second time I watched it I rewound the last 5 minutes and finally figured out that this is a fairy tale right from the opening scene, where a hustler lets us know that money can't buy him. Since the entire show could be put on under a big tree in the back yard, the words matter most here, so that the performances have characters to inhabit in telling their story. But the story settles for the tinsel of a fairy tale rather than their timeless truths, sometimes dark, that make the great ones memorable.

Dialogue develops the role of the Mrs. as a woman who's been cruelly convinced it's her fault she's been denied even affection for the last year, doing her best to set things right. Her fantasy is that things ever were. The script is good in showing that Hubby, who calls her a bitch at her least expression of frustration, does so as a cruel excuse for his stunted humanity. Hubby's fantasy is that he can stuff married respectability down his wife's throat and still have a piece of its expected decency to tempt the Cowboy. But rather than tempt, taunt, and twist, as Hubby is clearly born to do, he's rushed by the author's fantasy into surrendering to the Cowboy, who's wish for a fateful, fairy tale romance is at least granted in a fairy tale's traditional trickster manner.

Too bad this surrender to tinsel rather than truth slams the door on the potential dynamics for tragic tension, leaving a melodrama limply collapsed like the deflated bosom of a disheveled belle in a dim parlor, teasing her damp wrist with a letter opener.


This is an insult to the Zorro legend, it is just awful, the filming is overexposed, the acting by some of the cast is way over the top, Alain Delon for most of the time walks about with a few days growth of beard, and poor Stanley Baker, not a good film to nearly end his career on, and l don't think the director Duccio Tessari knew what he was doing, and that awful awful music every time Zorro appears, if you ever have to see this film you will know what l mean, to many deep closeups, and added sound effects of swords clashing together spoilt this films, well for me it did I don't like giving a film a low mark, but as Zorro is my favourite film character this is a disgrace so 1 out of 10


Of all the versions of Zorro I've seen (that includes Douglas Fairbanks, Tyrone Power, Guy Williams, Antonio Banderas, Duncan Regehr and even George Hamilton), this one is the worst by far. It's ridiculous from beginning to end. The story barely resembles Johnston McCulley's writings (Zorro is now a Governor!), but that's a lesser problem. The main ones are ludicrous acting, terrible directing and totally trashy script.

I'll start wit the main character himself. Let's face it, in almost every version, Zorro has always been more or less effeminate in his public identity to hide his stronger secret one, but in this one that aspect is exaggerated. He is (or acts like) a true f*g who would make Liberace look as macho as John Wayne. Alain Delon is a competent actor when well directed (remember 'A Plein Soleil' or 'The Leopard'), but here he is awful and unbelievable as the sissy Governor, and only slightly better as the heroic Zorro.

The script must be witnessed to be believed: it's extremately cliched, filled with bad, unfunny jokes, and it gives an annoying dog named Assassin (which can open secret doors in houses and things like that) almost more screen time than Delon. And every time Zorro appears on screen somebody screams "Zorro!" ("thank ya, Sherlock, I hadn't realize", I almost surprised myself shouting to my TV set).

And leave the soundtrack alone. It couldn't have been more ridiculous: it consists mainly in a song that plays again and again and AGAIN during the entire movie, with a chorus that says "Laaa-la-la-laaa-la-la, Zorro is back!" Poetic, isn't it?

In summary, 2 out of 10 (it saves itself from a rating of '1' because I thought that part of the looooooooooooooooooong final fight between Zorro and the bad guy Stanley Baker was slightly entertaining. Only slightly).

Never see this movie. Go for the exciting "Mask of Zorro" instead.


There was a scene in this movie, Cold is running up the hotel stairs and fighting bad guys along the way, where the stunt double had different color hair, different color suit, wasn't as tall as Seagal, and they showed the his face in the scene, and he looked nothing like Seagal. I thought, "Who is this?" Then I realized it was supposed to be Cold. You mean, Steve isn't doing his own fighting scenes? Huh? This is a lame movie. IMDb requires 10 lines, so I must keep going, or fail to warn you about this movie. The plot was OK at first, but people start to do things that don't make any sense given their motives. The action is nothing you haven't seen many times before. There is this extremely awkward, and somewhat confusing scene at the end, where Cold and his apprentice are talking about nights spent together, but there was nothing like this in the movie. Was it supposed to be a joke? This was a terrible movie.


Seagal wears a suit-jacket in most of this movie. This is quite welcome to those of us who are tired of seeing him in Frigidaire size leather jackets and Big'n'Tall XXL kimono's. This movie is 10% better than most of his recent direct-to-DVD schlock (look at my rating and do the calculation).

I highly recommend this movie if you are incarcerated or bed-ridden and don't have any other films to watch, or if you lack self esteem. You might also enjoy this movie if you are blind, comatose, or named Pauly Shore. As for me, the reason I enjoyed this film so much because it was - by definition - awfully good.

Besides, give Seagal a break, he's been busy making music albums lately.

Don't let the critics get your down Steve, it's not about quality, it's about quantity... and big man, you pump out the DVD turds as if you lived on a cabbage-only diet.


Here I was buying this DVD online figuring Seagal couldn't bomb again.I saw his last 3 movies and they stunk,this one was a total waste of industry money.Seagal needs to hang it up,yo Steve just go away,your wasting your time and my money.In this one it is so obvious he's not doing his own stunts,let alone he's not even doing any of his own moves,it's so bad you can even catch a glimpse of the stunt doubles face.Seagal looks like he's gain 20 extra pounds,he waddles.The way this guy is churning out these movies is a shame!If you want a true action star who is older get anything Jackie Chan i promise you will not be disappointed.I never write these comments ,it's just I feel the need to warn people about spending there money on this junk.


Steven Seagal returns in Black Dawn.Cool title.I cannot say the same for the movie though.It ranks as the Worst Seagal movie yet.Yes.It is worse than Out for a Kill.Did we really need a sequel to the Forigner that bad?

Steven returns as Jonathon Cold.Assassin for hire.This time he is out to stop a group of Terrorists and prevent Nuclier Bomb from hitting Los Angelas with the help of CIA agent Tamara Davies.

This idea seems okay.The Jonathon Cold character once again gives the big guy a chance to tarnish his clean-cut cinematic Image.You get the feeling with a decent director and production team this movie could have went somewhere.If this cost 15 million I wanna know where it was spent?It was not spent on the movie?!!

The action scenes are not bad.The movie was obviously shot like a Doug Liman flick.Its just that most of the Time Seagal is doubled so much you cannot take the movie seriously whatsoever.The script seems...what script?!Logic is Black Dawned for a dozen low-budget action movies.

Seagal is not too bad here for a whole 15 minutes he is engaging then goes about the sleepwalking that he has done for his last 2 movies.Whoever is doing his fighting is doing a commendable job.

The light that shines through is Tamara Davies as Cold's sidekick.She has the chops,skills,looks and drive that give Black Dawn a little kick in the action department.How she got in this movie is a riddle.She should be a bigger star.Nicholas Davidoff and John Pyper Feruson are not believable bad guys.

Whose idea was it to make a sequel to a bad movie in the first place? It did not set the world on fire to my memory.I can only hope they inject the next Forigner sequel with some class,imagination,Less stunt doubles and a livelier Seagal.If not then leave Jonathon Cold on Ice.


Black Dawn (2005), The Great one is back in this recent effort(kind of an ironically bad word to use) which follows Johnathan Cold once again as this time he springs a terrorist from prison and appears to be helping in an upcoming attack. It was smart to try to make us guess whether or not he was on the bad side, but come on, we all KNOW he wasn't. I think that if he was, the movie would have been nine times better. The car chase, some decent gunfights and the presence of character actor Timothy Carhart elevate this above a one, but it is still very, very poor. People complain about Foreigner and Out for a Kill, but they both look like Oscar winners compared to this wretched piece of excrement. Steven Seagal is about in HALF of it and even that's a stretch. The fight scenes are NOT him leading me to believe we should give up on seeing the big guy fighting again. His screen presence is a draw, but not when he ain't on the freaking screen. At least he looked like he enjoyed Today You Die and did some fights himself. People, as a Steven SEagal fan, I know you want to see this. But trust me, he may return with a good movie like Belly of the Beast or Into the Sun, but this isn't it. I know you want to see it, but please trust a fellow fan and don't. You'll feel more secure in you're seagal liking if you don't.


Black Dawn starts at a Federal Prison in Utah where rouge CIA agent & nuclear weapons expert(!) Jonathan Cold (Steven Seagal, also producer) breaks international arms dealer Michael Donovan (Julian Stone) out. Impressed with Cold's efficient work Donovan offers him a job, a job to oversee his buying a new nuclear weapon from some crazy scientist dude & obtaining the plutonium to power it. Jump to Los Angeles where the deal is to take place & where CIA agent & Cold's friend Amanda Stuart (Tamara Davies) has Donovan's brother James (John Pyper-Ferguson) under surveillance, however when she is caught by Donovan's men Cold has to blow his cover & rescue her. Now the Donovan's have plans for a nuclear weapon & the equipment to build it that they intend to sell to a bunch of Russian suicide bombers who intend to become marters when they blow Los Angeles up, that is unless one-man army Cold can stop them...

Directed by Alexander Gruszynski this was actually a sequel to Seagal's terrible earlier straight-to-video/DVD action thriller The Foreigner (2003) a couple of years previous in which he played CIA agent Jonathan Cold racing across Europe with a deadly package, so Black Dawn which is titled The Foreigner 2 in some countries moves the story to the US & is the sequel no-one wanted. The plot is short on action & Seagal fans looking forward to some of his trademark martial arts fights will be disappointed as there isn't any, the too complex for it's good plot is all over the place, completely fails to engage or grip & is pretty standard action thriller fare without much action or many thrills. There's this really dumb twist at the end when some guy we have only seen once is revealed to be behind it or something yet for some reason he is there to start the bomb & kill the Russian terrorists, why not just let the Russians start the bomb & blow themselves up & like just make sure your out of Los Angeles well in advance? Why stick around to potentially be blown up in a nuclear holocaust? If Donovan was going to double cross the Russians why was he so bothered about finding the real plutonium? Just give them vials of water or something, how would they know? Open them up & have a taste? I don't think so. The pace is alright & it keeps moving along but the plot is weak, predictable & the character's are forgettable.

The action is pretty poor apart from a reasonable car chase involving a huge dumper truck which is quite good & probably belongs in a better film than Black Dawn. The only fight scene in Black Dawn sees one of the worst body doubles ever stand in for Seagal who is fat in this, in fact he is really fat & out of shape in this. This fight is filmed so you never see Cold's face but the stunt doubles body is all wrong & you can just tell it's not Seagal. Other than that it's just a fairly dull succession of shoot-outs between people. There's a big CGI computer effects explosion at the end but if it really was a nuclear bomb there would have been an electro magnetic pulse which would have shut down all electrical equipment including the helicopter Seagal was flying & thus send him crashing into the Ocean but Black Dawn isn't that concerned with factual accuracy.

With a supposed budget of about $15,000,000 Black Dawn looks alright, it's a little flat & forgettable but the production values are decent enough. The acting isn't great from no-one of any interest & Seagal again seems dubbed a lot of the time.

Black Dawn is a poor action thriller that fails to deliver on any count, it's dull & boring & utterly forgettable. Not quite as bad as The Foreigner but not too far behind it.


Even by Seagal DTV standards this is really... quite something. It's considerably worse than The Foreigner, the previous film featuring the same Seagal character, Jonathan Cold. Yes, that's right it's a sequel to that film you probably didn't know existed, your friend passed on, and your neighbour gave up on after twenty minutes. But just think of the possibilities; in an alternative universe maybe this character is as popular as James Bond. "No Mr. Cold, I expect you to die!". In this world they are already on the fifth Cold movie. "Look Up! Look Down! Look Out! Here Comes The Biggest Cold Of All!". Soon, Seagal will quit the role, hoping to stretch as an actor. A new actor is cast as Cold. He re-captures the hearts of audiences, but not the critics. In 2022, Seagal makes an unofficial Cold film. "The spirit of the 2000s is reborn!" the critics cry.

In this world however, Cold isn't a popular character and his films are as much fun as going through withdrawal.

Was this review helpful? Didn't think so.


After seeing Submerged on TV and saw a couple of other Steven Seagal movies like Today You Die and Into the Sun, they were a lot better than this. This is another sequel from the great one since Under Siege (Which I never knew about Seagal making this sequel) from the 2003 movie The Foreinger and that one was better than this and I can't believe what crap this movie is. Don't get me wrong Steven, I am a fan and this is my 2nd worst movie from you and I hope you will comeback in a movie where it is better than this but I still hated this movie for the rest of my life.

I give this 2/10


At the beginning I would like to say, that I'm a big fun of Seagal and his movies.

But not this one. I'm sorry but Seagal is too fat in this movie ! Too fat for an action star. In that shape he can't play super secret agent, but only a Santa Claus. Anyway the worst thing in this movie are fight scenes.Seagal is doubled in fight scenes by another actor. It is very sad for me ,because I practice martial arts and I admire Seagal's Aikido abilities . I think that he is cheating his fans doing something like this. Blacdawn is very boring, small budget B-movie .What else? Bad acting and horrible story. And the finale of this film with helicopter and a bomb....

NO COMMENT !!


Steven Seagal. What is there else to say about his recent movies? He's not just phoning his performance in, he just seems totally and utterly disinterested in even attempting to act his lines! He doesn't even do his own fight scenes anymore, because anytime a fight occurred, the cameraman curiously ensured we never got to see Segals face during the fights.

The 'story' is beyond perfunctory, its as old an cliché as they come, that in itself wouldn't be a bad thing I suppose if the rest of the action, acting, effects were good.... alas they are not even anywhere near! The music.... it took two people to write the music, and frankly, i've heard far superior music made as a hobby on computers from the 1990's! The only reason I even bothered to watch this 'movie' was because it had Steven Seagal in it.... I see no reason to torture myself with any of his future movies if this is the standard we can expect! Where did it all go wrong? Under Siege was a great movie, he even ACTED in that movie, here.... he's just not bothering, hence why I won't be bothering with anymore of his movies.

Avoid... its more crap than you think!


OK so I decided to go too blockbuster the other day and get a movie, and remembered Black Dawn was a Seagal movie I had yet to see. So I thought might as well give it a chance, thats if they even carry it. Anyways they had it for sale for 7 dollars. WORST 7 Dollars I have EVER spent.

First of all Steven DOES NOT FIGHT AT ALL!!! I think there might be one scene where he throws a karate chop to a guys throat and that is it. A 90 minute movie and he throws one hit.. The rest is all a stunt double (if you get the courage to rent this you will see what I mean) the gun fights were horrible as usual..... Fire off 50 rounds and not hit a single bad guy..... Seagal is also the heaviest he has ever been in this movie. This guy loses weight for some projects and gains it back for other projects..... this one he just looks flat out in bad shape.

Anyway from beginning to finish is the worst thing I have ever seen.... My friend wants to watch it with me, and I just don't think I will be able to sit through it again... One thing I will say is, it is good for a real laugh.... seeing the stunt double work and the horrible hair on the stunt double, and the loss of 40 pounds haha its painfully obvious... TERRIBLE MOVIE!!!!


So Seagal is Jonathan Cold, a high-level ex-CIA agent who is now a "freelance operative," which sounds like nothing more than a title invented for cheesy action movies for a hero who takes matters into his own hands. "Operative" literally means secret agent, and freelance basically means someone who works for themselves, or someone who occasionally works for other people and organizations but is overall self-employed.

Oh, and they all thought that Cold was dead. And in case you forget, notice the incessant repetition of the line "I thought you were dead!"

Anyway, you get the idea. Cold is a marksman and an expert in martial arts and nuclear weapons. What a resume! Marksman doesn't really come into play much, but an expert in martial arts and nuclear weapons is just too perfect! One for the action and one for the story, right? This is Action Movie-making 101.

The story involves a group of bad guys which, like far too many of Seagal's recent movies, are stupid, boring action baddie clichés, who want to basically destroy the world and start "a new global economy." Yeah, whatever.

Black Dawn reveals to the world that there is a nuclear test facility in Pasadena, California. I didn't know that, but then again, I also always thought you had to wear some kind of foil suit to handle raw plutonium, but I guess that's not really true. In this movie, one of the bad guys handles it wearing no safety equipment other than a pair of gloves, and he's even smoking a cigarette. This guy is hardcore!

Seagal, unfortunately, just looks like he's not trying anymore. The goal is to get a nuclear weapon away from the bad guys and then away from the populace before it detonates and kills millions of people.

We're asked to believe that it would take less than four minutes to get into a helicopter, start it up, take off, and fly out over the ocean and drop the bomb into the ocean and have it sink deep enough to explode without doing any damage. This is a hell of a stretch and is fraught with amazingly bad blue-screen work, but strangely it's the girl's shocked reaction ("What?? ") when Cold tells her to throw the bomb out the window into the action that seems the most ridiculous. Maybe she wanted to keep it?

We expect very little from a Seagal movie, especially recent ones. He started his career in gritty, hardcore action movies, peaking with Under Siege, but lately his movies go for more story than they can sustain, resulting in cheesy, talky action schlock with too much bad acting and not enough fighting, which is what Seagal's fans really want to see


Steven Seagal movies are famous for killing and kicking ass. In this film, Seagal is so fat, that they do not bother even to find a stunt-man for him. Whenever there is action in the film, he just disappears from the picture and re-appears when the shooting and fight is over. He doesn't beat up ANYBODY in the whole film, can you believe that? Well, you would, if you look at him, he looks so sadly obese, he can hardly move, let alone walk. He is wearing a terrible wig and a terrible three-piece suit during the whole film, which spans during a 5 day period, but the worst part is the script and dialogs. A pre-schooler could have done it better, honestly.

My piece of advice: WATCH THE FILM. It is SOOOOOooo terrible that you can use it as reference point for the rest of your life when judging other films.


Steven Seagal wears a suit and tie for the entirety of the movie. Unfortunately for him, this doesn't help to hide his huge bulk. I spent most of the movie thinking about how fat he's become since the last Seagal movie I watched (which must have been "Hard to Kill").

The basic plot of the movie is revealed very early. This is no surprise to anybody. What is a surprise is when there's a gunfight scene and a dozen characters appear who have no other part in this movie and kill each other. Even Steven Seagal has two partners who appear for 1 minute at the beginning of the movie, then 1 minute halfway through the movie, and both are killed only 2 minutes later.

The special effects are distracting. There's a scene where the two main characters are sitting in a helicopter on a roof. Except it's not on a roof, it's in the studio and the foreground looks washed out and Steven Seagal's tie flickers due to the blue screen.

The DVD cover shows Seagal wearing a black leather jacket - which he does not wear in the movie - and his face has been photoshopped to look younger and thinner than it actually is. The back of the DVD shows Seagal holding two guns crosswise - a technique he does not use in this movie - and indeed it's a younger, fitter Seagal holding those guns, wearing that leather jacket.

The "special features" stank too. "Making of Black Dawn" can be summed up as "let's show the main characters filming the helicopter sequence" and Tamara Davies laments that she finds it hard to feel tension when she's sitting in a fake helicopter on the set. Somehow I'm not surprised. And the best she can say about director Gruszynski is that he is "convenient".

The "Interview with Steven Seagal" contained some flashed scenes which would have been better off in the "Making of" title. The rest of it wasn't an interview. There was no interviewer, there were no questions. It was Steven Seagal rambling. It sort of devolved into various pictures of Seagal doing humanitarian work in the 3rd world. I'm not quite sure why.

Five trailers on the DVD showed 5 Sony movies which, if truth be told, looked much better than this rubbish. Some were Seagal movies, some were Wesley Snipes.

This movie isn't worth buying; isn't worth renting either. Seagal should lose some weight and train up before acting again, if he wishes to be the star of an action picture.


Very poor effort from Seagal, who in recent times seems to be churning out films on a weekly basis. This is a conspiracy type movie involving a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands (yawn!). Seagals character is a mysterious ex agent with an unclear agenda (what again!). None of us watch Seagal films for his acting prowess, we want to see glib one liners and plenty of scrapping. There is precious little of either in this film and the action scenes that are in it are done by someone else. He doesn't even really feature as the starring role, leaving a bunch of stereotypical bad guys and hired goons to plod through what masquerades as a plot. As if what i've told you is not enough to keep you away from this drivel, it is also worth mentioning that the special effects are truly terrible as well. Finally, to sum up, this film features Luke Goss from that vomit inducing band Bros as the lead bad guy. Watch this and you'll gouge your eyes out.


Makes you wonder how many more times that he can get away with being associated with this type of bad everything that deals with the movie industry. It was obvious that all action (I even think some walking scenes more than 50 feet) we dubbed. He even acted bored with his lines. He was never a favorite or a serious contender for any awards but his movies are normally entertaining to a degree. This movie was a waste of time and money and it was to the point where you started feeling sorry for him. Being a "hasbeen" is nothing anybody desires to face but if he continues trying to be the stud of yesteryear he will frame himself forever as a joke. There is a place for him in action movies he needs to look for it and go in that direction. There is a reason the James Bond character continues to be replaced. Steven should take his cue from that. However, after all is said, I would not desire to read my comments to him eyeball to eyeball.


Oh my god - I've lost my faith in Steven Seagal. He's horrible.

This movie is absolute junk. The story was lame - there's absolutely zero excitement to the movie. And Seagal doesn't even fight in this movie, I mean c'mon.. what is that? They just show somebody's hand and after that they show Seagals face. It looks stupid and not real at all.

Besides the story is so goddamn crappy and unbelievable anyways. The story is based on the "fact" that these guys are going to steal plutonium from a nuclear disposal center or something. The thing just is that you can't make a nuke from plutonium like that - the plutonium has to be enriched first in some weapons facility. Regular plutonium is something like 5% strong - the plutonium used in nukes is 80% stuff. You just don't steal stuff like that - especially NOT IN A LUNCH CUP as they did in the movie.

Don't buy this movie. I spent my money on nothing.


The only excitement i got from this movie was from watching the rather pert behind of Tamara "Sexy Eyes" Davies who has clearly been doing some Yoga.

The whole I'm an ex- CIA agent, whose still really working for the CIA - shhhh don't tell anyone got old after Mission Impossible 1 and stinks here about as much as MI3 does.

Lovely Tamara runs around a lot which is good, really good ...pause, rewind, pause, rewind - but the plot/storyline and ending are just rip after rip after rip off.

If your a seagal fan don't watch it, he was probably depressed when He made it..and now I am.


Plainly pathetic. The backdrop in some of the action scenes are so visibly unreal that it made watching this painful. At one point near the beginning a photo of a test lab Dr and a terrorist is so badly edited it looks like one of the Internet pictures with superimposed faces planted on someone else's body. I also enjoyed watching the taking of the bomb up an unknown number of floors to a roof, starting a helicopter and then flying an estimated 25 miles off shore and all in 4 minutes and 30 seconds. I hope the director had fun making this. I also have to agree with some previous writers that seeing a very over weight Seagal is sad. You never really notice his weight until the very end when he is walking away. Also the champagne lunch with the CIA agent at the end is terribly phony and acted at an uncomfortable feeling. What a terrible waste of time.


well my wife spotted this, and we wasted one and a half hours of our life watching it.

Spoilers (no honestly it is possible)

the idea behind it is great, and you can see inspiration from 24 for the plots and secrets etc. but it shows how you can do this, without the panache of 24. On the DVD the extras on how it is made, are well a little over simplified, and just check out the lead actress on justifying her performance. The fight scenes are few and far between, and badly executed, you can see it is NOT Mr Seagal, as his hair length on the back shots changes between shots.

Overall, a nice idea done badly, i would not rent this if i where you. There are better low budget films available in this genre.


Seagal had to make good movies from 1988 until 2001. Today you die and into the sun, or belly of the beast were good, but movies how Out for a kill or the foreigner or out of reach weren't good. They were very bad. Black Dawn isn't a good movie. Black Dawn isn't a good mainstream movie. Black Dawn is that what the people to make in the toilets. This movie is bullshit. Its boring, bad and terrible. The actors are very bad. The cuts very bad and the story is terrible. This Movie is the second part of the Foreigner, but the foreigner was bad, and now makes Seagal a second part of this bad movie. Why?? Doesn't he have enough money?? Today you die was so good and cool, but this movie is the bad movie of all his bad movies.


this movie is a waste of time. the script has gaps the scenes are not continues, the special effects are childish and in some scenes you can see that there is a stunt man instead of the actor, a lot of childish shooting and nothing else.....even at the closing scene where the bomb explodes in the sea the effect of making the sea is ridiculous...... This movie should get negative votes.....what a pity... There is nothing good to write except maybe for the eyes of the co-star female actor....Even though at the beginning shows promising the rest is for the garbage... I also wonder why for the 2/3 of the movie G. Seagal wears the same dirty clothes? thumps down and straight to the garbage can.....


This film is really called Foreigner 2: Black Dawn and Steven Seagal,(Jonathan Cold) once again appears in this film as a real bad dude dealing with all the horrible under-world characters. Seagal even directed this film and the stunts and action were very low key and not performed very professional. It looks like Jonathan Cold put on a few extra pounds and and is acting more like Marlon Brando with his almost silent whispers. Jonathan meets up with a gal he had known years ago and a very good looker, he does manage to save her from a very close shave with death. There are plenty of explosions and the real bomb is when you start watching this film and wonder when it will ever end. It is about time to put an end to these Foreigner series and move on to something more interesting.


Wes Craven-many horror fans consider him as a master of horror,but after watching his truly god-awful movies like "Deadly Friend","Invitation to Hell" and this one I came to conclusion that he is very overrated.Only three of his movies are actually worth watching:"Last House on the Left" which is brilliant,"The Hills Have Eyes" and "Deadly Blessing" which are pretty good.His other movies,including overrated "Scream" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street" are a typical Hollywood garbage."The Hills Have Eyes Part 2" is truly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen.The plot concerns a bunch of annoying youngsters,who are attacked by cannibals:Pluto(Michael Berryman) and his uncle Reaper(John Bloom).Absolutely no suspense,even no gore to satisfy gore-freaks(although there's a nice throat slashing).The acting is diabolically obscure and the final twist is obnoxious and stupid.The scene when the pet dog has a flashback to the previous movie is extremely dumb,but also hilarious at the same time.Avoid this junk like the plague.Not recommended.


This was not a bad story but it had no budget. the directing was done well, but they had so little to work with. The lead actor plays Dr. Craig Wesley on Days of our Lives. It was hard seeing him in this role as I am used to seeing him in a soap opera. It is a believable story. I rented this movie as I just saw Wrong turn on the big screen. It was the same type of story. It looked like it was just put together. 4/10


Things I hate about sequels include discovering previously unknown (and unheard of) brothers of the main villain killed in the previous film. I also dislike films that dismiss the previous one as a dream. Guess what, this did both of them! Or at least more inventively, the survivors of the first film had flogged the story of the first film and then admit to the new members of the cast that 'it actually happened and to us and that's why were in trouble because we decided to shortcut through the same bit of desert and got stuck'. Oh dear. Of further interest is the blind girl amongst the characters, being blind obviously improves your survival chances manyfold. At the start, one of the survivors of part 1 is telling his psychiatrist why he can't go back to the desert and then promptly disappears for the rest of the film. Smart man ...


The Hills have Eyes part 2 is an unbelievably dull and uninspired film that, like most sequels, desperately tries to milk the original for a few extra dollars. Craven makes constant references to his raw original and even edits entire sequences into this film. It seems like old Wes damn well knows this sequel is inferior and he misses the 70'sthe only era in his career he actually delivered brilliant movies. We're back in the desert, only a few miles away from the initial tragedy that overcame the Carlton family, and the cannibals (including the charismatic creep Michael Berryman) are still lurking around. On the menu this time are a group of motorcycle-racing teenagers, on their way to demonstrate their brand-new developed formula of super fuel. Also part of the posse is the now civilized girl who abandoned the mountain-family near the end of part one. I guess it doesn't require a degree in rocket science to immediately spot this follow-up completely lacks the raw and shocking impact of the original. There's very few gore, dreadful attempts to bring insert humor and truly annoying character drawings. In this film, it becomes very clear that Craven is an overly pretentious director who's not even embarrassed to repeat is own clever premises. The only time he more or less reaches a similar quality-level here is during the sequence where a blind psychic girl stumbles around a forsaken area, with nothing but her friends' dead bodies on her way.


This was one of the most predictable films I have ever seen. It was obvious from the start that everything would turn out as it did. You could tell the lead character was not going to get far with baseball for whatever reason, but he was going to do well at something. Gosselaar was poor and tried to build his role up beyond it's limits and Kirstie Alley should have fired her agent! I would expect better than this.


Sticks and Stones is a coarse, crude, violent, and largely pointless film. Of the first 25 votes cast for it, fifteen were a '10'. I suppose this means the cast and crew enjoyed it. I am thankful that so few other people were subjected to this waste of celluloid.

It is advertised on the video box as a film that will 'touch the family'. Worst case of false advertising I've seen of late. I was appalled by, (and had to comment on) the coarse language to my teenagers, so they will not think that sort of thing is normal or acceptable.


This cheap little indie touches the semi-documentary bases at a time when Hollywood was boosting the image of federal agencies in general. After all, the Cold War was heating up; at the same time organized crime was growing, so who better than the FBI, DEA, Treasury Men, et al. as heroes for a new kind of documentary style. Many classics emerged from this period: T-Men (1947), Naked City (1948), Border Incident (1949). The better ones blended elements of noir with documentary naturalism to produce unusual effects.

This 1950 production echoes many clichés of the period (murdered agent, cutting edge technology, a Mr. Big et al.). But it's clearly a shoestring affair despite good intentions. At the same time, the lighting looks more like unpaid utility bill than nourish light and shadow. Nonetheless, the parking lot location shots provide good glimpse of Detroit's assembly line product, circa 1950. The screenplay manages some tension, but that final shootout looks poorly staged, as if no one fears getting hit. Strictly a low-grade effort at cashing in on a popular trend.


While this film is only less than 75 minutes in length, the bodies begin to pile up rather quickly. This includes a narcotics agent, 2 members of the gang, and an elevator runner, who stupidly announces that she can get her face in the papers for identifying the killers of a gang member while riding in her elevator. How stupid can you get?

The story centers on the familiar theme of drugs. In this one, a supposed respectable businessman is running some drugs from Mexico to California. The scenes shift quickly from both these areas constantly.

The new elevator operator is a plant from the narcotics squad and you have to hand it to them. They actually have honing devices to track cars that they're following. It's only 1950.

The problem with the film is that the characters are really flat. Too bad that first elevator operator wasn't around long enough.


Okay, I honestly don't know why I watch movies like this. They handle about an unpleasant substance, the production values are extremely poor and the videostore lady always looks at you like you're some kind of dangerous psychopath when you rent them. Yet, these Nazi-exploitation movies have an enormous cult-value and they bring intriguing controversy. Well, usually that is, since this "SS Experiment Love Camp" is an utterly boring mess! The story is set in a vicious medical camp-base, where the best German soldiers are brought to copulate with resistant enemy women. Supposedly, this serves a higher purpose but they're never actually telling us what that might be. When a stud-soldier unexpectedly falls in love with his mating partner, his body is used for another  much more vile - medical experiment, namely the world's very first testicle transplant! "SS Experiment Love Camp" is an infamous video-nasty and, although it really sounds like one, it's hardly worth calling a shocker. The repulsiveness is limited to a few sequences (a girl gets both boiled an iced in a water tank, another one is hung bleeding by her feet) while the rest is of the film talkative dullness about the superiority of the Third Reich etc etc... The cast of characters features your usual lesbian warden, a perverted elderly guard and a fugitive doctor. The camera-work is weak and the torture devices are pathetic. If you do feel the uncontrollable desire to watch a Nazi exploitation movie, you can never go wrong with "Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS" or Tinto Brass' "Salon Kitty". Please, do avoid this garbage at all costs.


Yet another nazi-prison movie, that followed after Ilses success. This one has the usual stuff;lesbian warden, sadistic guards, forced co-workers and lotsa young women in shower/softcore sex scenes. The only highlight in this movie, is when the hero has his testicles removed, so the Kommandant can have them implanted (he lost them on the front, to a russian girl). Rather predictable and the torture scenes are kindda boring - for anyone who have seen this type of movie before.


SS Experiment Camp was one of the films to kick-start the video nasty furor in the UK. As a result, for the past 25 years or so, it has been considered a notorious film. However, like The Driller Killer, it primarily attained it's infamous status due to the crude cover art used on it's video box. Those people who actually watched the film discovered that it was nowhere near as shocking as it's reputation suggested. Furthermore, it is actually unintentionally hilarious on a number of occasions. SS Experiment Camp is a bit of an enigma.

The story involves a group of women who are delivered to the aforementioned SS Experiment Camp. While there they are subjected to some inexplicable experiments, which often seem to involve forced copulation with a group of Nazi studs (who it has to be said all look strangely Italian). The purpose of the experiments is to find the best stud from this Aryan select and transfer his balls onto the camp commandant who, as we discover, lost his when a Russian woman he was raping bit his off.

Now, the above synopsis may well make the film sound deeply depraved and offensive. Well, it is sleazy and in highly dubious taste but the execution of the film is so amateurish and unrealistic that it really sounds a lot worse than it actually is. The depiction of the camp is more Butlins than Belsen at times. The inmates seem relatively unconcerned for the most part and the Nazi baddies are often hilariously unconvincing. That said, there are some nasty moments, particularly the treatment meted out to the young girl at the orgy; she ends up hanging naked upside down in a shot that recalls the aforementioned distasteful cover shot. But, generally speaking, sequences that achieve such offense are uncommon here. The scenes showing the experiments, while certainly tasteless, are often more strange than anything else. The copulation in a tank of water idea being an example where it is too bizarre to take altogether seriously.

The film does, however, have two uproariously funny sequences. In neither case is the humour intentional...

Funny scene #1: In the first scene we have one of the Nazi studs returning to the dorm and saying how much he is looking forward to banging some hot women in the next experiment. The good Nazi, Helmut, takes offense at this and says, "I think every time you open your mouth you talk sh*t", to which the bad Nazi replies, after a long pregnant pause, "Hey, I don't like that last remark you made....about sh*t". Cue a silly fight.

Funny scene #2: The second hilarious scene begins when Helmut discovers, just as he is about to have sex, that he has no balls. He then runs naked through the camp in search of the commandant. Once he finally confronts him, he delivers the truly immortal line, "OK you bastard...what have you done to my balls?".

Both of the above scenes make the film worth enduring in a comedy sense.

It's very sleazy. There's acres of full-frontal naked female flesh. It's occasionally gratuitously violent. But above all, the notorious SS Experiment Camp is, in the final analysis, a rather silly film.


Sergio Garrone's "SS Experiment Camp" is a total failure on every possible level.This film was banned in Britain as a video nasty,but it surely isn't as outrageous as many people claim.In fact it's pretty tame even by today's standards.There is some torture and humiliation and lots of nudity and soft-core sex.Some scenes are pretty mean-spirited for example one woman who refuses to go through the experiments is put into the tank.The temperature is first put up to almost boiling point and then the dial is turned the other way making it icy cold.Still the film is extremely dull,so fans of Italian exploitation may be disappointed.Avoid this one like the plague-watch "Beast in Heat" or "Gestapo's Last Orgy" instead!


When I decided to see every film on the DPP 'Video Nasty' list, I knew I'd be letting myself in for some rubbish; but I really didn't expect anything this depressingly awful. This movie transcends the bounds of 'so bad it's good' and just becomes bad. There are some other bad films on the list, but most of those at least have some redeeming values; this one really does have nothing. The centrepiece of the film has to do with the 'first ever' testicle transplant, and that's the only narrative that runs throughout. The rest of the film is padded out by lots of pointless 'experiments' and other tedious happenings, and it's clear that director Sergio Garrone wanted to make this as sleazy as possible in order to sell tickets - but I like sleaze, and this isn't it. This film was, like The Driller Killer, banned in the UK because of the cover art; and that's hardly surprising, as aside from the aforementioned transplant and a few sex scenes; there really isn't anything here to warrant banning, or seeking the film out for. I've been thankful to the DPP and their shopping list in the past, as it's allowed me to discover some great hidden gems such as The House on Straw Hill and The Witch Who Came From the Sea; films that I otherwise might not have seen, but I'm annoyed that I bothered to see this. On the whole, there's nothing to see this movie for; and I certainly don't recommend it.


SS Experiment Love Camp is a film that makes Love Camp 7 look downright lovable. And I don't mean that in a 'This isn't a film for wimps, while Love Camp 7 is' kind of way. I mean that relatively speaking, Love Camp 7 has a lot going for it and may engage or entertain you in its special fashion, but that SS Experiment Love Camp most certainly does not, and won't.

'Sex experiments in pursuit of a better tomorrow!' screams the tagline. Being carried out by various fools in a Nazi-run slave brothel during WWII, these experiments consist in the first place of observing how German soldiers couple with female prisoners in transparent waist- high water tanks, or on white-sheeted beds. Cue softcore sex scenes. The second kind of experiment involves no sex but lots of particularly idiotic violence. I'll admit that the cruelty of some of these scenes is affecting, but it's hard to get away from the pervading feeling of stupidity. For instance, can you really learn anything by sticking a tube in a woman's ear and then blasting her eardrum with several atmospheres of pressure? The folks playing the unflappable camp staff act as if they really think they can. Truly, it's not just for the purposes of sadism. 'What, she's dead? Get another one in, we'll try the experiment again.' They're also obsessed with perfecting the 'uterus transplant' procedure, a yucky effect you get to see at least three times. Unsurprisingly, these operations, which were clearly going nowhere, come to nothing. The film is for the most part a momentumless series of such softcore sex and shabbily portrayed torture scenes, further undercut by the silliest-looking dubbing I've seen in a film of this genre and the least convincing casting of a period film ever. The German troops look and act - and above all, sound - like American GIs.

Even for folks who want to watch them - like myself - these Nazi sexploitation films are acknowledged as being pretty hard to surpass in terms of bad taste, so when one is executed as dumbly as SS Experiment Love Camp, it sort of topples over into a zone where it could easily be viewed as a complete insult to humanity. You've got a film about Nazi experiments, but they're quite ridiculous. The film's hopeless in its period detail and everyone has a broad American accent. Jewishness isn't mentioned at all (not totally exceptional for this genre, but in this film, again, it somehow looks worse). There's almost no development, no suspense and no engagement value of any kind, except during the last twenty minutes, when they throw in the testicular transplant plot development which I haven't previously mentioned. The ball action and some unintended laughs are about the only things which stick out of this quite dull, dumb and thoroughly poor entry in the genre.


I did not think much of the film SS Experiment Camp This is a sleazy WW2 Nazi horror film which is more like a comedy in parts In this horror film the poor female POW's get raped and groped by The prison guards at the camp. In an amusing part of the film the commandant decides he wants a new pair of testicles and so removes them from one of the hunky guards. The guard doesn't seem to realise he's been castrated until he goes to have sex one of the French prisoners. SS Experiment Camp was banned in th UK from 1976-2005 because it was thought to controversial. it was eventually passed uncut in 2006 because there was not anything in the film that was thought unsuitable.


This video nastie was initially banned, but allowed release without any cuts. Supposedly it was the cover and the subject matter that was found offensive, and not the actual film.

Of course, many would find the film offensive. It was poorly shot, had no real actors, had really boring sex scenes, and was just a cheap naziplotation film.

I have not been able to confirm that this was used as training material for the torturers at Gitmo. The limited torture in the film would probably not make it of much use. There was no water-boarding, for example, but there was an interesting use of boiling/freezing water.

If you are looking for a cheap film that makes extensive use of full frontal nudity, this may be just the thing. If you love Bush, then you will find a forest here.


In my opinion this is, quite simply, the worst series ever made. How it even has the nerve to call itself comedy is beyond me. Maybe, to get swans like Fawlty and Python, you have to go through ugly ducklings like this, but I sure wish we'd never heard of Grace Brothers.

It was part of an unfortunate trend in the UK for shows where you always knew what the first words out of a character's mouth would be, followed by an explosion of canned laughter from what I can only assume was a lobotomized audience. Some have compared it to the 'Carry On' movies and, while there is a superficial resemblance to the worst of them, this series outstrips 'em all by a country mile for sheer unfunniness.

Unbelievably, it was the most popular comedy series on British TV at one time, and ran for a mind-boggling 10 seasons. Eleven too many for me.


The Earthling traumatized me as a kid. I don't know how this can be called a "family film". My friend Ryan and I have talked about this movie's effects, he having been just as disturbed by it as I was. Little Ricky Schroeder is vacationing with his folks in the Australian outback, when out of nowhere they are killed!! I'm not giving anything away here, I've read other reviews mentioning this Plot Point. They both go flying over a cliff in the family camper, crashing hundreds of feet below to their death as little Schroeder watches helplessly!! How messed up is that? I don't think I ever saw a horror film when I was little that upset me as much as this "family film" did!! Couldn't he just have been separated from his parents, and learned to survive on his own until he reunited with them at the end? That would have been a truly uplifting movie with a happy ending. But no. We get little Ricky meeting dying old William Holden, whose idea of compassion is, "Your parents are dead, kid, and that's the hard truth!!" My God, are you kidding me? This is hands down the most morbid, downbeat film I have ever seen in my life. I had to watch Willy Wonka about ten times afterwards just to quell this film's negative effects!! Trust me, avoid The Earthling at all costs.


I saw this movie on cable when I was a kid, and I hated it. Before he starred in "Silver Spoons", Ricky Schroeder was in two worthless movies, "The Champ" (1979) and "The Earthling" (1980). And I always say now, that before he hit big on TV, he had it rough! I mean, these two movies involved the boy's parents getting killed in a gruesome way. It's a wonder he should've considered becoming a priest instead of staying in Hollywood. Anyway, this film was passed by Oscar and for good reasons. William Holden was a grumpy old loser and Ricky Schroeder was a whiny little orphan twerp in this piece of crap. The movie is slow and boring all the way through, not to mention the plot was putrid. I don't recall the music, that's a relief. If for some reason you want adventure Australlian-style, do yourself a favor and rent a "Crocodile Dundee" movie, any of the three, instead of "The Earthling". You'll not regret it at all, mate.


Big disappointment to see how french « cinema d'auteur » does not learn anything of his mistakes. "Sauf le Respect que je vous dois" Is a very scholar movie whose only purpose is to show a complete portfolio of the skills the director's pretending to. The main concern of Fabienne Godet is to prove that, with a little more money, she would be able to shoot in every genre. So, the social movie fast turns into a cheap thriller - with an unjustified gore - scene before sliding towards an investigation movie with dull dialogs. I wonder why Olivier Gourmet came into this thing where you can feel the weight of the large crew behind every camera move. Not only the cinematography is awful and the sets too sophisticated for that kind of story, the director seems to have watched over and over Michael Mann's Insider (2000). Despite different stories, you can sense the influence of this particular Michael Mann movie from the very beginning. But, the better, or the worst, is yet to come... In the middle of the film, the director simply uses Lisa Gerrard's music for the Michael Mann movie, presuming the audience is not only blind but also def. One small advice for Fabienne Godet : don't think Michael Mann's movie are only catalogs of great looking images. It's true the man has an awesome talent but he's also working hard on his scripts.


This film was released in the wake of "Pulp Fiction" et al. It contained Roth (who was in vogue), and dealt with the underworld. It flopped.

In many ways it is not a crowd pleaser. However i has a talented cast, deals with family tribulations well; and has a distinctive style of it's own.


Contemporary Turkish cinema produces 20-30 movies every year (not counting straight-to-video or TV stuff) and about half of them are good, decent movies worth watching. Mehmet Ali Erbil generally is the lead in the other half.

As a golden rule, never watch a movie with Mehmet Ali Erbil. He is not a good actor, has no comedic talent beyond fart jokes, and no sense of appropriateness or decency. He apparently has a following who enjoys to see his torturous TV shows, and ready to pay for more of that crap in movie theaters.

Also, never watch a Turkish comedy that tries to emulate the American ZAZ movies of the 80s. They invariably suck because of poor writing coupled with bad casting.

Finally, to be specific for the ones who are late to take the hint, never see this movie. Actually, forget that this movie existed...


What's the worst movie you've ever seen in your life? Just lie back and think about it. Do you think it's really bad? No! Forget about it. If you really wanna see a bad movie, you have to watch this. Trust me, you'll wonder how a human being can make such a stupid thing. If you have a few extra bucks in your wallet to spend and the only thing to do with this money is watching this movie, just throw the money into the garbage can and walk away. Now, you can ask why do I talk so negative about this movie. I'll tell you why. We have a 50 year man, with wrinkles on his forehead, acting as a teenager. A belly dancer, who do not have any idea about acting, playing as a princess. I'll describe her performance with just one word: "miserable". And the script?!?!? It seems like written by a 10 year old boy. What can I say? Keep away!!!


although main character mehmet ali is a talented actor, he has chosen the worst and easiest way to act in this film. he thinks that this is the right way to reach out to millions but no, not in this film and the last 5 films he has done. i think this is another film which is made just to earn money and pay for his gambling habit. if he goes on to produce these kinds of awful movies, he will be out of business soon. the other main character ozcan deniz is another poor educated actor. his performance was also awful. this movie is supposed to be a comedy but in fact it is just a mess. this guy mehmet ali is doing a comedy show at prime time in one of the Turkish TV networks, and he is making FUN OF DISABLED PEOPLE. this is the way he takes his business seriously. mehmet ali can do anything else than art just for money. i am so sorry for such a loser.

baris unlu


Before I have seen the movie, I thought that it was gonna be a fun movie but I am totally disappointed. The movie sucks!!! It was a terrible terrible version of SHREK with no script at all. My guess is that the script writer saw the movie SHREK and want to make a Turkish copy of it. But I guess he forgot to write the script!!! Why can't they make an original movie??? I don't even know how they find financial support for the movie. There were very good actors with a little appearance and almost no lines. Instead of watching this movie, go find to do something else. Believe me whatever you choose, it will be better than seeing this movie.


First of all, Petek Dinçöz is not actress. She is not singer neither. So, why she plays in this movie? Actually the answer is money. If Dinçöz play in this movie and introduce parts of her body to us and for "art",our wise people will not watch the movie. Yes, they are watching Dinçöz, directors and producers are happy, we, poor cine-maniacs, are sad and mostly angry...

Anyway, lets look bright side, nope, there is not bright side, actually, there is no side neither only bad side, no bad is not right word this film is sucks...

One more think Plese Mr. Erbil, don't act, please


I haven't. It's just a waste of time. From time to time this Mehmet Ali Erbil man comes from nowhere with such stupid movies and takes away all the enthusiasm of the hard working cinema lovers. I definitely hate this man, his movies, and everything about him. Don't try to rationalize his behavior. What he does has no meaningful explanation. He is a very clever man who thinks that we are all stupid. He makes very easy money out of us. He is correct in some way. His narcissistic behavior is encouraged by the Turkish people. I don't believe that anybody at the age of 18 would laugh at him. For the rest he should be avoided.


WTF? This movie was just plain weird. It is about a bunch of people trapped in the living room of a wealthy guy, but there is really no apparent reason why they're trapped in there. Then, some sheep with their eyes covered, and then a bear. A BEAR? Are you kidding me?

Were they just trying to spend someone else's money, or a government grant, or something? If that is the case, great. If not, watch real movies, like any Tyler Perry, or some early Sean Mc Namara (Bratz).

The worst scene involves a massacre over some big stair steps at some weird beach, and a baby cradle falls down. Is that bizarre or what?

Until next time.


An amusingly bad mix of post-Freudian psychology, sleep science, bedeviled women, and naked co-eds. This is a classic adult thriller, meaning that it is not thrilling and is really meant for frustrated teenagers. The acting is periodically horrible, but usually rises to the level of being just awful. The plot (about four students and a professor who conquer their sexual fears while lucid dreaming but--surprise!--meet a mysterious devil-woman in their dreams and must team up to defeat her) is intriguing in the let's-slow-down-and-look-at-the-overturned-tractor-trailer sort of way. Standard pay-TV after-dark fare.


This movie really sucked. From the police response to the bitter end, it was really bad. I can't believe I wasted two hours. How many lines to say it was bad. Yasmine was bad. The villain was good. The police were totally unbelievable. The husband was bad. This must have been a Junior High Project. I can't believe Lifetime showed this. The daughter was bad. The grandmother was bad. Mostly, everything was bad. OK, it looks like I've got six more lines to type. I don't usually care about writing comments about a movie, but I feel so strongly about this being a bad movie that I'm here trying to create drivel about how bad this movie was. The police were so totally unbelievable, ya wanted to gag. Why does it take a restraining order the whole movie to invoke?


It started on the road and probably shouldn't have gone farther. Psycho delivery driver gets fired due to poor driving. Stalks woman who reported him, and her family. I would tell you the ending but technically that would be a spoiler - though nothing could really spoil this cookie cutter predictable attempt. A very UN-thrilling thriller. May attract a few young males hoping to see Yasmine Bleethe in Baywatch attire - but, sorry guys - no bikini today.


This had to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Although the plot was somewhat unique, the acting was certainly predictable in every sense of the word. If you ever get the chance to see this movie, take your family for a drive instead... but don't cut anyone off.


This is a terrible film. It is not funny at all and is both boring and irritating. It is supposed to be a frothy romantic comedy, but it has about as much froth as a glass of beer that has been standing in a cupboard for two weeks. Carole Lombard was unable to save it on her own, despite her talents, and she flails around like a lost parakeet who cannot find her perch. The appalling leading man, Preston Foster, is simply offensive and revolting. If you are looking for a complete failure in this genre, this is it. A basic premise of this film is that it is OK for a pompous man to persecute a girl and try to force his attentions on her to satisfy his lusts and his male vanity. This is supposed to be amusing. The man's self regard is nauseating, and the very concept of this film is utterly loathsome.


The Invaders by Quinn Martin with Roy Thinnes was successful because, in my opinion, we never saw the true form of the alien beings from a dying world.....

There were also certain rules that we learned about what they were and their terrestrial limitations. We learned, for example, that they had taken human form and had to remain in that form while on Earth or they would die. They had been here for untold years before David Vincent's fateful encounter with them one dark night on a lonely road at a deserted diner, thus they had infiltrated positions in society from a prostitute in a bar to positions of power within the Department of Defense. They could be men, women, and even children. Paranoia was rife because one could not be certain that anyone from the paper boy on his bike to a high ranking politician on telly was human. In every way they looked and behaved like normal human beings.

We also learned that the aliens did have limitations that could reveal their identity. Though they had the outward appearance of being human, they were very different inside: They had an irregular skeletal structure, no heart, and no blood; when cut, they would not bleed. An X-ray, blood test, or any number of medical procedures would quickly disclose their less than human nature, however a simple test was just to take a pulse which would give the appearance that they were dead even though they were fully conscious and ambulatory.

They had to regenerate periodically to remain in human form. Only in human form could they breath our weak 20% mixture of oxygen for limited periods of time before they would have to regenerate; pure oxygen would bring on an instant requirement for regeneration. They knew their limitations and would regenerate long before the need became critical. When, on occasion, the need became critical, they would begin to return to their alien form, but since they could not live on Earth in their native form, they would die before the transformation was complete. Either by design or happenstance, they would incinerate at the moment of death in our atmosphere. Before they could turn to their native form, they would begin to glow (an indication that they were dying and that incineration was imminent). Thus they could be killed as easily as any human, but since David Vincent's need was not just to kill them individually, but to have a living specimen to prove to a disbelieving world that they were here and the nightmare had begun, and since their dedication to their purpose and anonymity was greater than their fear of death, he just could never bring off a perfect disclosure.

IN THE FILM VERSION, we were given the hype that this would answer the question of what became of the aliens and David Vincent in the quarter century since the show was terminated without catharsis. The reality was that the only hint of a tie-in was the presence of David Vincent for what amounted to a cameo appearance in the first and second part. They did not have the polished human appearance of those in the series; they looked and behaved like whacked-out zombies and instantly drew suspicion that all was not well. The rules were all changed and they made the mistake of trying to show the aliens in their native form. This killed the mystique and violated the principle that THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE EYE CAN BEHOLD THAT IS AS HORRIFIC AS THAT WHICH CAN BE CONJURED IN THE MIND. With the series, we each had a mental vision of what they looked like that was far more terrifying than the Hollywood magicians could give us at their best, let alone the 1950s style, rubber masked freaks that were offered here.

Artistic infidelity is not just limited to book to film translations. The film version of the classic television series of The Invaders shows that in various media, some things do not lend well to artistic license and should be left in the form for which they were designed.


The Invaders (a Quinn Martin production!) is widely regarded as one of the best sci-fi shows of the sixties or ever. I only ever saw it in re-runs here in England, but I just loved the original show. So imagine my excitement when I started reading in genre magazines that a new Invaders was going to be made. And Roy Thinnes was in!

Oh. Dear.

The pre-credits sequence was actually pretty good. Somewhere out in the desert a huge and interesting-looking mothership is unloading some aliens and stuff, and there watching it all is none other than David Vincent.

And that was the end of any hope of a good series. The rest is quite frankly too bad to detail. The effects were cheesy, it was PAINFULLY slow, and worst of all, Roy Thinnes has a total of about ten minutes screen-time across the first part and then vanishes. So that's it? They get Roy Thinnes to reprise his near-thirty year old role and THAT'S IT!!!

Roy Thinnes as David Vincent was the only reason I was interested in this. Richard Thomas is pretty good - although he still looks about 25 and as if he just wandered off the set of The Waltons.

All in all, give your money to a homeless person, you'll get better returns.


The movie was broadcast, and appears on the commercial VHS release, in two parts. The first has some creepy moments (although they have little to do with the show's '60s incarnation), but the second quickly deteriorates into a simple-minded impending-disaster-on-a-train scenario that just left me cold and probably belonged in another movie. Made more "relevant" for the mid-90s -- by introducing the idea that the aliens were trying to get us to degrade our planet and thus make it habitable for them -- the ecological subtext seems a little knee-jerk ten years later. The acting was competent, although I doubt that Bakula's confused, rather passive protagonist could have sustained an entire series. Not even an interesting failure.


I am a huge fan of "evil aliens" movies, plus I absolutely loved the original TV series from back in the day. So of course I was ready to really enjoy this flick. Egad! What a woofer! Nothing you haven't seen numerous times before -- hey, the premise works! it's entertaining in theory! -- but when you've got such low-quality acting, cheesy effects, a meandering script ... blah! The only thing it had going for it was Richard Belzer practically in a reprise of his "cigarette-smoking man" role in "Puppet Masters." It takes a real conspiracy of incompetence to make a "body-snatchers" themed movie utterly fail, but they managed to achieve it with this one. No surprise they never revived the TV series if this piece of dreck was the pilot.


After enjoying the incomparable Judy Holliday in the musical classic "Bells are Ringing", I was looking forward to seeing her talents in "Full of Life" - a movie that TV Guide gave 3 stars out of 4 and called a "comedy".

This is quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. It was painful to sit through. It's not a comedy by any stretch of the imagination. There are only a few (that's exactly three) mild chuckles in the entire film.

The incredible comic genius of Judy Holliday is completely wasted here. Approaching her 9th month of pregnancy, she respectively smokes, lifts heavy objects, drinks, and flies in an airplane. The Italian relatives in this film are nothing but stereotypes.

The only possibly redeeming value that this movie has (and this is quite a stretch and does not really redeem the movie nor make it any more worth watching) is the slightly advanced thinking in the script that makes Judy's character a scientist (not "just a housewife") and that includes a respectful examination of the meaning that religion has in a marriage. These ideas are quite advanced for a movie from 1956 that claims to be a comedy.

I admit that sometimes one's mood while watching a movie can affect one's opinion of that movie. I accept that "Toy Story 2" (which I also rated as "poor") may not have been as bad as I said it was, considering that I was in a very bad mood while watching it and didn't really want to be there.

That being said, I could win $10,000,000 in the lottery, be jumping for joy, and "Full of Life" would still be a stinker.


The sensitive issue of rape has, over the years, become very formulaic in films. The conflicts of which typically entail a woman bringing her assailant to justice via proving that she was raped despite ample disbelief and even ridicule. Writer/director Douglas Tirola's "A Reason to Believe" is certainly no exception under those circumstances, but stereotypical (and even ostentatious) characterizations of men and women and other situations make this film very unbelievable.

Like many film's that take place in college settings, the characters in Reason who are members of fraternities and sororities are both promiscuous and fond of alcohol and drugs. These pleasures are essentials throughout the Viking party hosted by the Beta fraternity house, at which attendees are scantily clad in togas and drink, get high, and get laid. It is at this party that Charlotte (Allison Smith) is raped by frat boy and friend Jim (Jay Underwood). Since Charlotte's attire wasn't conservative and she was seen dancing with Jim and because she didn't physically struggle with Jim when he raped her, it is not surprising that no one believes her when she claims that his advances were unwanted especially since, by this point, Jim has already bragged to his entire fraternity about his encounter with Charlotte. Among Jim's fraternity brothers is Charlotte's boyfriend Wesley (Danny Quinn), who was not only absent from the party but who also told Charlotte that he didn't want her to attend it for fear that she would look like "fraternity groupie", and the token stoner Potto (Keith Coogan) who actually witnessed the rape but remains mostly quiet about it. After all, who is going to buy his story since he was on drugs at the time? Despite Wesley's jealousy, it is ridiculous that he would be much quicker to believe Jim over Charlotte, but then again, the first time Wesley expresses his love for Charlotte is during a period of sex.

Further stereotypes are noted in Linda (Georgia Emelin) and her campus women's group, which, in many ways, desensitize the issue of rape. As a hardcore feminist, Linda pulls out all the stops for the benefit of her group and most of the women on campus such as demanding that the dean publish a rape victim's police report, voicing her hatred for all fraternities, and even referring to Jim's girlfriend Judith (Kim Walker) as a prostitute during the Viking party. The presence of Linda and her fellow feminists is ironic for after Charlotte is raped, she doesn't contact anyone who either anonymous or bound to confidentiality such as a therapist or law enforcer. Instead, she contacts the campus crisis center and speaks to one of Linda's cohorts who ultimately relays the entire story to Linda who arrogantly uses the incident bring her own women-related issues to the forefront.

The film's greatest flaw is the action that Charlotte decides to take. In an effort to avoid publicity (as if being seen with Linda could that) and time spent in a court of law, Charlotte takes her case to the school's administration board who, despite having no real evidence or feedback from a lawyer (and perhaps to shut Linda up), conclude that Jim actually raped Charlotte. As punishment, Jim is not arrested, but just expelled. I will not deny that this was similar to the ending I would like to have see, but it confines the film too much to a college atmosphere and the absence of people who are neither students nor faculty members doesn't make for a believable story about rape.

I give this film four stars for the actors in it clearly made the most of the material they had to work with and as far as production goes, the crew succeeded in making the most of their low budget. As a first-time writer/director, Tirola's intentions are both sentimental and noble. Unfortunately, the only the believable aspect of this film about rape is the rape itself.


If any research was actually done for this story, it was certainly only on the religious angle because Bill Pullman's astrophysicist is not only a shallow character, but a horribly generic Hollywood depiction of what science is. With the exception of Contact, Hollywood's notion of what a scientist is has been so far from reality, yet Revelations has discovered a new extreme to take it to by contrasting it with a well-researched religious background. Not only does it make the story less compelling, it makes the characters incredibly one-dimensional.

*** SPOILER *** The single clearest example of how badly they've misrepresented science is the idea that they could tell a virgin birth from DNA. While this is true, they already know it's impossible because the baby is male...a woman has no Y chromosome. This is only one of many examples of the oversights from this movie. *** END SPOILER ***

Apart from the poorly researched story (which relegates this tale to at best an entertaining romp through supernatural mumbojumbo), the acting really isn't that great. Bill Pullman's character is about as intellectual as his character in Ruthless People...you know, the one where at the end the police actually say, "This may be the dumbest human being on the face of the earth." Natascha McElhone is good but not really all that different than Sara in Laurel Canyon, which is a far cry from a nun. Michael Massee has gotten better since even the first episode, but for someone supposed to be so evil, he's really not all that horrifying. Besides, he's obviously portraying the smartest character of the bunch (even though that role should be Pullman's), so it's hard not to root for him to beat all the idiots.

Everything about this show is melodramatic, so one might expect it to be somewhat campy. However, having seen the special preview screening as well, it's obvious the writer takes his vision extremely seriously. One could only hope he had done his homework, too. Everything about Revelations falls exceptionally flat, and I would be exceptionally surprised if this series got picked up for a full season next year.


I know there are a wide range of tastes in entertainment out there, but this show is PAINFULLY bad. It is the writing, acting, and direction that make this so awful. In any given year there has to be one show that is the worst of the lot, but this show may well hold that distinction for the entire decade. I stumbled onto this while trying to find something that was similar to other shows that I do like, such as Carnivale, which is also an apocalyptic tale with overt religious content. I also LOVE David Selter's "The Omen" and one or two of its sequels. Plus I have enjoyed Bill Pullman's work in other programs and movies. Sadly, neither Seltzer or Pullman seemed to have exerted any special effort on this throw-away. "The end is Here," to which I add "and not soon enough!"


I do have to agree with Don that this movie was bad but since I'm a firm believer of the second coming Christ and have been a born again Christian all my life you'd think I'd really love this movie guess what NOPE I DIDN"T IT FREAKING SUCKED COW BALLS!!! I was really hoping this movie was going to be about revelations and go with the story exactly with action none of these movies ever have action or major apocalyptic war scenes.

Instead it was the producers and director's ideas that made this movie turn into another full piece of crap Movie. Just like the 7th sign with Demi Moore GOD OH GOD Why does Hollywood always have to change things for what they believe is the better way make a film about the end times WHY? In the long run no matter what! If you don't go by what the story exactly like the book it's going to be a flop or a piece of CRAP! P.S.: How about Peter Jackson directing a movie about Revelations man that would be amazing with his studios talent behind him with the story they could make a big awesome Action/Drama I know Action/Drama you say? It could be done heck anything can be done now a days the 2005 movie year was one of Hollywood worst years! I have to stop talking or I'll never hit the hay.


This is quite possibly the worst show I have ever seen in a long time. Don't get me wrong, I don't watch TV to be properly informed about what is going on in the world or to try and figure out the inner secrets of the existentialism. I watch TV for what it is, pure entertainment. You should know that by now, and before I digress... I had to force myself to sit there and watch all six episodes. The script is absolutely horrible and only an idiot wouldn't see that it's chock full of painfully obvious plot holes which they try and cover up with lots of quotes from the bible. I have to admit when I first saw Fred Durst, I wasn't really sure if that was really him, I think I spent more time trying to figure out if it that was really him or not than I did trying to figure out how this show would end. The two main characters remind me of a show I once saw a while back, oh yeah, it was called X-Files. The always doubtful scientist paired with the always believing believer. I mean they should have just called this X-Files 2 or something, it's that painfully obvious they are ripping it off, and I'm not even an X-Files fan. The worst part of this whole show is that they waste 200 hours of your life just to lead into episode six which is supposed to tie in all the clues from 1-5 together and while they do, its very clumsily done. If you hadn't figured out by the end of episode one what's going to happen 2-5 and after watching those episodes what would happen in episode six, you probably enjoyed this show. You may as well watch the Stand. Though that had a much better story line to it as it was based off an actual book and it had something called a "plot".


A ridiculous poorly made mini-movie about Revelations and Science. It's poor science fiction, if that what intended. Direct portrayal of contention between Religion vs. Science is in poor taste for a national network even if done vaguely or for fiction. But there is nothing vague about Religion vs. Science in this mini.

My first instinct was that NBC has gone evangelical. But then reason took over. No NBC is pandering to the religious and religious right for ratings. Shame on NBC anyway for a bad plot and schlock! The only thing NBC has going for it are all the L&O's. NBC's High Definition is the best but is wasted on Leno.


This is typical of a lot of modern pseudo-religious fiction, which unfortunately gets taken as gospel by a lot of ignorant people. Like the silly "rapture" books and Hal Lindsey's books about Revelations, it fans the flames of Christian fundamentalism.

People have been claiming that the end of the world is at hand beginning immediately with the followers of Jesus. His surviving disciples expected his return in their lifetime, and so it goes. Every hundred years and especially every 1000 years, there has been a huge upsurge in these beliefs.

If you can ignore the religious propaganda, the series is an OK mystery adventure story.