Alot of the negative criticism this movie has gotten seems to concentrate on the wigs. Personally I don't think that's got anything to do with why the movie isn't good. The wigs didn't bother me at all actually. Overall I thought the whole production seemed quite serious and it looked good to me and didnt detract from the movie.

The thing that puts this movie down is the script and directing. It's absolutely terrible. And I'm not kidding here. It seems like something I wrote back in fourth grade. And the way they try to put humour into it. It's pretty hilarious, not due to the jokes, but due to it being so utterly ridiculous.

And it's not particularly true to that age either. I mean people didn't call the plague "the plague" back then. They called it the "big death". Also they had no idea that the rats were the ones spreading the disease either so there's no reason for the characters of the movie to fear the rats so much.

I dont really know what this movie wants. It seems like half of the time they're trying to have a history lesson and the other they're trying to be funny. And inbetween they're just riding on horses. There's no red line connecting it at all. I'll admit it gave me a few laughs but that was mostly due to the horses having so short legs making them look ridiculous when they galloped. But all in all this isn't a movie to see if your not a moviebuff like myself.

3/10


This was the first Swedish movie (except Josef Fares' movies and Vuxna Människor) that I saw from the beginning to the end. Not because it was exciting or incredibly interesting, but because our extremely boring Swedish teacher forced my class to see it.

After have seen Tre Solar I have also come to the conclusion that she also had extremely bad taste.

Why Tre Solar is awful: 1. The script was probably printed on an A3-paper, there are approximately 3 lines in this movie. 2. The props is horrible, maybe because of the low budget or a lack of inspiration. 3. The actors are showing a complete lack of knowledge about acting.

All of this results in Tre Solar being an excruciating horrible and sad, sad movie.

It is also sad to see that splendid actors such as Rolf Lassgård and Rikard Wolf chose to participate in this movie.


Kyle (Jack Wagner) is a police officer who doesn't seem to have any partner but his crime-fighting dog, Hunter. The adorable canine loves doughnuts as much as the next man in blue but truly is talented at sniffing out trouble. One night, Kyle and Hunter are tracking an outlaw when the dog runs ahead of his partner. With an evil glint in his eye, the bad guy shoots the poor dog and mortally wounds him. Although Kyle takes him to his usual vet (Daphne Zuniga), Hunter doesn't make it, making both owner and doc weep profusely. However, a short time later, Kyle is surprised and delighted to find that the "ghost" of hunter is haunting his digs and trying to communicate with him. Trotting off to a medium, Kyle participates in a seance that virtually drives the dog's spirit into the seer's adult male son. From that moment, the young man acts like a dog but speaks English and tries to offer advice on how to catch the villain who shot him. Can they find the evil one? This movie is just ridiculous. The idea of a ghost dog is not bad but to have him inhabit the body of a human and parade around like a character from the Jungle Book is simply stupid. Wagner, however, is a looker and so is Zuniga so there's that. Also, when the dog himself is on the screen or his friends, animal lovers will be happy as well. The sets, costumes and production values are fine but nothing makes up for the preposterous premise. That said, if you love animals and or cool looking guys, you might want to get this one for an evening's diversion. But, it is almost a certainty that you will never watch the blasted thing again.


We couldn't tell if this movie was designed for little kids or kids and undemanding adults. It was a mess for sure. Kiddie plot, grainy and cheap production values and a lot of very bad overacting. Daphne Zuniga and Jack Wagner actually looked embarrassed to be there. Even for PAX-TV this was a low-brow entry. It looked more like a Disney Channel Saturday morning show.


I was duped into thinking that this was an actual movie. Had I known it was a tv-movie I would have spent the $2.50 rental fee elsewhere. The jacket of the movie made it look like it'd be funny...but I was WRONG! I didn't even laugh once during the entire flick and I'm a person who laughs during a funny movie, even if its as stupid as watching Wiley E. Coyote blowing himself up!

Others may say this is a good family movie, but I wouldn't even let my own kids watch this movie!


I don't think anyone who watches this movie or who actually pays attention to the world around them would argue that Fox News is truly "fair and balanced." This documentary sets out to prove in numerous ways how Fox News is a well rehearsed, talking-points-fed propaganda arm for the right wing.

The problem is not with the message but with the film-making. This movie is a glorified Power Point presentation. And thats putting it nicely. Most of the footage from Fox News is not even taken from broadcast quality sources but rather DVRs and clips from the internet. It looks and sounds HORRIBLE. The graphics (which is the bulk of the movie) are cheap, tacky, cheesy, and totally lessen the impact of the important points that are often being made.

I realize that those on the fringe, seeking change are not very popular and thus won't have millions to make a glossy movie. But that does not mean that if you take your time, plan, and above all be creative, you can't make a good movie. And thats the problem, this movie is all message and no craft. And to me, that sort of negates the purpose of documentaries. Because if it was ONLY about the message, then write an editorial in a major newspaper. Documentary film-making is about combining message and style, and using the two to heighten and sharpen one another. None of that happens here. I made stuff in high school with fart jokes in it shot on VHS that was better than this.


This was a pretty bad movie. I'm a political liberal, I hate Fox News for reasons that go beyond their political viewpoint, and I like documentaries - and still I thought this was a pretty bad movie. It's guilty of a few of the tricks it picks on Fox for using (fast graphics meant to "wow" and confuse) and adds a few others to the arsenal (interviewing mostly people whose views of Fox may be tainted by personal grudge; taking quotes from news shows out of context; using montages rather than quantitative data to sway the audience). Furthermore, nothing they said was newsworthy - Fox is conservative? Bill O'Reilly is a self-righteous jerk? Who would've guessed?? And the filming technique just wasn't interesting at all - the only "interesting" thing was the complete absence of any directorial narration, and that was the bad kind of interesting. If you find yourself inspired to go see it, donate the $7 it'd cost you to a left-wing think tank instead and save yourself the ninety minutes of vague annoyance and boredom.


First of all, let me just say I can't stand Fox News. I think it's nothing but right-wing propaganda and a shameful excuse for journalism. I also think a documentary exposing Fox's hypocrisy is much needed, but this one is an extremely poor effort.

Frankly, I am SHOCKED at the amount of people rating this movie a 9 or 10. People, these ratings are supposed to be based on the QUALITY of the movie, not the ideas it stands for. And quality is one thing this movie lacks. For starters, the interviews are the worst I've ever seen. They are poorly lit, and consist of nothing but the same talking heads over and over again, which becomes really tiresome. The graphics and music are painfully cheesy. The sound quality is horrible, the dialogue is usually out of synch, and even the clips from Fox News look extremely poor, like they've been taken straight from the Internet. The entire movie looks and feels a high school film project at best, and (as another user pointed out) a Powerpoint presentation at worst. I understand it's on a low budget, but the fact that the director has a career going back decades makes the lack of style or creativity especially outrageous. You'd think in all that time he'd have learned a thing or two about, say, lighting a shot.

Technical stuff aside, even the movie's basic argument (Fox is biased and unfair in its reporting) is weak. I never thought the day would come when I'd be defending Fox News, but it has to be said that many of the clips are taken out of context or otherwise distorted. For example, most of the scenes of anchors spouting wild opinions are taken from Fox's political talk shows. Fox has NEVER claimed these shows are to be seen as news, but that's what the movie keeps implying. It's as unfair as anything Fox has ever reported.

An even better example of the blatant distortion is when they show Bill O'Reilly responding to criticism that he always tells his guests to "shut up." O'Reilly says this only happened once, and this is followed by a montage of him yelling "shut up!" at different times. Well, that's very clever, except that in almost all of these instances he's not actually talking to a guest. We even see the infamous moment where he yelled at Al Franken on a book tour, which had NOTHING to do with Fox News AT ALL. Do all these clips indicate that O'Reilly is an obnoxious moron? Sure. Does it indicate that he's lying about only telling a guest to shut up once? Nope. Just the opposite, in fact.

The movie has some good points to make, and occasionally does so effectively, but the overall distortion, low quality, lack of narration, and complete lack of a sense of humor bring this one down. I suspect that the people rating this so highly were either directly involved with the making of the movie, or are just flakes who will jump at the chance to support anything remotely anti-right. Ignore the hype; this is simply a bad movie. 4/10 stars.


I enjoyed watching this documentary, which was essentially a list of left-wing personalities beating up on Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. Their point was that Fox is not objective and pushes a right-wing agenda.

The film was interesting and I liked hearing about the internal memos they were able to put together. The confrontation between O'Reilly and Jeremy Glick was also interesting, and I had not seen that before to the best of my recollection.

The documentary is flawed, however. Flawed primarily by a low budget (the editing and graphics are very amateur), but two major problems come to mind. First, it is clearly aimed at a liberal audience. While this will make the target audience (including me) happy, it will teach them very little. Most of the facts are not shocking to those on the left.

But more importantly, the film sets out to show Fox News bias. It succeeds in this, but also shows us an intense bias of its own. I do not feel any facts were altered or left out, but a "documentary" with thirty or so prominent liberals talking about Fox without a single pro-Fox person to make a statement seems very poor. Had a few Fox people been interviewed, the film would have been much stronger. Why attack something that can't fight back? But it's not a bad film, and you should see it before Bush leaves office and the film loses relevance. I saw it for free as a free rental to go with "Amelie", maybe you might consider the same.


This movie is certainly not what you would call a well constructed Documentary film. It is very clear in it's motives and I guess succeeds in keeping the viewer entertained throughout the entire Movie. I wouldn't go so far as comparing it to Michael Moore's way of commenting through film, but it tends to take that direction at times.

That being said, it is still, unfortunately, a Movie Americans should watch and take to heart. Because at the core of it all it's not about politics, the movie makers are (hopefully) not trying to berate Fox News for being Right Wing. What is important about this movie and what should be important to every American, left, right, center, black, white, Hispanic, is that this is the way Journalism is nowadays in the States. And that this kind of Journalism SHOULD NOT BE SUPPORTED. It doesn't matter if it's CNN or NBC or FOX. You DO NOT! invite Guests onto your show and then cut off their Microphones when they voice an opinion that is different to your own. You DO NOT! deny your studio guests the right to speak. You DO NOT! DO NOT! DO NOT! put your Opinion in front of the facts. Never ever ever ever... That is not Journalism, and deserves to be removed from the Air for all eternity. It is unprofessional, insensitive Manipulation of FACT! And let's face it, it's an Outrage. It makes me as a viewer feel like an idiot, because I am being pushed very unsubtly into an opinion which may not even be mine. And that should NEVER be the case on any Newsprogramm anywhere.

The Problem with a film like this is that it raises too much emotion to be really taken seriously. The Left will cheer it to high heavens, even though it is neither a good film, nor an unbiased representation of facts. And the Right will see it as "Left-wing Propaganda Rubbish" and not see behind the facade through to the real issue at hand. If everyone would watch this movie, take a second to think about what they feel, and then take out of it the message that rings true to them, this movie will have had the effect a journalistic piece should have, even though I doubt that is the effect it was aiming at.

I have been a supporter of our President for the entirety of his term, I share a lot of the views Fox News is trying to convey, heck sometimes I even share the same Opinion that O'Reilly does, and do think some of his guests should just shut up. But I wanna decide whether or not I switch of the news. But a journalist should have his pride, a journalist should show some class. It is NOT the Job of a News Corporation to make this decision for you.


I really loved the first seasons of the Simpsons, but I think their humour is not fresh anymore. This episode is another proof. The magic that The Simpsons had was trasfering into scene simple situations of the everyday life but in a funny way. The new chapters are about extravagant situations which make no sense at all. The Ronaldo dialogue is annoying, the chapter has a lot of emphasis on a boring online game. Then we have the typical opinions of the writers about various subjects like Christopher Colombus discovery being insignificant or football making whole continents insane, those are also quite annoying, specially because of the emphasis they are given.


This episode seemed weak and far fetched.

We follow Marge Simpson who have discovered an online roleplaying game called Earth Realms. Soon she discovers that almost every single inhabitant of Springfield plays that exact game, and that her son is a highly feared villain in the game.

This part is absurd in many ways and bare very little resemblance to how real online roleplaying games are played. This makes a mockery of the younger audience, who can easily see that the script writers doesn't waste time on research. Of course you can say that since it is a satiric comedy primarily for adults, it does not have to be accurate. But I fail to see why not. They could easily have made the same story portraying a real MMORG (Massive multiplayer roleplaying game) without using every cliché in the book.

In this episode we also follow Lisa Simpson who have found a liking for football (soccer for you Americans). Homer Simpson steps in as a referee and all kind of hysterical comedy ensues... That is if you think that showing an stereotypical American who doesn't understand the rules of football is funny. This part is even more absurd. The only thing we get out of it is, that it is important to play fair and that European football is tainted by violent supporters. Brazilian football star Ronaldo appears as a guest star, but that is both unnecessary and not funny at all. One has to ask why he is there at all. He bares no real significance to the storyline, and he is so out of place that one has to wonder if the writers just wanted somebody famous to be in the show.

The whole episode fails miserably to deliver on the comedy side, and all we get is a quaint and poorly written episode that portraits both online role playing games and football in an inept and naive way, lacking the usual finesse and relevance.


I, like several others, was inspired to write my first review because of this film's blatant failure to deliver.

Having been treacherously lured into watching this film by some of my "friends" with the premise of its potent quality, I was genuinely shocked at how disappointing and frankly boring it was.

Let us clarify something. What constitutes a "good" or "bad" movie is quite relative. However, *all* good movies share basic elements that provide the foundation for making them good. Superior movies introduce these elements with such dynamic tension and intensity that it truly sets them apart from inferior movies. For example, some of these elements can be "conflict" or "character progression" or even "resolution of said conflict through a character's progression" (the possibilities are endless!) This movie was lacking these elements. The plot is so terribly vacant that there is simply no conflict. Nearly all the events are unjustified or left unexplained.

What begins as a somewhat interesting premise turns flat and dull early on. The big "shock" being that the two conflicted sides of Good and Evil are not so different is quite cliché and ordinary by today's standards. Decent movies that have touched on this idea at least possessed the ability to convey that message indirectly with added tension and development of suspense, where as this movie has its characters simply blurting out this intended message because the incoherent plot fails to do so.

The biggest problem is that the large scale conflicts are not felt. There is no clear dispute between good and evil. There are no more than four or five characters for each Dark or Light whom have absolutely no character development or substance and constantly give the impression of always being replaceable. The "big" apocalyptic event is simply solved by a 29 Year old virgin saying, "I did it." Ummm...WHAT?!?!? It doesn't make sense. It really doesn't.

There are so many smaller plot holes that are never answered its ridiculous. At the end of this movie I find myself asking, "What was the point?"


This is by far the most awful movie I have ever seen. Not a single scene made at any sense at all, everything was rushed and confusing, no one explained the world of the story besides "there's a war going on between night watchers and day watchers". The picture was out of focus all the time, the music was really distracting.

Every detail in Nochnoy Dozor we have already seen, most of the times much better. I'm talking about Lord of the rings, the Matrix, Blade, Constantine, the X-Files, Star Wars ... This movie is not independent or new and I definitely won't watch its sequels.

Why did it get so good ratings and reviews? Must be because it's a Russian production ...


This film is the worst film of the year so far.

The whole film seems rather disjointed and is unbelievably dull.

It consists of bad written script and broken storyline, poor soundtrack, too many bad quality special effects, humble acting.

I have read the book after watching a movie and got some clues about the original plot. Book is excellent, but it does not make a film better. I guess film only was based on the book, and truly fails to deliver any storyline.

I would say most of you could skip "Nochnoj dozor" and save your time and money.

So Bad It Hurts!


I'm sure this was a better movie in its native language but when dubbed in English it's impossible to understand. Either it's very abstract or the director and all the actors are completely stoned out of their minds, the movie is like a neverending seizure with cuts every two seconds and a poorly explained story involving (from what I can discern) crazy Russian vampires and some epic struggle between light and dark...

I watched this at night with a good friend who was equally unimpressed, and we still have no idea what this movie is about. The whole time I just wanted it to end. Please never watch this, I actually consider this the worst movie ever made.

Unbearable. 1/10


Night Watch is a low budget Russian vampire movie that depicts the eternal battle of good and evil in modern day Moscow. Centuries after a truce between two opposing forces there is a risk that an 'Other' or gifted human (anyone seen Neo?) will tip the balance of power. As with the vampire movie Underworld there are forces that prevent the battle from spilling over into the real world. The Day Watch are vampires assigned to police their brethren who disguise themselves as Adidas tracksuit wearing chavs who drive Audi TTs and aspire to be pop stars (the UK is full of Vampires!). The Night Watch must step in to prevent evil forces from doing harm to innocent humans. The special effects in the movie are decent and one would be forgiven for mistaking the movie as a Hollywood title at times. However, there are other instances when it looks as though the movie is being acted out by a bunch of friends in a warehouse or derelict flat. The cheap grainy feel is likely to be part of the desired Gothic, art house effect so many will however enjoy its raw non glossy appeal. Whilst most sci fi/ horror fans will be instantly attracted to the story there is not a great deal of depth to the plot or characters and there is the strong feeling that you are being set up for sequel. The movie also moves very slowly at times and the surreal action can be confusing. Whilst some would argue that this adds complexity and intrigue it cant really mask the lack of depth in the story line or characters and will not somehow make it more interesting than it really is. The special effects also often seem to be on display rather than interwoven with plot. There is an interesting end to the movie but the film has been dragged out for too long by its conclusion for you to care. Overall an interesting movie that is likely to herald the start of a potentially significant contribution from Russia to the international action genre but as a stand alone entity it is average at best.


This movie is way over-hyped. I tried to get into it twice before I finally forced myself to watch it all the way through. I understand why it was noticed in America, though. It's presented like a typical Hollywood sandwich: one side slathered with sloppy special effects, the other with fast-paced action sequences. Drop The Matrix, Saw, and Underworld in a blender and this is what you get.

The story feels contrived and is too convoluted for its own good. Many of the scenes are loosely connected to one another, making the story hard to follow. Using existing mythological archetypes (vampires, witches, etc.) is a fine attempt at helping the audience accept the other world presented by the story, but cracks at freshness are mostly failures. Nothing in this movie feels original.

I don't hate this movie, but I don't think it's worth watching either. I've seen it done before and I've seen it done better.


Like most viewers who saw the English theatrical trailer of Night Watch, they too may have been enthralled by the horror and action. Possibly one of the better story lines of the genre; I loved the idea of the balance between light and dark/good and evil, the special effects at times where pretty cool, the twist was unexpected (to me at least) and the way it sets up the sequels is also commendable. But, whether or not the filming company neglected to give the required amount of money to make this movie a blockbuster annoys me. The cinematography was a huge let down; no special angels or dark contrast, although the startwas OK, but a bit too nice for me. A horror needs to be scary at all times. Also, guns would have been good.

Overall, the storyline would have truly transformed this trilogy into an epic, but whether it was lack of funds or lack of cameras, this was the biggest let down I can remember. Until there is a remake by someone like Peter Jackson or Ridley Scott with $100m in funding, the potential brilliance of this film will remain hidden.


****Minimal Spoilers here***********

What is it about some movies that make me want to write an essay about them? Some are so good, some are the opposite. Night Watch is of the latter kind. It sucks and it took me three trials to finish it since I kept falling asleep and having to restart it. It has so many bad qualities in a high-end-should've-been-good production that it makes me mad. A director given in Russian cinema standards- major resources and he comes up with this quagmire.

The plot line is muddled, dumb and makes no sense. It's not that I did not 'get it'. I do get it. It's just that the basic story here is old and worn about the battle of good and evil. Well, OK, we can make something interesting with that. However we move into two subplots about a cursed woman who is bringing a vortex down to earth. Why? Who the hell knows. More lame is the 'climax' for this vortex story line. If that is not the definition of an anti-climax I do not know what is. We also have the vampire-seduced kid plot line that seems to wind around and around before the ultimate non-climax. Along the way we meet mini-characters. I say 'mini' because we know little to nothing about them and then they are gone. I would've loved to see more of the blood drinking butcher, even a little deeper insight into Olga the owl would've been interesting. Other incidents that beg some logical questions, why did the power station explode so fast after what's-his-name got the news about his mommy? How on earth did the power come back on after that huge explosion? Maybe Texas power sent Moscow some like they did NY last year? How about the singer and her skinny crony? What exactly was their role? What about the crazy plane that was pretty much crashing, barely feet from the ground, and then we don't see it till the disaster is averted and it lands safely some 20 minutes later? It felt like Mr. Bekmambetov (Mr. B) was going too fast to bother with tiny details

I would've given this a better review even with the huge plot ADD had it been better filmed. Sure we get some very good CGI here and there. Unfortunately the insane pace of cutting from one shot to the next when there's action going on will cut on anyone's enjoyment and attention. I almost got a headache in that last lame duel between Anton (was that a neon light he was wielding????!!) and Zavulon. This movie also features one of the worst battle sequences using swords, starting from the very first one on the bridge. Probably because the average shot duration is 0.2 seconds and you have no idea whose doing who as blood is shed. For tutoring on how a bloody good sword battle is filmed Mr. B. needs to see Braveheart a few times. He even uses this lightning-speed editing during character shape-shifting for heaven's sake! Who told him this is a good artistic tool?

Does it have any saving grace? Not really, but two things do standout. One is the dynamic subtitles that shape shift and change depending on the mood, narrator, noise level and scene content. Pretty neat. The other is a single shot that was deliberate and well executed. It is a tracking shot that follows a screw as it comes loose from an airplane and falls, falls all the way down to its final destination in a woman's coffee cup in a building under the aforementioned vortex. Even this shot does not serve any purpose but itself. It is cool, but nothing more than an extra. Night Watch would've made a tighter and more enjoyable film in the hands of a better director and script writer. As it is, it's a waste of time and money.


One of the least interesting in the James Bond series, Moonraker is big and dumb and bears no resemblance to the superb thriller penned by Ian Fleming. This is the movie where Bond goes into space to prevent madman Hugo Drax from destroying human kind with the poison from orchids (in the novel Drax only wanted to destroy London with a rocket). Idiocy is rife throughout, from Drax's comical henchmen notably Jaws (who was menacing in The Spy Who Loved Me) to Space shuttles that blast off at a moments notice as though it's as easy as taking off in a Cessna. There's also Drax's space station that is invisible from radar (yes, but optical telescopes and the naked eye don't require radar). The increasing globe trotting nature of the nutty Q (Desmond Llewellyn) is quite absurd also, remember way back in the early Bond's when he was just a common functionary in the bowels of the secret service building. The best scenes are the free fall moments from a plane in the pre-title sequence, Bond's spin (literally) in a centrifuge machine and the death of Hugo Drax's secretary (who Bond has bedded) at the hands of some vicious mastiffs - a scene that is a bit jarring amongst the rest of the campy and less serious than usual action scenes. Those that enjoy the zany and campy such as the 60's Batman and Dean Martin's Matt Helm movies may love this but the Bond character (and the situations)are too far removed from Fleming's version for any satisfaction.


Why did anyone involved with this wonderful franchise allow this trite to be filmed? Why couldn't someone with a conscience have burned the final print before it was released? Why did they allow Roger Moore to continue playing Bond when he was over 50??

If you haven't gotten the picture yet, this is, by far, the absolute worst of the series. There are a few decent scenes, but, let's face it, the whole space station battle thing was idiotic. Then, there's Jaws. He went from a terrifying villain to a comedic sidekick. The acting is horrendous on all fronts, the story is horrible (read the book by Fleming, which has a much more insidious, believable plot), and, unfortunately, it's the last one Bernard Lee (M) is in. DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE.


This has to be the most ridiculous James Bond movie i have ever seen. The thing that made it so revolting was the scenes with Jaws and finding that girl and the premise that he goes from trying to kill Bond and then becomes his friend was so bad. And stealing a space shuttle gave the impression that the producers wanted to give a futuristic spin on the series and it flopped big time. Thank God they got back on track with For Your Eyes Only. An excellent plot driven movie. I skipped seeing Moonraker for a long time cause i heard it was awful, i wished i never saw it because it was 10 times worse than i thought it would be! So take my advice, skip this movie at all costs and see For Your Eyes Only or Man With The Golden Gun instead.


Anyone who thinks this is the best or even one of the best Bond films is in love with Roger Moore or didn't see the other 20 films. It may have been highly regarded when it came out, but compared to the others in the series it is quite weak. Michael Lonsdale had a lot of potential as Drax. Why does he have a English accent? He is German in the book! They could have at least got that right. I liked Jaws more as a murder machine in TSWLM. I do not like Bond in space at all. Lois Chiles is possibly the most boring Bond girl in the series, and such stiff acting! I put this one lower than the Man With The Golden Gun (Christopher Lee was ten times better as a villain than Lonsdale). In the bottom 5 in the series (not the worst mind you, that belongs to Die Another Day or A View To A Kill). This movie may have been quite good if they had stayed close to the book. I doubt Moore could have played Bond though if that happened.


The first law of storytelling says that you need a conflict in order to have a story. The question in this film is whether there is enough conflict to maintain sufficient interest through a feature-length production. The film never goes much beyond the basic premise - kids trek into the wild, kids get lost in the wilds, one gets injured. There is more drama and intrigue to the average Readers Digest real-life crisis feature than there is on display here.

The scenery is easily the star of the show, and is not always shown to best effect. The scenes of interaction with dangerous animals are badly handled, and the result is strictly a by-the-numbers job. Unless you particularly like one of the actors or simply must see every film in this genre, there isn't much to recommend this.


wow. I have to say that this movie was the biggest let down in my life. after hearing on websites that this movie was gritty and gory and all this other good stuff, I went to check it out at the rental store. after seeing 2 minutes of this episode I was utterly utterly disappointed and ashamed. the English dub sounds like a cheap 70's porno, the animation looks like a bunch of junior high kids got together some day and drew this crap up, keep in mind that this came out in 93, only 2 years before ghost in the shell. the story , oh my goodness! it makes no sense! from little gray people showing up out of nowhere and with no explanation to what they are, to babies coming out of statues, the only reason I saw the whole thing was hoping that some action scene would save this holy piece of bad anime crap. never ever ever watch urotsukidoji... do yourself a favor and go rent yourself Akira or Mononoke..please


This movie was so bad, I can't explain it in words. The movie just shows a monster that rapes a woman and some nuclear bombs flying through the air. I hated the first Urotsukidoji, but this one really SUCKS!


Was there something in the water in 1979? I was reading up recently about some of the films that major movie stars made in 1979 and it is remarkable how many actors were busy wasting their talents on duds in that year. Michael Caine in Beyond the Poseidon Adventure; Laurence Olivier in Dracula; Roger Moore in Escape to Athena; Jason Robards in Hurricane; Peter Cushing in A Touch of the Sun; Donald Sutherland in Bear Island; James Mason and Anthony Quinn in The Passage; Robert Shaw and Lee Marvin in Avalanche Express; and Richard Harris in A Game For Vultures. Even some directors seemed to be affected by the curse of 1979 - Steven Spielberg, for instance, made his only fully-fledged turkey in the shape of "1941". The '79 trend for big stars in bad films also extended to Sean Connery. Poor old Sean's 1979 film, Meteor, is a disaster movie of stupefying awfulness.

It is revealed that a huge meteor is on collision course with earth, so big that unless it is diverted or destroyed its impact could cause another Ice Age. The American president (Henry Fonda) instructs professor Dr. Paul Bradley (Sean Connery) to figure out how to blast the meteor to bits by using secret nuclear weapons positioned in orbit above the earth. However, Dr. Bradley soon calculates that the American weapons alone will not halt the meteor. The Russians are brought in and informed of the potential destruction of the world as we know it and, in a race against time, the Americans try to persuade them to admit that they too have space-based nuclear missiles which could be added to the strike.

The special effects are remarkably poor for a post Star Wars sci-fi film, but the film fails on many other levels too. None of the actors look enthusiastic about being here; Ronald Neame and Stanley Mann's script is full of idiotic dialogue and plot contrivances; excitement is persistently undermined by interminable talky scenes; and the characterisation is so ludicrous that it makes you want to grind your teeth with despair. Soon after this, disaster movies came to an end, not to be seen again until their special effects-enhanced re-emergence in the mid-1990s. When you see Meteor, you'll immediately understand why the genre self-destructed.


You can tell what sort of movie this is by the way the music changes depending on whether we're looking at the (extremely phallic) American or Russian missiles; whether we're watching them changing aim, whether we're watching them launch, whether we're watching them run out of fuel, whether we're watching them approaching the asteroid or strike it in a cataclysmic 'strobe' effect or whether we're just watching them gleam in space. And the bi-national musical themes sort of merge when the missiles join up together. All the while there is helpful large lettering on the control centre monitors, telling you which missile-launching satellite is slowly going through its motions. There's also an unmistakable deep synthesiser fnaaaar-fnaaarp to indicate that we're watching the asteroid. Asteroid, mind you, not meteor. The meteor got killed in the first reel. So the missiles are the actual stars of this cross between Battlestar Galactica and Paint Drying: The Final Reckoning. The message must be that 'nuclear missiles are actually capable of doing a lot of good, given the right circumstances'. I suppose a lot of people, apart from the scriptwriter, worked really hard to get this film to the screen. It's unfortunate that the costume designer really did a number on Sean Connery, who doesn't let the impending end of the world interfere with his attempts to score with the (no disrespect to Miss Wood) somewhat mumsy Russian translator. Mind you, when you're locked up in those command centers underneath New York you tend to get a bit, er, undiscriminating. And Karl Malden keeps his Trilby hat on as long as he can. Other reviewers have pointed out the occasional sparkly bits in this terrible movie, but it's a shame the only enjoyment to be had is in picking it apart. I gave it a 'two' because I was thinking, 'if the asteroid is in space, it's weightless - so why do they need 20 hundred-megaton warheads to divert it?', and then in a flash I understood the theory of relativity. Darn! I hope I didn't spoil relativity for you!


This is cheesier than a cheese-o-phile's toenails, and if it wasn't so darned boring in most scenes, would actually be almost entertaining. Unfortunately, ten minute plus scenes of overpaid actors watching 70s style monitors in silence does not make for riveting drama. And the uh 'special' effects? These resemble nothing more than a cohort of marital aids taped together and heading woozily space-ward. They uh, don't look very real - as the 'artist' hadn't twigged the concept of 'weathering' at that stage - making models look realistically aged and grimy. Still we do have the spectacle of Karl Malden having a severe hair malfunction during the 'money' shot when the Hudson river, or what looks like either (a) chocolate soup, or (b) sewage, engulfs the assembled anti-Meteorites. Helpfully, Sean Connery is on hand to help Karl sweep back that 'repartino' and dignity is restored. Great for those of us older folk who have trouble sleeping, I struggled to stay awake to watch this over the course of three evenings and felt greatly refreshed for weeks afterwards. Q - another hair featurette - isn't Martin Landau's hair a wee bit on the uh, longish side for a serving U.S. officer??


Has a number of scenes that easily meet requirements to be spoofed by MST3K. Best example: Landau throws a child-like temper-tantrum in the control center, threatening not to come back until he has full control of the goings-on. Plus, a lot of the dialog is simplistic, cartoon-like, i.e. not very realistic at all. There are a number of fallacies and absurd situations: 1) Connery says the 5-mile meteor will have the power of 250,000,000 tons of TNT (or 250,000?); either way that would be an understatement. But okay; I'm nit-picking, 2) Less nit-pickingish is calling the potential impact (only!) ten times stronger than the strongest earthquake; it's more like a million times stronger, 3) It's impossible to redirect a meteor when it's only days away from impact (again, nit-picking, or maybe they didn't know that then - though I doubt that), 4) it isn't possible to destroy a meteor that big (and that fast) with a series of nuclear hits, 5) One of the space centers only discover a big one going towards NY when it's just minutes away from impact! What were they doing, sleeping? 6) And does it have to hit NY of all places? Why do these meteors and asteroids always aim for the well-known cities? 7) It should have been more devastating; they showed it's impact to be more like that of a huge earthquake than a meteor, 8) the absurdity that governments would actually think about politics when the future of the entire planet is at stake - and that they actually need convincing that warheads need to be used?! The film is also quite slow.


The name Samuel Z Arkoff appears first on the credits. This could be interesting or it could be terrible. Keep watching. The cast includes Sean Connery, Natalie Wood, Brian Keith, Karl Malden, Martin Landau, Trevor Howard and Henry Fonda. Now there is a decent bunch of actors, all usually good value. Keep watching. Directed by Ronald Neame, a distinguished British director by any standards. And then follows a disaster of a disaster film.

There is a strange dichotomy between the high quality of the cast and the low quality of the other elements in the film. The painfully meagre special effects, the shrill music, the leaden plot. It seems a strange brew and even a reviewer like myself who will always try to pick out some good points in a film am at a loss. The thing that distracted me the most was that the meteor itself, a wide lump of pitted and gruyered rock seemed to have a sound effect, like an engine! Perhaps it was my imagination.

This film is not good enough or bad enough to be a cult film. It is just tepid and flat and makes 'the Towering Inferno' look like the 'Citizen Kane' of disaster movies.


Well o.k.,o.k.,nobody in "Meteor" actually says that - after all,that would be downright plagiarism,but we do have a lot of "hommages",not to say rapine and pillage from thirty years of space movies,every one infinitely better than this travesty. The earth is threatened with destruction by a giant lump of rock,er,that's it really.The world doesn't end - obviously - so the element of suspense is totally absent,as is every other attribute required for an entertaining,involving movie. From the appalling gurning of Mr B.Keith to the hysteria of Mr M.Landau, the acting is embarrassing.Mr S.Connery treats his part with the contempt it deserves - which is considerable.Mr K.Malden is at his rabble - rousing worst and I will draw a veil over the performances of Miss N.Wood and Mr T.Howard,suffice it to say I doubt if they would want to be remembered for them. It is heavy on Cold War "Irony",i.e. the Russians and Americans having to pool their nuclear resources to ward off a threat from outside,a conceit that was hardly original twenty years earlier and which had become very threadbare by the end of the seventies. "Meteor"'s only virtue is in it's comparative brevity - hardly,you might think - sufficient to warrant a viewing.And you'd be right.


Every stereo type is here. Russians are evil, Americans are wonderful, the rest of the world does not exist except as onlookers.

Were we all really stupid enough to get on a bus, wait in line and go into a cinema to watch this? I noticed the special effects were made by people out of the Blue Peter school of special effects. A Boeing 707 lands with the Russians on board...The USSR at that time would NOT own Boeing aircraft, especially to transport their people around internationally.

Awful film, skip it. A real shame so many BIG stars made this, I suppose the money was good.


Even Sean Connery lowered himself to appear in a 70's disaster film, and it was a really bad one too. The effects were terrible, laughingly bad even for 1979. This film was so bad even Sean's wig refused to appear. As I watched it I have expected Roger Moore's 007 to blow up the Meteor on the Space Shuttle he had in Moonraker, to put the real James Bond 007 (Sean) out of his movie misery. Luckily Sean would bounce back in the likes of The Name of the Rose, The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Rock etc. The Meteor must be his worst film by far.


I have to admit, I love 70's disaster movies. They wallow in so much camp,cheese and sheer tackiness that they're fun. . But Meteor isn't really campy or entertaining. It's really pretty boring. The special effects are laughable. No literally, I laughed up strawberry yogurt all over my boyfriend's couch at the sight of the meteor. Or make that old bread or rock or what ever that was. The great cast give apathetic performances. "Why am I here" seem to be going through their heads. Not that I blame these great actors one moment. Martin Landau's over acting is pain full to watch. The climax is not exciting. There just seems to be no suspense built up in the movie. Over all, not a bad movie. But just a very boring one.


Disgruntled former scientist with NASA is brought back to the fold after a comet--"wrenched out of orbit by Jupiter's gravitational pull!"--collides with an asteroid in space, sending a chunk of rock five miles wide heading straight for Earth. Disaster flick from American International looks fairly convincing, if you're not too demanding. The heated exchanges between the scientists and the generals is wearing, but at least the sub-plot regarding the stubborn Russians gives us tongue-in-cheek Brian Keith as an astrophysicist and Natalie Wood as his assistant and translator, both speaking perfect Russian! The dialogue is almost as overwrought as Laurence Rosenthal's score, which would be entertainingly cheesy were it not so repetitive and intrusive. Directed by Ronald Neame, he of "The Poseidon Adventure", and an apparent victim of director-typecasting. The scientific rhetoric leaves itself open for logical criticism, and when the smaller meteorites hit Asia and the Alps, we are treated to some very tacky archival and stock footage. Pretty depressing overall, with Sean Connery looking uneasy and Henry Fonda inserted here and there as the U.S. President. ** from ****


I just stumbled over this gem on a very independent TV station & I'm still stunned. This dreadful classic must have driven them from the theaters in the 70s... and, like any good cheese, it's only gotten more pungent with age. It's amazing how many d-movie cliches they managed to pack into one film. There are so many deliciously squirm inducing moments. Among my favorites are Brian Keith as the surly Russian (evil commie with the heart of gold)... Martin Landau as the rabidly paranoid AirForce general - an over the top community theater version of Geo C Scott's Gen Turgedson in Strangelove... I guess my favorite is the "star" - the giant mcnugget that's hurtling toward earth. ...And all the special effects that undoubtedly inspired a generation of kids with super-8 cameras to think "I can do better than that!" To anyone who loves truly terrible cinema - this is a must see.


This is a disaster movie from director Ronald Neame (The Poseidon Adventure), but the real disaster is just how much this film sucks. Basically a comet/asteroid/meteor (whatever you want to call it) is heading for a collision for Earth, and obviously it could extinguish mankind if it hits. So the authorities want to combine the nuclear capabilities of both theirs and Russia's fire power to destroy the rock. People involved in the mission, in whatever way, are Dr. Paul Bradley (Sir Sean Connery), Tatiana Nikolaevna Donskaya (Natalie Wood), NASA's Harry Sherwood (Karl Malden), Dr. Alexei Dubov (Brian Keith) and Maj. Gen. Adlon (Martin Landau). Also starring Trevor Howard as Sir Michael Hughes, Richard Dysart as Secretary of Defense, Henry Fonda as the President and Roger Robinson as Hunter. What makes this film so awful is there is hardly any effort in the acting, well, they kept their faces straight. There's that ridiculous scene where everyone is getting covered in mud in the subway, and all the model rockets and the rock are not convincing enough, because you can tell their models, especially with the crappy explosions. Just one of the most terrible films I have ever seen. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Sound (it shouldn't have been nominated for any!). Very poor!


It seems incredible that this codswallop was released 2 whole years after that definitive science-fantasy epic 'Star Wars'. Didn't these people watch that movie and see how high George Lucas had raised the bar for special-effects? With its sub-Gerry Anderson gadgets, its rousing 'Thunderbirds' style anthems, and its hokey un-special effects' this movie's production standards seem to hail from at least a decade earlier. Just check-out the falling bodies in the 1960's 'War Of The Worlds'; they're actually more believable.

Scientists have discovered a large piece of rotating gingerbread, that bears a striking resemblance to Karl Malden's nose, on a collision course with planet Earth. It's a science fiction movie then? Well, not exactly. The reds are still under the beds so it's a cold war drama instead. That worthy old Russian diplomat Perry Stroyka has to do his stuff and make the anti-nose-defence-system a co-operative east-west effort. Is it a meteor? Or is it an asteroid? You decide; the scriptwriters evidently can't. Call it a nasalisk.

In keeping with tradition, a host of top-dollar actors and actresses are bribed into compromising their careers. We see Henry Fonda, Natalie Woods, He Of The Proboscis, and of course: Sean Connery. Now there's a man with a sense of humour. Together they chew through a script with lines to die for - or at least from, probably by choking.

To maintain its flagging interest, there are smaller noselets that arrive without warning at fairly regular intervals, unleashing some of the most lamentably wretched destruction scenes ever witnessed in a movie.

Even as a bunch of Blue Peter washing-up bottles disguised as nuclear missiles are on their to the gingerbread, a noselet is inbound for New York, where the control centre has been sensibly sited underneath a river. Actually, that's not so absurd. Check-out Britain's 'National Archive' sited on the Thames flood-plain at Kew (you can bet that the most valuable items are stored in non-waterproof containers in the basement).

So; just as the movie is about to climax with the destruction of the nasalisk, the camera cuts to Sean Connery and his team, now having to dig their way out of the smashed underground bunker. And - yes - the river does break through and - yes - it's a life and death race to the surface. This escape is cut and cut again with various boring views of rockets apparently whizzing through space. Will they stop the nose? Will Connery's team escape? Two climaxes for the price of one. Now that's good value. Lousy directing, but good value.

Most of the rockets hit the nasalisk in three waves. The first two waves have the effect of causing a small part of it to glow red. Whereas the third wave blows it completely to atoms. Which is rather strange as each wave was supposed to have equal explosive intensity.

Three or four of the rockets malfunction. And what becomes of them? Well; gravity would suggest that what goes up must come down. So there are several nukes destined to fall back to Earth, detonate in high atmosphere, and sprinkle everyone and everything with radioactive fall-out. Hmm.

Yes, well; I think that's enough. Watch it with some friends and plenty of beer and your're likely in for a great laugh. But don't even pretend to take it seriously. I'm sure Mr Connery didn't.


Some of the lousiest special effects imaginable are on display in this all-star dud about a meteor spiraling toward Earth. The US and Russia work in unison to try to stop it. The cast of acting giants in this dreck is mind boggling. Sean Connery is the lead and the supporting cast includes a particularly bad Natalie Wood as a Russian interpreter, Brian Keith as a Russian needing her services, Karl Malden, Martin Landau, and Henry Fonda (proving again his chronic need to appear in all the really BAD disaster movies of the 70s...ROLLERCOASTER, CITY ON FIRE, TENTACLES). The director, Ronald Neame, was responsible for the classic POSIEDON ADVENTURE, but lightning does NOT strike twice with this waste of time.


Sorry, but am I the only one that really really hates this show? It's trash I did not like the voices and I think the girl's voice was the worst voice I'd ever find and this is the worst series I would ever search for. I really think the movie was much better, it was very delightful and amazingly magical but this one was the worst rip off of a movie. I would find something better than this disgusting demon spirited slob negative 999 and a million more I'll buy, once I see another one of this, I'ma get up and watch good movies like Cloudy with a chance of meatballs yuck! Newbies, please don't bother because Ariel's friends' magical spirits and her all of the characters are altered and changed because this is way too emo for me, look for something better.


Not one of Edgar G. Ulmer's best, but I'm glad they saw fit to release this one on DVD. However, if you're looking for another little Ulmer classic like BLUEBEARD (1944) or DETOUR (1945), you'd better look somewhere else 'cause this ain't it.

Gloria Talbott, the daughter of the late Dr. Jekyll, is slowly being hypnotized and pumped full of drugs into believing that she is the killer of a couple of women who were found near her late father's estate. She is slowly being driven mad by the real killer who wants her to take the blame for it.

Of course she isn't the one because she's the heroine and we can't have the heroine turn out to be a bad guy. This is the 50s, after all.

We also have John Agar as the Talbott's fiancée and Arthur Shields as the weirdo who is the executor of the late Dr. Jekyll's estate. They don't really add much of anything to all this beyond chewing up some film time. That is, until the very last 5 minutes of the film.

But what's really a bummer is that the killer is revealed in the very first flashback of the film, so why Ulmer threw away the element of surprise is a real mystery. I guess you'll just have to see it for yourself.

And considering the fact that Allied Artists didn't always use the best of film stock, the digital remastering looks as good as can be expected for a low budget film like this. No more excessively grainy prints to look at.

I'll give it a 4 out of 10 for at least being worth a look, especially if you're into Ulmer's films like I sometimes am.


This is a low-grade horror film which has been culted into a reputation beyond its worth because of its director's involvement. The plot is strikingly similar to that of another notorious potboiler - SHE-WOLF OF London (1946) - but, at least, here the monster is seen (albeit ineffectively made-up): despite the titular reference, the script pays little to no credit to previous cinematic incarnations of the R.L. Stevenson novella - opting, instead, to indiscriminately incorporate elements of lycanthropy and vampirism which make no sense at all...but which lend the film value as a unique curio and one which, in view of its sheer audacity, it is difficult to hate (indeed, the whole misguided enterprise reminded me of the contemporaneous FRANKENSTEIN 1970 [1958])!

Despite the ultra-cheap production, the film makes the most of its foggy atmosphere and the hallucination sequences are effective in a naïve sort of way. Casting is below-par but, at least, Arthur Shields (who also appears in a silly book-end in full monster make-up - but, then, as Gloria Talbott's legal guardian spends the rest of the film trying to convince her that she is the werewolf!!) and John Dierkes (as a particularly vehement believer in the Jekyll 'legend' despite being in their employ - or, so it seems, since he's always hovering about the estate!) enter gleefully into the spirit of the thing.

I had been toying with the idea of purchasing the All Day DVD of this one ever since it was released; I'm glad I managed to catch up with it eventually without having to purchase the disc - being shown on late-night Italian TV, as part of a Jekyll & Hyde marathon which included snippets from a variety of films based on the venerable tale (I was especially gratified by the inclusion of a couple of scenes from Jean Renoir's THE TESTAMENT OF DR. CORDELIER [1959], which I've been yearning to see forever, and also ABBOTT & COSTELLO MEET DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE [1953], which I haven't watched in ages - I really ought to get down to purchasing either the R1 or R2 DVD releases of the films featuring the comic duo!)...


I've read plenty about director Ulmer being some poverty-row genius but this flick is only 70 minutes long and is still boring. Mixing the Jekyll monster with werewolves may sound like a fun idea but the treatment here leaves much to be desired. The new widescreen DVD of this movie looks real soft throughout much of the movie which might be a fault of the original movie or just a bad transfer.


I love the first SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE partially for nostalgia value but mostly because it's a genuinely fun movie, so I figured I'd give a go at this one, ignoring warnings such as the 4 Star Joe Bob review on the front of the video box. I watched it with several friends, and I'll tell you what, we never had such a good time making fun of a brain-dead exploitation movie before. This one really does reach new depths of stupidity, and for that reason alone I adore it!

The plot is basically summed up in the title - Jackie (Keely Christian, whoever she is) throws one last sleepover party for her giggly high-school friends (who look no younger than 25), some dumb guys sneak over and try to scare them and a psycho killer shows up with his portable electric drill and starts laying into these idiots. Apparently the ladies in the house don't know how to open a door or window to escape, which becomes almost a running gag after awhile. They also hilariously fail to subdue the killer despite being given half a dozen chances to do some serious damage. The list of possible suspects is pretty ridiculous, especially the peeping tom next-door-neighbor, who spies on the girls dancing topless with his telescope, and "The Weirdo," a mute voyeuristic albino who earlier in the day was caught staring at the girls during their beach volleyball game.

There's one moment of sheer hilarity when the psycho surprises a guy at the door with his large, high-powered drill, sending a half-dozen lingerie-clad babes shuffling back and forth in front of the camera in a panic. Another highlight is Maria Ford's gratuitous bare-ass shot as she tries to escape up through the basement window but keeps falling. And we've all seen the standard electrocuted-in-bathtub death scene countless times before, scene, though instead of the usual hair dryer or radio being tossed in the tub, this time it's caused by a vibrator that one character plugs in and leaves sitting on the sink while she's taking a bath. A guy who gets his feet cut off with a chainsaw manages to crawl all the way back across town to the house in a matter of minutes. The acting (aside from the guy who plays the killer, who's awful) really isn't too bad for this type of film, some of the songs on the soundtrack are pretty good and if you like your movies trashy, bloody and silly, you'll find a lot to enjoy here. For sheer entertainment it gets a 7 out of 10 but playing by the rules of movie reviewing (i.e. quality), it's about a 3. I'll go ahead and give it a 4.


Warning, some potential spoilers await.

Really, how many hits does it take to knock someone silly or knock them out?

The inane female characters in this film hit the main villain not one, not two, not three, but four separate times (that I could count) in the head, then would leave the area to have him recover and go on his killing spree again within a matter of seconds.

I recognize that horror films are thin on plot, but this one is so thin on plot there is absolutely no motive as to why the killer does what he does besides his uncle who was a cop and died? Is that reason enough to go on a rampage killing a bevy of teenage kids? Obviously the writers and director thought so. Oh yeah watch out for the sly stereotypes as well, like the stupid policeman that is Irish, OH THE HILARITY!


This is still a pretty bad and silly simplistic typical slasher but when being compared to the previous sequel "Slumber Party Massacre II" this movie is a step up from that one.

What is mostly silly in the Slumber Party Massacre movies is that it features always a different driller-killer but things just never get explained why and how. Yes, this movie does provide a bit of an explanation but its not a particular good or credible one. It's the foremost reason why the Slumber Party Massacre movies are pretty simplistic in their form and concept. The only thing the movies are somewhat original in is that it features girls in the main roles and the movie is somewhat of an horror-chick-flick.

The first killing occurs pretty fast into the movie, just as was the case with the original, which keeps things going pretty fast from the start on and doesn't make the movie drag as much and be such a total bore as "Slumber Party Massacre II". As a matter of fact this movie is just very similar to the first movie. Very similar indeed. It perhaps seems more like a remake, or update with more nudity, than an actual sequel. So don't expect this movie to be a terribly original one.

The gore compensates a lot however. The previous Slumber Party Massacre movies weren't that really gory but this movie knows to throw in a couple of good gory sequences. Nothing the genre fan couldn't handle but it's all good enough.

The story gets basically thrown overboard when the killer makes his entrance to the party. It makes it a pretty dumb movie to watch but it of course is all mostly consistent with other genre examples. The story just isn't the foremost important thing in a teenage-slasher flick.

As you would expect, the acting also really isn't much special and the characters all remain terribly flat but it sort of all adds to the camp and status of the entire movie.

Oh well, it's all watchable enough for the true fans of the genre and for the people who gave up watching Slumber Party Massacre movies-series after the previous sequel, give this movie a change, you might up liking this movie. For people who just want to see a good slasher-flick, just skip this one.

4/10


I haven't seen the second one, nor do I plan to since I watched the trailer for it since it was in the "Extras" section for SPM 1. I figured this one would have been good since it seemed that'd it be much like the first one. Not only that, they tried to add some storyline to it, which would have been nice if it was done correctly.

The acting is decent compared to other horror slashers, though it was pretty bad in some parts. There is some nice gore as well, which is always a plus. I can't say much here about the movie without spoiling it, but expect A lot of lampshades getting smashed over a psychopaths head and a lot of women running from window to window in an attempt to escape.

I would only watch this movie with friends for laughs, other then that avoid at all costs.

Dumbest line: "No! You can't kill someone that's just lying there." Why not? He seemed to have a good time doing it to your friends...


There's no escaping it: "Slumber Party Massacre 3" is terrible. The acting is so bad that you'll cringe, and the undercurrent of this film is more serious that the second one that had to be respected for charting its own course. How odd is this film? Well let's put it this way: the film bills one guy "wierdo," however very clearly there are two of those.

Okay, so the plot: some friends decide to have a Slumber Party, and only one girl gets to invite a guy. The other guys crash the party, and of course as happens, one by one the girls and their boyfriends are whittled down.

For some reason, the killer dons a mask to kill the first couple, but then shuns it to kill most. Of course, there's no connection to the first two- why the killer chooses to use a drill when a knife, a machete, a gun, or any number of other things would make more sense. I guess however if the killer isn't using a drill, it can't be a "Slumber Party Massacre" film.

On a related note, the quality of acting is so obviously varied- two or three of the actors are decent, and the rest are strictly chosen based on their cute-ness! I'd tell you more about the film, but I can't. It follows no logical projection or anything. Its total cheese, although its not meaning to be.


Slumber Party Massacre III starts on a beach where Jackie Cassidy (Keely Christian) tells her friends that her parents are away & that they should come over to her place & have a slumber party. Sarah (Devon Jenkin) is given the task of getting in the food but as she gets in her car she is brutally murdered... That night all the girls meet up, drink, laugh & strip in front of each other as three guys turn up. However someone else much more unwelcome decides to gatecrash the party, a brutal killer is at large & intends to slaughter them all before the night is over...

Directed by Sally Mattison (at least we now know a woman can make a horror film just as badly as any bloke) I thought Slumber Party Massacre III (although the version I watched had the title A Stab in the Dark) was a dull, predictable, unoriginal teen slasher that does nothing to try & distinguish itself in an already over populated & limited sub-genre. The script by Catherine Cyran is drawn out, it has the usual cardboard character's that could have come straight out of any other slasher film, it has no reasonable explanation behind the killers motives, it gives the killer identity away far too early & then it's just a boring precession until the end & to add insult to injury it has a fairly low body count. There is nothing in Slumber Party Massacre III that any horror fan wouldn't have already seen a 100 time before in just about any other slasher. The film takes itself far too seriously, it's incredibly dull & very slow at times.

Director Mattison doesn't do a thing to try & liven things up, it's very flatly shot, it's utterly forgettable & throughly dull. There's no atmosphere & I just kept thinking to myself simply leave the house, run away, go to a neighbour's, call someone but just do SOMETHING instead of just standing there waiting to be killed. There's a decent kill at the start where someone has a drill shoved through their body but apart from that there's not much gore here, there's a few more drill murders, someone is impaled on a 'For Sale' house sign & in the films best kill someone is taking a bath & the killer drops a vibrating dildo in the water to electrocute her, death by dildo! There's a bit of nudity & sex as well but it doesn't really help that much.

Slumber Party Massacre III is fairly well made, special effects are OK & it's quite well lit but it's all rather bland. The acting was poor throughout, don't give up your day jobs girls...

Slumber Party Massacre III is nothing to get excited about, frankly I was pretty bored & felt liked I'd seen it all before. Much worse than either the original The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) or it's sequel the rather impressive & fun Slumber Party Massacre II (1987) so watch one of those instead.


This was bad, even by slasher movie standards. The only reason it got a 2 instead of a 1 was the nudity. The acting was right on target for the genre though--reeeeeally bad. The chick that played Maria was terrible, but she did have a smokin little body. I tend to overlook bad acting in that case. Anyway, this one's good for a gag gift (which is how I got it)--thanks for reading.


Teenage girls decide to have a slumber party which is interrupted(..to put it mildly)by a deranged madman whose mania derives from his sexual abuse as a child at the hands of his uncle.

Third film in the series shows how tired the formula has become. Nothing at all fresh or original, even the killer's weapon of choice(..the cordless power drill)has become passé. The girls(..including bombshell Maria Ford)are all eye candy in their sleepover clothes, even if the actresses portraying them are unable to transcend their one-note characters. Basically, the film shows some of the girls having a beach hangout with their male friends from school. Juliette(Lulu Wilson)is enamored with a handsome blond, Kenny(Brittain Frye, in a dreadful performance)inviting him to the slumber party later that night..major catastrophic decision. The film presents two red herrings, a strange next door neighbor(Michael Harris) to Diane(Brandi Burkett), the one holding the slumber party, and an oddball staring at them at the beach(Yan Birch). I think no one will be fooled because it's just too obvious.

But, the problem I have with this film(..despite the frustratingly questionable acts by the girls when up against the psychopath who locks them inside the house)is that the menace isn't the least bit convincing thanks in part to the performance of Frye. And, this guy is hit over the head by two lamps and a glass dish, is stabbed through the leg with a fireplace poker, with his eyes doused with floor cleaner, yet the girls still can not subdue him! There's one sequence which infuriated me..three girls, after the killer's eyes have been blinded, watch one of their own get her shirt ripped off and drilled to death without even attempting to help her! And, even when they do subdue him, the girls allow him to get free! You just want to pick up a heavy stone and clunk them over the heads! Anyway, the girls' boys are unable to stop him either, which makes this film hard to swallow because the killer isn't very imposing, except for his drill. The strength in numbers, even after they discover he's the wacko, fail to join forces to surround and cease him. They just disperse in all directions, with chaos as a result, the killer allowed to hunt each down, the drill doing some serious damage. Besides the drill boring through victims, there's little else that potent in the ultra-violence department. The murders are sadistic(..one victim's Achilles heel is sawed into with a chainsaw, another is stabbed in the chest by a "For Sale" sign post), but die-hard slasher fans have seen much worse. Maria Ford and Lulu Wilson shows us some flesh, so that's nice(..although Ford's mistreatment at the hands of the killer is pretty harsh). The motive for the killer to randomly kill women(..and the men who get in his way)is rather limp.


A whole bunch of girls have a big slumber party. They dare the driller killer to show up. Guess what? He does.

A very slow and boring film. Even the nudity or death scene by vibrator can't liven things up. By far and away the worse in The Slumber Party Massacre series. Avoid it at all cost. My rating: 2 out of 10.


Well, where to start? I want to start off by saying that this movie was pretty bad, but the gratuitous nudity was comforting. This movie runs about 87 minutes, which is amazing considering the plot.

First of all, how teenage girls get trapped in two story house with a basement and a garage is beyond me. Time and time again these girls absolutely refuse to leave the house even though there is a driller killer on the loose and they are "afraid" for their lives. Makes no sense. Of course, if they just walked out the back door or the front, they could just leave. I guess that makes too much sense. I guess I'm the idiot.

The acting was abysmal. The killer was ridiculous and his reasoning to start killing was just laughable. The connection between why he was killing these girls and how his crazy uncle committed suicide and how he was picked on by these girls is just dumb. I have to admit some of the killers bad acting and corny lines were funny. Perhaps if I was in a more tolerant, comedic mood, I could laugh at this junk and give 7 out of 10. But I wasn't.

Positives about the film...some good kills. Just to name a few: electrocution by way of dildo, stabbing with real estate sign, and drill to the gut. The special effects were good enough to get the point across. There was one part where the killer was drilling a victim and it was clear that the drill was not touching the stomach. The close up shot revealed a 2 to 3 inch gap between the drill bit and the victim's stomach. Apparently there wasn't enough budget to edit this part out. I understand why. No one put any time and effort in to this movie from beginning to end. And it shows.

So with that said, the movie sorely lacks in every area imaginable, except for nudity. There was enough there to pass the short time the movie actually played. There was very little redemption about this one. The movie epitomizes the over-saturation of low budget, slasher films of the 80's. It is the very reason why movies like these went direct to video and died. Too bad, because I'm fan of slasher films, just not this one.

3 out of 10.


Can't believe no one used that summery line yet. I'm hilarious. Anyway onto the skimpy plot. A teen and her friends have a 'bitchin' slumber party. When their boyfriends stop by it's fun fun fun. Well until a killer with a drill bit shows up to menace them. Not the best slasher film I've seen by a long shot, but it does have a certain appeal to undiscriminating b-grade horror fans, myself included. Just not enough to raise it above a slightly below average slasher film.It IS however better then the first film in the franchise.

Eye Candy: Maria Ford reveals boobs, Lulu Wilson bares her chest and ass (Sadly this is the only movie she's been in)

My Grade: C+


Well i think that the summary pretty much summs it up. Here's why. The killer is annoying. He sings and dances and drills people with a guitar drill. And the guitar drill was the only good part. The acting was terrible. And the special effects weren't really great. I give it a big c-


I just was dumb struck when I received "It Happened at Nightmare Inn" on DVD, it was packaged as a double feature with "Legacy of Blood". This IS NOT the theatrical version, it is in fact ONLY 67 minutes long!! The distribution company on this one is a bunch of liars and crooks, I do not believe in selling product that advertises something which is not true. The running time for both features is listed in total of 3 hours and 30 minutes. If "It Happened at Nightmare Inn" is only 67 minutes long, then that means that "Legacy of Blood" is close to 2 hours and 30 minutes (which in fact is not the case) Regardless, please do not waste your money or rental dollars on this version released under the title of a "Blood Soaked Cinema" release called "Back to the Grave" With the running time only being 67 minutes, then this must be the television version that played in a 90 minute time slot. It sucks!! There are scenes that just end, characters that just react to nothing, no blood, no anything! Entire scenes are missing and what is left is just talk! I can not even begin to mention how terrible the sound is on this, and they have the nerve to list Dolby 5.1 as an option..the sound is so terrible that I thought my speakers were going to burst! Can I say anything positive? No...the movie is unwatchable, the story is torn to pieces, it makes no sense, and PLEASE do not be suckered by this like I was.


Una Vela Para el Diablo, or the rather more poetic if pointless A Candle for the Devil as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, is set in a small Spanish village where American tourist Laura Barkley (Judy Geeson who is in fact English) is trying to locate her missing sister May (Loli Tovar) who is a photographer. Laura tries the small guest-house where her sister was staying, it's run by two elderly sisters Marta (Aurora Bautista) & Veronica (Esperanza Roy) who claim that May left that morning but who in fact hide a terrible secret. As Laura investigates her sisters whereabouts she learns Martha & Veronica lied to her & when another young attractive tourist named Helen Miller (Lone Fleming) mysteriously disappears Laura is convinced all is not as it seems at the guest-house...

This Spanish production was co-written & directed by Eugenio Martin & is a pretty lousy way to spend 85 minutes of your time. The script by Martin & Antonio Fos takes itself extremely seriously & is a bit patchy, character's come & go with little regard for flowing narrative, people's actions & motives are questionable to say the least, the dubbed dialogue is poor & I'm not really sure who this will please. For a start the body count is low, there's no mystery elements or interest in whodunit as that's made perfectly clear from the start, the exploitation levels are virtually zero & to try & spice things up a bit there are a few unpleasant sex scenes, I mean if your going to show a sex scene at least have a decent looking actress rather than a near old age pensioner. It seems that a short 68 odd minute version is more readily available than the 83 minute version I saw, personally I'd be glad that it runs for 15 minutes less as that's 15 minutes of your life you don't have to waste watching this poor excuse for a film. I also have to mention the ending which is one of the worst endings to a film I've ever seen, basically Laura is trapped in the house with the mad sisters & looks out the window as a angry mob of villagers approach & then it just finishes as if they ran out of film or someone forgot to include the last reel!

Director Martin does OK, he captures a certain feel of the Spanish locations but I'm not sure what. There are a couple of sequences approaching horror but it's not scary, there's no tension & it lacks any suspense. If your looking for gore forget it, there's a couple of stabbings, an eyeball in a meal, a decapitated head & some blood splatter but generally speaking this is very tame stuff. Things fare better on the nudity front but the actors used aren't exactly model material, unusually there is full frontal male nudity although I only mention it because it is unusual & not because I'm gay or anything.

This was obviously a pretty cheap production & it shows, it's quite well made for what it is I supposed & at least it was shot on film & on location so that also gives it a cinematic look. It's always difficult to comment on acting when people have been dubbed, here the English dubbing is pretty terrible although maybe Geeson spoke English on set.

Una Vela Para el Diablo is a rubbishy piece of Euro crap that's not really sleazy or exploitative enough to satisfy me & I'm sure there will be many out there who feel the same. I wanted to like it but I didn't, disappointing.


I like the actor they chose to play Bourdain, really I do, but Anthony Bourdain he is not. And that is what is wrong with this series. I read the book and was really excited to rent the series, but I should have known better. Someone in TV land decided that Anthony Bourdain is too abrasive, in your face and rude, so the show "softens" Tony and loses all the spirit. Yes, the real Anthony Bourdain is in your face and abrasive and is very much about How Things Really Are. That is the spirit in which Kitchen Confidential (the book) was written. So honest, in fact, that when she gets OLDER, I am going to make my 12-year-old aspiring Chef read it before she decides in fact to spend oodles of money on Culinary school. It is that very in your face honestt that is missing. Tony is nothing more than an alcoholic, excuse me, reformed-alcoholic boy scout. Yawn. Meanwhile the _real_ Anthony Bourdain has a hit show on the Travel Network doing what he does best, telling it like it is.


If you're into stock trading and if you've read Nicholas Leeson, it might help you enjoy this movie. If you're not, you might need to view a couple of times before the story grows on you.

I'm still not sure how I can summarize best the story for you: Ewan McGregor plays Nick Leeson, a stock trader for England's Fairbank is given a mission in New Delhi. He builds up a team with people who know nothing about stock trading and together they'll play with the Nikkei. As they're "playing", mistakes are made by Nick's team and he wants to cover them up by opening up an account called "88888". Soon, he'll start gambling with the bank's own money. Unfortunately, the losses grow bigger and bigger until the bank goes broke.

Since there is no real action, and it's really told like a story and not like a movie, you really have to rely on the actors' skills to appreciate the movie.


No question that this movie is made very well. Good acting by everyone, good environments, much realism (no surprise !), a little fun and craziness, a little romance and marriage, a little of this and that.

And the movie tries its best to be entertaining. The romance of the marriage couple is portrayed in a very, very realistic way, for example, I think that was the best part of the movie. And if you know more about money than I, maybe you will understand what really happened there at the stock market - the movie tried to explain that, but it was too fast for me.

But it's most of the time really boring as hell because you know what will be the end after five minutes of the movie. And it's sometimes even more boring because its made that perfect. And for people which know about the Neeson case, it will be even more boring, for they know the end before the movie even starts.

In the sum, I don't think I can recommend this movie, sorry.


Where to start.... Okay firstly, unless you've been in hibernation the last few years you'll know the name Nick Leeson. The film follows Leeson through his days as a futures trader for Barings Bank (the oldest merchant bank in England) and his transfer to South-east Asia, through to the eventual collapse of said bank and Leeson's imprisonment.

I'm not quite sure why 'Rogue Trader' was even made, either it's pro-Leeson and sees him as a courageous boss protecting his incompetent employees (yeah, right!) or the film merely tries to explain this particular corner of history. On both counts 'Rogue Trader' is left severely lacking, although McGregor tries valiantly, portraying Leeson as anything other than a spoilt child would seem impossible.

The rest of the cast cannot however even be accused of trying to breath some life into this tepid affair. Friel appears disinterested (a feeling I felt all too often) as do Leeson's superiors.

As much as I would like to promote this film, with its distinctly English cast, I'm afraid it's a lost hope. If you want I imagine you could spend a few hours trying to find some hidden meaning that would make the whole experience worthwhile, but you probably won't and who could blame you.

Stay away unless you want your opinion of Ewan McGregor tainted and your view of Anna Friel confirmed!


This movie is about as exciting to watch as paint drying. Granted, it wasn't a complete loss, Ewan was nice to look at...and someone loaned it to me, so I was spared the expense of movie rental. There are worse movies and there are far better movies, but I honestly watched it because I'm in the process of watching Ewan McGregor movies because he has this presence that is so strong that you just have to watch his work because he draws you in, and you end up sitting there watching, totally mesmerized. Very commanding! Now, only if Rogue Trader were a strong enough movie to carry him....


In bringing a true story to the screen, directors are always hampered by the inevitable lack of suspense.

We all know the plot of Rogue Trader, working class whiz kid brings down venerable merchant bank, gets caught & goes to prison. Fair enough. But where the director totally failed in this film is to generate any dynamism or energy in what should have been a frenetic, fast paced account of the collapse of Barings Bank.

Rogue Trader has about as much zing as soggy custard. It's so flat, I was crying out for some passion, and I don't mean the abysmal scenes of Ewan MacGregor and Anna Friel cavorting clumsily on a heap of bearer bonds.

MacGregor is convincing as Leeson, but the rest of the cast are just laughable. Special mention goes to the appalling efforts of Tim McInnerny as Tony Hawes and Nigel Lindsay as Ron Baker, and the entire Asian cast who were exceptionally wooden.

You always know a film is in trouble when a character explains the technicalities of the plot to another character solely for the audience's benefit. Witness MacGregor's embarrassing explanation of the "five eights" account to his colleague. And trying to teach the complicated nuances of futures trading to his wide-eyed staff in a Delifrance? Please!

Rogue Trader had potential. Captivating real-life plot, strong lead actor. But the film is a stinker, awash with cliches and cardboard cut-out acting. What a shame. Ewan MacGregor, you can do better than this!


This movie is slow and dull. The fact that you know how it ends makes it even worse: it seems like they're trying to build up the tension and let you think that maybe Nick'll see the error of his ways. But then you remember what really happened. The soundtrack made the movie even worse, if that's possible. Nothing exciting ever happens. I can't see any reason why anyone would ever want to watch this movie.


I picked this up on DVD under the title "Return of the Bastards" (in Greek, with English subtitles). It is either a shockingly inept piece of trash, or a brilliant parody of trash movies in general. What to expect: overexposed photography, lame fight scenes, non-existent "acting" (it should really be called "line-reading", because it's nothing more than that), ludicrous sound effects, fake gore and a plot lifted wholesale from "Marathon Man" with Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman!!! I'm not kidding - they even included the famous "is it safe?" scene! I give this film 0 stars because it is truly terrible in every possible category, but that doesn't mean it's not fun to watch. For maximum laughs, probably best seen with an audience.


The dopey, deadpan character sculptured by Leslie Nielsen is back in a "James Bond-esque" comedy as agent WD 40. There are more gag misfires in this movie, than a parking lot full of dead batteries. However, he's such a likeable guy, you can make it over the hump.

Unfortunately, with the exit of the mad geniuses (The Zucker Bros. & Jim Abrahms), there's little here in this script to wave the pom-poms about. It's all been done too many times before.

Of honourable mention is a priceless, very quick cameo with Pat Morita, which is an absolute gem. There are other assorted scenarios that came off well, too. See it if you must on a rainy Sunday, but this is pretty old, borrowed and blue.


I caught 'Spy Hard' on television the other night, and the film really took me back to the early 1990s. I noticed Weird Al right away from his part singing the theme song. 'Spy Hard's' purpose is to create a comical version of James Bond and similar spy-themed films. Some of the comedy is very funny, but some of it wears thin throughout the film. (You'll either enjoy the sense of humour, or you will hate it.) WD40 is a great name for the secret agent, and Mr. T even makes an appearance. There is also a lot of adult-themed humour. By the end of the film, I was ready for it to be finished. It's funny, but it's not brilliant, but I cannot complain because it did let me laugh. If you like Austin Powers, you will probably like this, even though it is not as popular. It will also take you right back to the early 1990s. Not a perfect film, it does have some good humour.


This was the worst movie I have ever seen. Normally, I enjoy the humor of Leslie Nielsen found in the Naked Gun movies. But this one was so bland, I am ashamed at myself for watching it all the way through.


When I heard the reviews and saw the trailers for this film I decided to skip the cinema and video showings and wait for it to hit TV. It was a wise decision because this is probably one of the worst comedies (and films) I have ever seen. I cannot honestly remember a single decent laugh from myself. I was happy enough with the Naked Gun films when they were first released. The series upon which they were based was hilarious at times. Even the recent Dracula spoof produced the occasional chuckle, but it seems to have gone all pear shaped for Leslie now. How about some original jokes for a change!

It begs the question - is this what Americans find funny? Surely by reading the script potential backers would find out just how laughless it is.


It's OK to laugh at these sort of 'simple, stupid', comedies every now and then, even if it has Leslie Nielsen in it. This movie has some great of these 'simple, stupid' laughs in it but the story really restrains this movie from being a true good or recommendable one.

The story is so bad that the movie becomes real painful to watch in parts! At times you really don't know what is really happening on screen or why, just because it doesn't make sense. It really lacked a real clear and good main plot-line.

The movie also tries to spoof way too many movies, just for the sake of spoofing. Most of the time these spoofing moments really don't fit within the movie and seem to be put in completely randomly. It was as if the director was making a sport out of it how many movies he could spoof within one movie.

It's of course also a very easy thing to spoof the spy-genre. In that regard this movie has all the jokes in it you would most likely expect.

Of course most comical moments and dialog are very lame. But often they are so lame and stupid that you can't help but laugh at them. So no matter how bad this movie actually is, it's still a movie that can and most likely will make you laugh, with also some cameo's from people such as non other then Ray Charles and Hulk Hogan.

4/10


this movie is billed as a spoof/comedy,but it's not really funny.there are 1 or 2 mildly amusing moments,but mostly it's just silly,without being funny.this movie would work as an actual spy movie,except that you have the expectation that you will laugh.it's gonna be hard to get the required 10 lines of text in here,but i'll try.i think the problem is the filmmakers tried too hard to get laughs.sometimes you can go too far with a joke and it ends up as flat as a pancake.so the movie isn't really funny,but it does have 1 redeeming feature.that is the casting of Andy Griffith(TV's Matlock and the Andy Griffith show) as a maniacal nut case who plans to either destroy the world or rule it.Griffith is great in this movie.he has so much fun in the role.Barry Bostwick is also good for some comic relief.but overall,the movie is not good.the most i can squeeze out for "Spy Hard" is a 4/10


I had to give this film a star rating. I wish I could give it none.

It was so painful to watch. I bought it on DVD since I last saw it when I was a kid and I thought that it could make me laugh. Oh how wrong I was...It was a waste of £4...Which I could have bought a much better movie for.

Leslie Nielsen is the only good part about this, oh and Griffith. Nielsen hasn't been in any descent stuff recently though. I want that to change though since hes outstanding and very underrated. Lets hope someone realises this before he ends up like Lloyd Bridges...He too was a great actor who was reduced to being letter-boxed as a slapstick comedian-actor.

I strongly urge against buying this unless you have a defect which allows you to enjoy such trash.


Leslie will never be as funny as he was years ago,it would take a miracle,the reason being he is accepting all these ridiculous scripts,just because hes in it doesnt mean it will change anything.Spy Hard has a very few funny scenes,and i find this film very similar to Nielsons other unfunny films like "DRACULA DEAD & LOVING IT" & "WRONGFULLY ACCUSED".I always wished their would be another Naked Gun,that is the only way Nielson can get his spoof fame back,now he is the same as any other star like Charlie Sheen in a spoof movie. Spy Hard wasnt funny,a very few scenes will make you laugh,i also recommend you avoid this.

OVERALL FOR SPYHARD: 4/10

GOOD POINTS OF FILM: First Spy Spoof

BAD POINTS OF FILM: Terrible Script/Unfunny.


This is one of those films i wish i had never seen. I actually spent perfectly good money to see it. I must have been out of my freaking mind. This movie is a disgrace. What was the director thinking? 'Let's just forget about good taste? Screw the story?' What a ripoff.


Spy hard has its moments, especially the Weird Al song in the beginning and the parody of Home Alone. But still the movie is quite unfunny. Leslie Nielsen is again type-casted in this movie and it is too much like the Naked Gun movies. I would give this ** stars out of ***** (4 out of 10).


Weird Al was funny as usual in the intro, but that was where the laughs ended. This movie tries to recapture the humor of Airplane and The Naked Gun, but fails miserably. It seems clear that the people who put this movie together did not even understand this type of humor.

 In Airplane, the humor lies in taking logical steps from peculiar interpretations of events. "Surely your joking" "I'm serious, and don't call me Shirley." Now that's funny.

 This movie, however, merely has gags without context.


Agent Dick Steele (Leslie Nielsen) must partner up with Agent Veronique Ukrinsky (Nicollette Sheridan) to stop General Rancor (Andy Griffith) from destroying the world with a nuclear missile hidden in his secret base.

So, apart from that, I thought this movie was going to be a funny one. It wasn't, except for Weird Al Yankovic singing the opening theme song, which was quite entertaining. The rest of the film just tries way too hard to be funny which makes the film look really silly, like Police Academy for example (except that had more funny moments but there weren't many). Anyway, to sum this review up, all I can say is just don't bother watching this movie.


I really hate this film, which is something I have never said about any other movie. I was ready to walk out on this film within the first 5 minutes. The only reason I didn't was because I had already handed over my hard earned money to see it. The story was complete rubbish, a mix of tired and unfunny spoofs of other films. Poor acting and casting decisions as well as some really bad jokes. If any film was going to kill off the spoof genre, this was going to be it. It is a great shame, because Leslie Nielsen has made some great films, none better that Flying High(Airplane) and The Naked Gun. There are no redeeming features in this movie at all so if you see it on a shelf in a video store, do yourself a favour and keep walking.


Don't get me wrong. I am a huge fan of "Police Squad! (In Color)". It's just that what made that great is exactly what is missing from this movie. In the Police Squad! series, Leslie Nielsen played a straight dead-pan character, very serious. Very little mugging to the camera, and reacted to the silliness around him with a dryness that only Jack Webb could muster.

In Spy Hard, we have a cartoonish character whose a buffoon. He mugs to the camera at every turn. He's trying to have fun with the audience. Sadly it just makes him look sad. The best thing about this movie (the 5 star moment) was the opening credits sung by Wierd Al. After that, to say it's ok is pushing it. It's bad, but not bad enough to be good. It's more like a poor-man's "3 stooges" style slapstick than anything, and I do mean totally destitute type of poor.

You would be better off seeing Airplane or Police Squad! (and the Naked Gun movies that followed) 20 times in a row. You will find the 20th showing of any of these movies more enjoyable than the first viewing of Spy Hard.


The credits sequence with "Weird Al" Yankovic is the only bit worth watching. Save yourself the Blockbuster night and just watch it on his DVD video collection and pass on this movie. A tired collection of fart jokes and name puns pass for wit in this alleged comedy. Dick Steele, Agent WD-40? Puh-leeze. The able cast is also hampered by terrible pacing and what looks like last-minute editing and over-dubbing to avoid a lawsuit by General Motors. (And you had wondered why General Mortars was the only non-pun name in the bunch.) I'm betting Andy Griffith doesn't have this one on his resume'. If you want to see a quality Bond/spy spoof, try the Derek Flynt movies with James Coburn or even the first Austin Powers flick. No matter how hard it begs, do not pull this movie's finger.


The movie is pretty funny but it feels to much like Naked Gun, and especialy when Leslie himself is in it.

The story didn't feel much worked out and fell like old jokes in it.

3 out of 10


This was one of those films for which I used Blockbuster's "If you don't like it, we'll give you a free rental" policy. This film was no more than a very bad attempt to clone the success of films like Naked Gun 1 and 2 (which btw are very good). Unfortunately this film failed miserably. I gave it a 2 out of 10...

If you have not seen Naked Gun 1 or 2 than I recommend those instead...if you have, then there is no point of seeing this one.


"Spy hard" moves in the well-known "Nielsen-comedy-style"(if such thing exists).It is a parody of well known movies.And some of them are good.So far,so good.However such a movie must have something more than this:the parody-scenes should be connected some way to each other or else the movie is nothing but a collage of scenes.And "Spy Hard" belongs in this category.

Rating: 2 / 10. (* out of ****).


This is one of the worst supposed 'comedies' that I have ever seen. There is not a single laugh in this movie and it is proof positive that Leslie Nielson cannot make a decent movie unless it has "Airplane!" or "Naked Gun" attached to it (and that's being quite generous to "Naked Gun 331/3") Whoever approved this script should never work again. Just imagine what damage they could do in other areas of the public sector!

Seriously, tooth extraction is enjoyable compared to this. Avoid with every fibre of your being.


SPY HARD starts with an in joke of having Mr T pilot a helicopter and that`s about as sophisticated as the film gets . It`s a spy spoof with refferances to IN THE LINE OF FIRE , SPEED , PULP FICTION etc and even includes a sly nod to FELLOWSHIP OF THE THE RING years before that movie was filmed ! . Leslie Nielson does his Frank Drebin routine under the surrogate name of Dick Steel . It`s entertaining enough but does get very silly in places and never gets close to the hilarity of THE NAKED GUN series