From writer/director John Hughes (The Breakfast Club, Ferris Bueller's Day Off) I had a vague idea of what this film consisted of, and I was pretty close. Basically two nerdy teenage boys, Gary Wallace (The Breakfast Club's Anthony Michael Hall) and Wyatt Donnelly (Ilan Mitchell-Smith) are desperate to be liked, and of course sex-obsessed, and in their desperation (inspired by watching - a coloured version of - Frankenstein, 1931) they decide to create the perfect woman. They weren't counting on the computer gaining so much power it would actually make their woman a reality, but it happens, and Lisa (Kelly LeBrock) is determined to help them have a good time. Lisa, who can get absolutely anything she wants (e.g. expensive cars, mutant bikers to appear) has a purpose to turn them into men by putting them in a couple of situations to boost their confidence, and they are on the road to becoming accepted by others. Of course it is at the big party (they always wanted) they meet the girls they would have always wanted, and Lisa's job is done. Also starring Bill Paxton as Chet Donnelly, Suzanne Snyder as Deb, Judie Aronson as Hilly, young Robert Downey Jr. as Ian, Robert Rusler as Max, Commando's Vernon Wells as Lord General, Britt Leach as Al Wallace, Barbara Lang as Lucy Wallace, Ivor Barry as Henry Donnelly, Ann Coyle as Carmen Donnelly and the original Hills Have Eyes' Michael Berryman as Mutant Biker. LeBrock is obviously very attractive, and there are one or two amusing moments, but the comedy is pretty crass, but it was interesting to see younger Paxton and especially future star Downey, Jr. in a film of this sort. It was number 42 on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments. Okay!


There is an excellent reason that you've never heard of this movie before. Don't for a minute let the IMDb rating fool you -- it seems clear that Manzarak's friends are the only ones to have actually voted for this. Pay more attention to the fact that, as I write this, seven people have paid enough attention to actually vote for the movie.

"Love Her Madly" has the feel of one of those porn movies made by a director with pretensions to making a more "serious" film -- it's every bit as dull, silly, poorly written, and badly acted as the non-porn sequences in something that Jack Horner might have made in "Boogie Nights." And "Love Her Madly" doesn't even have the porn sequences.

The script is especially mortifying, written by someone not half as clever as he thinks he is. The acting and cinematography are strictly soap opera stuff -- to amplify that a bit, strictly Latin American soap opera stuff. One should anticipate cringing in embarrassment on a regular basis on behalf of everyone involved in the making of this. That's not what I call my brand of entertainment, but your mileage may vary.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, a former member of The Doors knows a beautiful girl when he sees one, and there are periodic sequences involving the simply stunning Jennifer Lothrop undulating scantily clad (for artistic reasons, of course). Let it suffice to say that this is strictly, and I do mean strictly, for those who can't get enough of Lothrop on FX Network's "DVD on TV" program, and the movie will test the endurance of even these fanatics should the sound actually be left on.

Others may find themselves resisting the urge to blow their brains out after about ten minutes of this. A must-avoid film.


Ray Manzarek is a legend of the keyboards and has a Masters degree in film from UCLA but its interesting to note that he is still more famous for Light My Fire than Love Her Madly..... Truly the worst movie I have sat and watched in 45 years of watching film..... it makes Plan 9 from Outer space seem like an interesting movie....... a waste of 90 minutes of the life of anyone watching..... so utterly abysmal that it has to be seen to be believed that a group of people would spend 17 days of their lives and turn out such utter dross.... the acting is dismal, script total drivel with the end bit nicked from Sidney Lumets DeathTrap and worst of all.....it was actually shown in a cinema.... ....and I am believe it or not a huge Doors fan!

One of the worst aspects of this garbage is the way Manzarek shamelessly promotes the story as coming from the mind of rock legend Jim Morrison. Thus ensuring that a few Doors fans like myself would give it a try even though we were well aware after his awful LA Woman interpretation that Ray Manzarek had the directing talent of a half drunk chimp on crack. Manzarek needs Jim Morrison to remain in the limelight as his talent dwindles year in year out whilst Morrison needs Manzarek like a hole in the head. Wonder what happened to Rays film 'Riders On The Storm' a tale of a bunch of college friends who go into the desert and get stoned.....another idea from Jim Morrison apparently......or just one nicked from Oliver Stone in an act of total hypocrisy by Manzarek. It seems as 2009 comes to an end Manzarek the writer and Manzarek the film maker have taken a back seat to Manzarek the full time Jim Morrison groupie!


The man could do no wrong, it seems. He could make a two-hour film from a story that could have been told in fifteen minutes, full of dead ends, boring, irrelevant fluff to make up the time, dull action scenes and shameless pretentiousness, and yet still the public lavishes him with unconditional love.

I loved Metropolis, but Metropolis was everything this film wasn't: a coherent story with balls that knew what it was trying to say.

I could go on for a good while yet, mentioning for example the 'influences' from other films that verge on plagiarism (the madness scene in the asylum looked as though it was lifted straight out of the 1930 'Dracula'), or what indeed that whole scene had to do with anything, but what would be the point? I would only get lynched by an angry mob of acolytes from the Cult of Fritz Lang.

Don't waste 7000 precious seconds of your life watching this film as I did. You won't get them back. If you want some good German expressionism, that's entertaining as well as intelligent, treat yourself and watch Metropolis, The Golem or Faust instead.


Contains Spoilers, but the plot is not that deep so it shouldn't bother you much.

The film is hard to categorize. It starts out being a mainstream film with a lot of sex and ends up more like a hard or soft core pornographic film. The actors and actresses are not the typical blue movie film crew. They act like normal people while having sex and none of them seem to have been physically enhanced, The star, Gry Bay, is a true natural beauty - not at all like the typical "silicone bombshell" that plays in the blue movies. The film as a whole has more serious plot and character elements than pornography, but not enough to convince me that it is a serious film.

The movie begins very well. Anna is left for 5 years by the love of her life, Johan, because he has a wanderlust. She morns him for a while then decides to just "have fun" with multiple partners and no commitments. Eventually, Frank comes along, who cares for her. Even though he isn't the great love that Johan was, Anna likes being cared for, so they move in together. Then, Johan shows up as one of their movers. A multitude of conflicting feeling come in on Anna and Gry Bay is excellent at conveying them quickly and effectively. Also at this time Anna takes on a female roomer, Carmella. Johan knows he made a big mistake but doesn't know how to remedy it, so he makes excuses to see Anna again. These are some of the best scenes in the movie. In one very charming scene, he brings her a shoe that may have gotten lost in the move. Like a fairy tale he tries to put it on her foot to see if it fits. In another wonderful scene where sex becomes comedy, Anna and Johan start to make love, while Frank is asleep in the next room. Frank wakes up and they abruptly stop, just managing to get dressed with Johan leaving just ahead of Frank stumbling sleepily into the room.

Up to about the half way mark, the film is quite successful. The characters ring true and the plot is interesting - dramatic with touches of humor. The sex scenes make sense in the context of the film and move the plot and character development forward.

But after this point, everything changes. It is as though a different director and writer took over. Suddenly the plot seems to be there only to introduce the next sex scene. Character development is forgotten and the thinest pretext is taken as a motive for everyone to get undressed. What started out as a mainstream film integrating strong sexual elements, now becomes pornography trying unsuccessfully to cross over into mainstream.

I won't bore you with the rest of the plot, if you can call it that. Basically we all know Anna and Johan will get back together, but first the plot has to be manipulated so that we can give some sex scenes to the roommate, to an different couple, to Anna with other people, and lets not forget the obligatory lesbian scene to say nothing of the big sex scene when they are finally reunited.

It is a film that is difficult to categorize. I haven't seen a lot of pornography, but what I have seen ended up being mostly boring. This is better than that. But it is worse than a film like "Lie With Me" which really does integrate strong sex, characters and plot. All About Anna lives it in that frustrating limbo of "almost films" that whet your appetite but never satisfy it. There are some positives, however. The first half is good. Watching Gry Bay either clothed or unclothed is worthwhile in itself. She is a beautiful woman and an accomplished actress. She could have taken this movie somewhere if the script had been better. She deserved a better film.


I saw a bit of this last year and all i can say is this.

I hope they can afford a tripod next time The miserable acting is barely saved by the hard porn This is not a film IT IS porn There is no lighting.

I am one for the old films and i do not think a movie needs all the bells and whistles like CG and effects but this has nothing and i mean the porn is so unnecessary and it is meaningless like in that stage version of cabaret. This film is like the mind of a teenager with no imagination. The inexperience is so clear though with practice a couple of the cast could get good but this... Well i don't real know what it is... a cross between the ground shots from Miami vice, the talent of the child between enter Sharai and son of dork and sex like you-porn.com Though the blond girl is quite pretty she should have a career if she took the time to research the other contributers like the director and camera man for a school rec it might pass as appalling but as a film there is a long way to go sorry


'Tagline: Not since Dogme95 has passion felt this real.' - 'To achieve a realism beyond even Dogme95'. The makers of this film clearly wrote this - if not it must be someone deprived of all his senses. First of all: to even attempt to put this movie in the same league as movies by Von Trier or Thomas Vinterberg is so misguided I do not know whether to laugh or cry. This is nothing more than a porn movie (a bad one at that)trying to create some aura of intellectualism about it - and much like Catherine Breillats Anatomy of Hell it fails miserably. There are hardcore scenes in this film, and it is even sold as porn in Denmark. Two of the actresses have made more than a few porn flicks... Lars Von Triers Idiots had hardcore porn in it too, for at split second - but that does not mean that there is any viable excuse to put it in - there is nothing in the way of motivation or storytelling that suggests that hardcore scenes could have a defining impact on a movie - it's put there as shock value only, which in this day and age is just daft.

There is not a single capable actor in this film, Gry Bay is best known in Denmark for being willing to do most anything in front of a camera (this film more than proves that). The camera movement is as uninspired as the script, there seems to be no greater design to the angles chosen, and the editing seems rather random, and does not lend this movie anything in the way of flow. Generally the post production is shoddy at best and by the looks of it the proposed 'realism' and Dogme familiarity (SIC!)is the excuse for not making a decent product... The fact that Zentropa would have their name associated with this amazes me - even if they have produced porn before it was of a much higher standard... Because... It's just porn, mum


When I watch a Tim Burton, I almost always walk away with the same reaction: the visual world created in the film is fascinating and arresting, but the story lacks narrative force. When I watch a Tim Burton film, I am reminded throughout that I am experiencing the work of an art director, not the more traditional writer-director.

When I watched Lemony Snicket, I was left with that timburton feeling. The visual world is stunning and inventive, particularly the sets, but I was not engaged. It felt a little bit like Fellini-for-children, in that the film unfolded like a dream sequence. Each stop in the film's sequence of sets is bizarre, and makes a great creative effort to lure the audience, but the range of emotions played out by the characters at each of those stops seems both limited and stilted. The characters are very animated, but are, ultimately, very flat and uninteresting. I never gave in to my willing-suspension-of-disbelief -- and, trust me, that's usually not very hard to win.

As you would expect from an art director's creation, the set design and visual effects of Lemony Snicket are the real stars of the film. If that's your cup of tea, then you will probably like this film. It has received a number of admiring reviews, and I'm willing to admit that I might be rewarded with some interesting symbolic insights were I too study this film more closely. The star-sets do create an aura of dark intensity, with a sort of Freudian depth.

Generally speaking, though, I have a very negative reaction to this film. It represents a class of movies -- most strongly typified by Tim Burton's films -- where too much energy is devoted to the purely visual elements of the work. The directors of this class of film are obviously gifted in the domain of creating unique visual worlds ... but the flimviewing world would be far better off if they would see fit to collaborate with equally talented storytellers.


I knew right from the beginning that this film would not be very good. For a start, the books just don't seem like the sort that should be turned into a film. I don't think Mr Snicket adapted it himself, either. There was so much sentiment and emotion in this film that I almost threw up. The same things would be said over and over again and I just didn't feel sorry for them. I was bored of their moaning. Does that make me heartless and cruel? Also, there was not enough explanation of anything. They just kept coming up with things from nowhere. Having read the books, I knew roughly how they ended up in the places that they did, but I still felt a little in the dark about it all. Speaking of which, the plot seemed to have come from a completely different book. So many brilliant and clever ideas were missed out, and whole new things were put in altogether. They might as well have given the film a completely different name. It seemed unnecessary to have compressed 3 books into one film because they were getting each guardian over and done with in about 2 days. They were out of Olaf's care within 10 minutes. Everything seemed very rushed and pointless. I expected something awful, and that's what I got. I was cringing all the way through. And telling Mr Carrey to get off the screen (even though he can't here me) because his interpretation of Count Olaf was dire. He's just too Jim Carrey-ish.


When I saw the very first trailer, I was already sure that this film wasn't going to be one of my all time favorites. I went into the movie with rather low expectations, but still i came out totally disappointed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a raging fan of the original books, to be honest I've never read one... I don't even who who the hell this Lemony Snicket is (and after watching this movie, i don't even care)!

So, I'm not saying that it is a bad adaptation, I'm saying it is a BAD FILM.

Right after the film boosts off, we can hear the gentle voice of Jude Law whining annoyingly about some kids, we don't even know yet. You better get used to this whining, because mostly that is gonna be what you hear during the rest of the movie. Then we finally meet those kids. Two little boys, a bit elder sister, with their mommy and daddy. Mom and dad dies right away, so the kids dig up their relatives all around the world, and ask them, to take care of them children. All of them answer "Yes! Gladly!", but the evil Count Olaf kills them one by one, to get his hands on the kids' legacy. Just when this monotonous method gets very tedious, the movie ends, and you can watch some very well made cartoon end credits (surely they wanted to make up for the rest of the movie).

What the hell was this all about??? Who the hell were those kids, and why should we, or that Lemony Sicket guy care about them? And who the hell is Lemony Snicket, and why is it necessary for him to whine during the whole movie? Why should I sit through a movie, which has NO ENDING?

This movie is a miserable attempt to ride the waves of the adaptation-frenzy.

That's it. And the most unfortunate event about this movie, is that it succeeded somehow. I could tolerate all the stupidity, and dumbness in the movie versions of Lord of the Rings, or Harry Potter, but in this case they failed to put together a standalone movie.

Even more unfortunate, that some of the staff really tried. Techincally, the film looks marvelous. The costumes, the scenery, the colors, they all come together really well, and we can see the hard work in it (I don't understand though, why a story with basically NO wondrous elements should get a so out-of-this-world scenery). I feel pity for this group of the filmmakers, for having to take part in a mess like this. They deserve better. Better than the director, the writer, and the main actor in this movie. Yes, I'm talking about Jim Carrey.

I can't see why most people melts down from the performance he does here. It's hysterical. Count Olaf in Carrey's role is a raging idiot, with no real character, and a stupid fake beard.

As far as I know, there's no attempt to make a sequel, so this movie remains a torso forever. A money-monging pile of crap. But if a sequel comes around soon, I'm sure it wouldn't be more either than an attempt to feed some fat producer.


I was drawn to this movie after reading all the Lemony Snicket books to my children. It was a disappointment throughout.

Jim Carrey is at his hammy worst. His Count Olaf isn't the shrewdly evil menace created by Mr. Snicket; he's a clown in need of ritalin. In contrast, Violet and Klaus Baudelaire drone through their adventures without expression. These unfortunate young actors were in need of some on-set guidance; clearly director Brad Silberling wasn't up to the task. Despite their predictable escapes from inescapable situations, the kids' intelligence characterized in the books never comes through in the movie. And poor Sunny is reduced to boorish attempts at comic relief. Rather than adding insight or contributing to the siblings' successes (again, as in the books), Sunny's baby talk is subtitled with witless one-liners taken not from Mr. Snicket's clever writing, but conjured by screenwriters looking for a cheap laugh. (Sunny: ((baby talk)), Subtitle: "What a schmuck!" or "Back off, Parrotface!") Thankfully, whatever fart jokes the writers scripted for her were edited from the final cut. But the filmmakers were surely delighted to have Sunny threaten to bite Olaf in the crotch. (After sinking her teeth into his leg, Subtitle: "I'll bite higher!") Is there anything less appealing than the thought of a baby attaching her mouth to a man's genitals? Timothy Spall is fine but insignificant as Mr. Poe, the children's ineffective trustee. As is Katherine O'Hara as Justice Strauss. The movie's only charming character is Billy Connelly's Uncle Monty. But alas, he is (spoiler) snuffed out before his time. Too bad we can't say the same about the entire flick.


One of the worst sports films in a long time, When Billy Beat Bobby is a mutant of a movie. Unevenly waffling between drama and comedy, fact and farce, it takes a fairly normal subject--a famous tennis match--and makes a weird mini-spectacle of it.

Completely miscast, Holly Hunter doesn't quite fit into Billy Jean King's tennis shoes, she looks too strange and unnatural--as if she should have been in Hannibal instead (The muscular character Margot Verger was omitted from the horror flick for fear of offending certain women). Ron Silver broadly overacts as Bobby Riggs, has too close a resemblance to Austin Powers, and sounds too much like Sylvester the Cat. Fred Willard as a TV sportscaster helps only to skew the film into Fernwood 2-Night territory, and every other person is reduced to a sexist/racist/handicapped/ethnic caricature.

The story and style is clumsy and unsteady. Is it trying to be Rocky, the Karate Kid, or When Harry Met Sally? When Billie Beat Bobby does not know what it wants to be. The 1970's setting seems to come out of an old Mad magazine, and everyone looks and acts grotesque as if they were directed by David Lynch, or John Waters-lite. The fake-Stanley Kubrick technique breaks into bits of sports-film cliche, bits of nostalgic kitsch, bits of comic exaggeration, and other odd bits that don't move, fit or jive. It has about as much respect tennis-players as a black-face minstrel show has for African-Americans.

What it all ends up in is When Myra Breckinridge Beat the Nutty Professor with an American Graffiti/Animal House epilogue tacked on. It even cheats the viewer out of any beleivable tennis action--most of the shots are of closeups and fans in the bleachers. When Billie is best forgotten, it may be remembered for being what Dan Aykroyd on SNL used to call "Bad Performance Theatre!" At least it was broadcast on ABC TV, so you got your money's worth of curiously awful cinema.


The Legacy suffers from a crisis of identity. On the one hand, it's a horror movie, with the requisite supernatural elements and inexplicable occurrences. On the other hand, it's a mystery in the cozy, Agatha Christie style, set in a large Victorian mansion in the English countryside, with corpses turning up left and right.

Of course, there's no law against blending genres. To do so successfully, however, takes a defter hand than is evident here. The result is an incoherent mess that leaves the viewer feeling cheated. The actors do their collective best, but this one's beyond help.


The original screenplay, ("The Devil's Doorway"), showed promise but re-writes apparently turned this into one of those muddles which has no clear point or purpose other than to string together a few creepy scenes in the hope an audience will "buy" it. Things start to go wrong in the very first reel when Katherine Ross and Sam Elliott arrive in England where Ross has a job waiting for her. They're involved in a road accident and get a lift from a man who turns out to be the reason for their coming to England. Is this a coincidence? If so, it boggles the mind. If it isn't a coincidence, then what is it? The movie never explains because, hey, it's a movie, and it's not supposed to make any sense. Note how leading lady Katharine Ross is overdressed throughout in floor-length skirts and long-sleeved blouses whereas leading man Sam Elliott quickly and completely strips down for a rear-view nude scene -- buns by Michelangelo! -- in which he's shown walking into a bathroom and climbing into a shower. There's no plot purpose for this blatant display of male skin and one suspects someone on the film-making staff simply decided that as long as one has a hot, hairy hunk like Sam Elliott in one's employ, why not tell him to take off all his clothes? For the sake of art, of course. (I'll bet no one missed being on the set the day Sam let it all hang out!)


SPOILERS AHEAD: I remember seeing this one when it came out

in theaters and being alternately amused and aggravated by its

hokey, convoluted plot, which seems to borrow themes from

several good sources dealing with black magic, the supernatural,

and even Agatha Christie (as there is a "Ten Little Indians" type

device in which the guests are mysteriously knocked-off one by

one). Unfortunately, it's not cobbled together very well. A couple of

the deaths are genuinely disturbing (imagine surfacing in a pool

to find yourself trapped underwater) but suffer from the lurid

supernatural yarn that underlies the proceedings. Some nice

visual touches, and attractive British country locations buoy this

one up a bit, but not before the whole thing sinks under its own

confused weight by the last reel. One noteworthy silver lining to

this dark cloud is provided by Sam Elliot who, in a rather cheeky

turn, saunters through a bathroom in his birthday suit (with, it must

be said, absolutely nothing to be ashamed of!). This film certainly

had potential, if it lacked focus. Katharine Ross and Sam Elliot

play likable enough, down-to-earth inheritors who (through sheer

stupidity) wind up stuck in this mire with a bunch of continental

kooks, played by the ever decadent Charles Gray, velvet-voiced

Hildegarde Neil, and other talents like Margaret Tyzack, Lee

Montague, and (an oddly placed) Roger Daltrey. Not a shabby set

of actors to be sure, but they're working with a ridiculous script.

See Ross in "The Stepford Wives" and Elliot in "Lifeguard" (better

vehicles from this era). Charles Gray, many will recall from the now

classic "Rocky Horror Picture Show". "The Legacy" is not

necessarily to be completely avoided (unless you are faced with

watching the heavily edited TV print -- the one with the inexplicably

expanded title, "The Legacy of Maggie Walsh"), but it's not at all to

be taken seriously either. Much as it wants to be.


Really not a lot of horror going on in this one, however from what I see of other reviews this was just supposed to be a horror remake of a crime classic and it shows. There is one truly scary scene in this film and it involves the young lady in the pool, but other than that scene this film falls into a long line of horror movies from the 70's and early 80's that had potential, but were defeated by to much talking and not enough horror. This one starts out with a young lady and her boyfriend (I think it was her boyfriend) having some sort of accident where they end up being invited to some mansion where a whole crowd of people are assembling in the hopes of being named the successor to some guy who is dying upstairs. Funny, this very guy is the one who invited the young lady and the gentlemen to his home and he seemed just fine when he invited them. So on to the house where people, other than the pool victim, die in rather uninteresting ways and a new heir is on their way to being chosen. At one point the girl and guy try to get out of the situation, but the town seems to have a hold on them or something, you can not get away from this situation all that easily. Near the end though there is very little horror to write home about and the crossbow scene just punches that point home that this movie just is not really a horror movie at all


Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross play an American couple traveling through England where they are taken in by a mysterious millionaire who apparently heads up a devil's coven. The evil lurking at the mansion won't allow anyone to leave--and so we're all held prisoner together, watching the guests meet their 'imaginative' grisly fates. Fashionable nastiness, "Ten Little Indians" style, with director Richard Marquand showing no sympathy for his victims--nor giving viewers any genuine thrills to enjoy along the way. Marquand gets ridiculously showy with his camera tricks--even staging one shot through the nozzle in Elliott's shower stall! Lethargy settles in early, the talented leads are wasted, and the shocks are awfully slow in coming. *1/2 from ****


A beautiful, young, American couple goes to England because of a mysterious business proposition and because the movie takes place there 'cause it's always gloomy and foggy and coldish and this is a supernatural thriller in a big house and finally because most couple in these derivative though sometimes enjoyable outings are a bit on the slow side. Anyway, they get there through a generic boosting an atrocious "this-is-the-incongruous-love-song-theme-get-use-to-it-it'll-come-back-throughout" and then the legacy unveil itself, literally.

Well, let's just say lovely Ross and tough Elliott fared better with their subsequent collaborations adapting Louis L'Amour stuff. I must say that after seeing that "Legacy" film, I'm a bit confused; I find myself wandering what the hell did they saw in that shallow script devoid of suspense, unexpectedness and more importantly of defined characters. One have to pay the rent (or the ranch) I suppose.

It's a real shame 'cause I'm one of these freaks who loved Mrs Ross' Stepford Wives so the possibility of seeing her in another fantastic/horror flick did thrilled me. And there is the result, a messy, badly acted, confused and sometimes laughable supernatural outing directed with laziness by the late and usually reliable Richard Marquand (Eye of the Needle, The Return of the Jedi). The pit.


The prominent British horror production studios like Hammer and Amicus sadly ceased to exist during the mid-70's, and this loss also seemed to have a negative impact on the creative skills of the contemporary writers. Jimmy Sangster, once the brilliant mind behind genre classics such as "Taste of Fear" and "The Curse of Frankenstein", now delivered the severely lackluster script of the umpteenth haunted-house thriller. "The Legacy" is an incredibly disappointing horror-effort: overlong, boring, implausible and almost entirely fright-free. Sangster regretfully reverts to all the dreadful genre-clichés (secrets in the attic, slamming doors, hidden rooms) and he depicts his native country England like one gigantic stereotype where everyone stops their activities to drink tea and where people continue to talk with a sophisticated tone of voice even though they're pure evil. The star-power involved in this production was nevertheless promising. Rising American stars Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross are backed up by a solid supportive British cast including names like Ian Hogg and Charles Gray and "The Who" lead-singer Roger Daltrey appears in a limited guest role. Director Richard Marquand even moved on to making "Return of the Jedi" despite having soiled his name with this turkey! Pretty much NOTHING happens within the first hour, apart from the introduction of many bleak & uninteresting characters. Following a suspicious yet appealing job offer, young architect Maggie Walsh and her fiancé Pete travel to the remote British countryside. Whilst doing a sightseeing trip on the first day, their motorcycle is run over by the Rolls Royce of a fancy local millionaire who subsequently offers them both a cup of tea in his ridiculously large mansion. Other guests arrive at the mansion and it pretty soon becomes clear that Pete and Maggie aren't supposed to leave the place. Maggie gets involved in bizarrely occult ceremonies that are organized to arrange the Mountolive family legacy. The guests are killed off peculiarly whilst Maggie and Pete can't seem to escape the estate no matter what they try. Marquand surely tries hard to make his film look spooky! All the mansion's rooms look frigid, there's a bunch of angry-looking cats running around (or maybe just one that pops up everywhere  even on the movie poster) and all the forsaken roads in the rural area lead back to the estate. It doesn't work, however, as "The Legacy" is an insufferable boring and predictable thriller. I'm still "rewarding" this film with a generous 3 out of 10 rating, only because the murder sequences are ingenious and remotely gory. There's a spontaneous combustion, one poor woman dies when a mirror explodes in her face and another bloke's shotgun backfires on him. Very cool deaths, accomplished with decent special effects, it's such a shame you have to struggle yourself through the boring scenes in between them.


Overdressed Los Angeles locations come between harmless Dennis Hopper (as Frankie), porn star Darryl Hannah (as Margaret), her director Kiefer Sutherland (as Joey), and everybody's mob boss Michael Madsen (as Sal). Uncharacteristically, Mr. Hopper is called "Fly" because he wouldn't hurt one. He plays re-recordings on his jukebox, is called an ugly waitress, and falls in love with Ms. Hannah. She alternately appears blonde and brunette for adult audiences (note, no nudity), and tries not to shoot up. Flailing and jumping around on the set, Mr. Sutherland is mercifully gagged and tied up during the second half.

** The Last Days of Frankie the Fly (10/24/96) Peter Markle ~ Dennis Hopper, Darryl Hannah, Kiefer Sutherland, Michael Madsen


During the past six months or so, I have intentionally sat and watched hordes of terrible movies, in search of the most entertainingly godawful ones I can. I've probably been through about 50 or so. Riding the Bus With My Sister? Seen it. Shatner? Tons. Rock 'N Roll Nightmare? Hell yes. Haim? Feldman? Ferrigno? Medieval Harvey Keitel? All this and more. Perhaps that is the only reason I managed to endure all the way through Riders of the Storm. I've become inured to a certain amount of bad movie pain. But not this much. I'm only human. This is, no hyperbole, one of the absolute dumbest movies I've seen in twenty-six years of movie watching.

My brain has been so thoroughly assaulted by stupidity over the last hour and a half that it can't even collate exactly what happened. A million things are all going on at once, and not a damn one of them makes sense. There's a plane, see? An old bomber flying across the U.S., and on it are seven, sometimes eight men, all but one of which have apparently not touched the ground in fifteen years. They're outlaws with no support system. At all, near as I can tell. Perhaps their plane is powered by wishes and daydreams, because they certainly have no way of getting fuel. They fly around the country using the sparse equipment on board to basically create a television program, S&M TV, and then interrupt legitimate broadcasts with their pirate signal. The things they broadcast are not professional or smart or funny or pertinent or, really, interesting in any way, and after fifteen years of it they have a nation of fans. Naturally. Did I mention one of the guys has a jet pack and that another one of them performs in-flight engine repairs without a safety harness? There's a third whose only job on board appears to be to do tai chi and sweat. You'll never once see the pilot out of his seat. Well, he's only been flying for fifteen years; another two or three and he'll take a nap. They have no way of getting a steady stream of food, but don't worry: the jetpacker (oh God) sometimes brings candy bars and whatnot stuffed in his jacket. This movie thinks you are dumb, dumb, dumb.

Our heroes are trying to discredit Mrs. Westinghouse, a female presidential candidate. They're disgruntled Vietnam veterans and she's looking to beef up the military and, they're guessing, go to war again. She's utterly without charisma, couldn't deliver a rousing speech if her life depended on it, doesn't come off as intelligent, and looks kind of like someone's homely grandma. Clearly, she must be stopped at any cost. Furthermore, she's labeled at one point as "mysterious," and the only way the character makes even a little sense is if she basically popped up out of nowhere recently--had no past *at all*--and somehow quickly became some party's primary candidate. I'll refrain from giving away what even the back of the VHS box can't help but give away, but Westinghouse's big secret is just another fragrant turd of stupid the movie lays down. It'll be obvious from the word go anyway.

Whenever I thought I could give up for a bit and mentally move past one lump of potent idiocy like a speed bump just so I could follow the movie, along came two more. At one point I literally sat staring slack-jawed at the screen for probably ten minutes because I just couldn't deal with it. The movie tries to take swipes at religion, politics, country music, the military, aerobics workout videos, etc., etc., but it's all so amateurish and painfully unfunny that it seems about on the level of a really bad public access show with a mysteriously large budget. It plays about like an eleven year old wrote a script and, through a series of farcical errors, it got produced and turned into a real movie with real money behind it.

It's got plenty of garish 80s style behind it--the fact that the director worked on music videos came as no surprise, nor did the fact that this was his first movie--but its substance is practically nil. The movie has no idea that's the case, however. It seems at times to believe that it's a satire, but it's way too dim to be capable of meeting any satirical ambitions. On a second viewing it might be laughable, but there's so much to deal with that the first time around was just a painful exercise in masochism. I'm not sure I'd even recommend it as an entertainingly bad movie. Useful as a trial of sorts, a challenge for you and your friends to get through, perhaps.


Just when you thought you had seen one of Dennis Hopper's worst movies ever, along comes "The Amarican Way", and a new contender for worst of the worst is born. The script is like a free fall from the heavens, finally crashing to earth in such a predictable manner, there is nothing left. Don't ponder for meaning, because if this is an anti-war movie, it fails to prove any point other than mayhem. More like "The Groove Tube" or "Kentucky Fried Movie" on acid, only the most tolerant viewer will remain through the entire film. In fact, the only relief from the random dialog in the plane is the few welcome moments when the viewer is back on planet earth, a place this entire production has never been. Definitely the cream of the crap, and a must miss, avoid, movie. - MERK


this would have to be the worst movie ever by far!! the movie is plagued with bad acting, terrible editing and shocking direction, oh! and not to mention the storyline!!! yuk!! this film is an insult to the film it ripped off, children of the corn was a great horror flick but this was just another writer who did'nt want to think of a story all by himself so he decided to rip up a cult classic. this film was actually bought out on DVD in Australia and stupid me wanting to buy, which i did!, thinking that it might be a good horror film but noooooooooo!!! i was left bemused and annoyed that i wasted my time and money into this terrible piece of d grade garbage!!!


ah yes... yet another vampire/werewolf movie. Most of those are of poor quality, ridiculous and copy off each other with great candor. This one is different in one respect... it didn't copy off other vampire movies, it copied off The Matrix. And a lot.

The director seems to be an avid admirer of the The Matrix and seemed to have included a lot of its design motifs into this movie. Including a lot of actor body language, weapon usage, wardrobe, setting and even the general color scheme. It's basically The Matrix with vampires instead of machines... with one problem, it's not even a fraction as good.

The story itself is well documented so repeating it won't help much, but what will help is to prepare you to a somewhat low budget production (or seemingly so) with poor acting (yes, even by wonderful Kate) and uncomfortable clichés. The story has potential (vampires vs. werewolves) but it's hard to shake off the feeling you're watching an episode of some low-budget vampire series. The dialogs are mostly predictable and shallow, and it seems the focus of this movie is on a disappointing 'cool factor' rather than absorbing the viewer into the story.

I'd recommend this movie to hardcore (and young) vampire/werewolves fans, but they'll watch it anyway... if you're not automatically taken by that theme, stay away. The biggest contribution this movie has given me was a craving to watch The Matrix again.


Wow, for quite a while, I was actually expecting to like this movie! I don't recall even knowing about it upon its release in 2003, but was aware of its 2006 sequel, "Underworld: Evolution", while it was playing in theatres. I didn't bother going to see it, since I hadn't seen the original, but planned to eventually watch them both when I got around to it. Well, it took a while, but I've finally seen this first film of the two, and while I was expecting to like it enough to watch the sequel, it certainly didn't work out that way. I was very disappointed, and as a result, I saw no point in watching the sequel!

A war between Vampires and Lycans (werewolves) has been going on for centuries, and one of the vampire warriors stuck in this war is Selene. She is a death dealer, who tracks down Lycans to assassinate. After a battle against a group of Lycans in a subway station, it appears that her Lycan rivals were after a human named Michael Corvin, and following humans is not something they usually do! Unfortunately, Selene cannot get her concern across to vampire ruler Kraven, so she investigates the matter on her own, trying to find out what these werewolves want with Michael. The reason why this particular human is wanted by them is a big part of their plot to gain power over the vampires, something they haven't had for hundreds of years. Also, Lucian, the Lycan leader who was long thought to be dead, has returned!

I would say the film opens with a decent narration from Kate Beckinsale as Selene, but it goes from there to a tedious battle sequence (the subway station one, in this case). Unfortunately, that certainly isn't the only tedious battle sequence in the entire film. Some of the acting is pretty weak as well, such as Shane Brolly as Kraven, and the haunted music/sounds hardly ever seem to stop. Like I mentioned above, there really isn't much in the movie other than misery, gloom, and mayhem. I certainly wasn't expecting a really upbeat film, and have been impressed by dark action flicks before, but it all gets so repetitive here, it just keeps going and going, which gets pretty tiresome, maybe even depressing! Nothing really progresses! I didn't really care for any of the characters, either, and ended up not caring about what happened to them or how the story went. Worse still, in addition to all these problems, all the gloom and mayhem is seemingly endless! It seems like it will go on for all eternity, and as I watched, I really wondered when it was going to end, and didn't see any possible way it COULD end!

I think I was way too confident that I would like "Underworld", even though I wasn't expecting an absolute classic. With that confidence, I rented this action/horror flick and its sequel together, but sadly, that copy of "Underworld: Evolution" had to go back to the video store unwatched. At approximately two hours, does this film seem longer than it really is? Well, if you ask me, absolutely! To me, it seemed more like three or four hours! If the film was around, I don't know, half an hour/45 minutes shorter than it is, I would probably rate it 5/10, but since the flaws in the film continue for so long, never stopping until it's over, I think even an average rating would be a tad too generous! Even with all its big-budget special effects, there's something unprofessional and immature about this film, filled with modern clichés. So, sadly, the interesting idea of vampires vs. werewolves had so much potential that wasn't reached!


This is another one of those worryingly fashionable and prominent documentaries that offers plentiful sound-bites set to almost non-stop music, but precious little insight. Like that terribly overrated skateboarding flick Dogtown And Z-Boys, this is a barrage of information that you didn't care to know, delivered by people sometimes visibly salivating at the prospect of recounting a story that isn't really worth telling.

Many of these subjects are so rigorously determined to mythologize this period of Aussie film-making, that they end up telling tales that make them look like a smirking misanthropy collective. Wasn't it funny when that actress nearly drowned, just because some schmuck of a director couldn't get the shot that he wanted? How about when Henry Silva, an actor petrified of heights, almost p*ssed himself with fear because a camera crew took him 70ft off the ground without warning him? And that Etc sequence in Patrick? They considered giving the actor real shock therapy! What lovable rogues! What tw*ts.

Stir in the endless shrugging off of numerous instances of casual racism and misogyny, and you're left with a pretty empty document of little genuine significance.

There are a handful of interesting, level-headed contributors (one of them being an uncharacteristically restrained Quentin Tarantino) but there is no form, structure or analysis of any cultural impact that this movement may have had. Which is a shame, because such analysis may have justified the film's existence.

There may well be valuable things to say about this subject, but it'll take a much more ambitious director to do it.


It's informative, all right, but after a very short while you realize that all you're watching is a bunch of clips of junk exploitation pix & mostly fatuous comments on them. OK, so Tarantino (we're not on a first name basis) was blown way by the outrageous idea of having an almost nude woman as a hood ornament on a car. So what? Some tastelessness is highly enjoyable (most of Tarrantino's work is) because of style, panache & great dialogue. With rare exceptions, the Ozploitation stuff shown in this pic is not. It's just juvenile & I'm old enough to be sorry I wasted my time watching this one. Most of the reviewers have disagreed or will disagree with this comment. Well, that's Show Biz.


Audiences will groan at the character of Mary Donnell. Bette Davis is normally looking out for number one--and she's definitely her good old self in the first half of the movie. The widow of a gangster, Donnell has become a super-competent legal secretary for a respected attorney in a big firm. She fends off unwanted press attention and generally handles herself quite well as a tough single girl in the big city.

She becomes the mistress of her married boss at the law firm (although the Hays Office undoubtedly required the removal of any breath of sexual content here, it should be pretty obvious to all what is going on). In the second half of the movie, which focusses on Jack Merrick (Henry Fonda), whom Donnell has always loved, she achieves peaks of self-sacrifice that will send you staggering to the bathroom to throw up.

This is the sort of film that gives soap opera a bad name.


It's a good thing that the following year from That Certain Woman, Bette Davis and Henry Fonda got to make Jezebel and acquit themselves well in a drama of substance. It certainly showed that as a team they could do better than That Certain Woman and have it be the only film they would be judged on as a screen team.

For such a noble thing Bette's been around the track quite a bit and gets a few more turns before the film ends. As a teen she marries a notorious hoodlum who is killed in a gun battle and she's trying to live it down. She's working under an assumed name as a secretary to wealthy attorney Ian Hunter. When exposed Hunter doesn't care because he's in a rather loveless marriage to the rather frigid Katharine Alexander.

Bette likes him OK, but her heart is set on playboy Henry Fonda. They do get married, but Fonda's father Donald Crisp comes running after his son and gets the marriage annulled. Of course he can't annul what Fonda left to remember him by.

Bette doesn't tell him about their kid and later Fonda marries socialite Anita Louise who is later paralyzed from a car crash. If you're a devotee of soap operas the plot can take any number of directions from here and I won't say.

If That Certain Woman were made today it would be debuting on the Lifetime Channel. From what I've just described there's enough material here for a dozen soaps. One common thing I noticed in this film. The women are all noble and self sacrificing, especially Anita Louise. The men however are all dogs, between the lusting in his heart Hunter, the weakling Fonda, the tyrannical Crisp, even the reporter who tries to blackmail Davis, Hugh O'Connell. Now that's an article of faith to get on the Lifetime Channel.

Bette and Hank do their best with it all, but there are enough tears to fill Lake Erie in this film and suds enough to wash the uniforms at the Great Lakes Naval Training station.


First, I love Bette Davis. This movie is among the worst she ever made. Bette Davis wonderful at playing modern women, especially outspoken, bitchy or evil women. She showed little talent for playing mealy-mouthed, self-sacrificing women. I think most of her fans will be appalled by this film, especially by the ending, which will leave most modern audiences speechless. Thank God that the following year, Bette co-starred with Henry Fonda in a classic, "Jezebel," and got her career back on track.


"Cold and Dark" is a brand new and well-intended British horror/action flick with that may count on ambitious cast & crew members, a dozen of semi-good ideas and a couple of impressive special effects. Unfortunately the script and elaboration are far too messy to make it become a memorable film and I simply can't recommend it wholeheartedly, even though I really wanted to. The story revolves on two macho buddy cops (luckily they wear their badges around the neck, because they looked more like dock workers to me) who put a lot of time and effort in unraveling a network of human smuggling. The brains behind these illegal atrocities naturally are well protected and thus every action taken by our heroic cops turns out pointless. Until one day, officer Shade survives a mysterious incident in a freezer (I still haven't figured out what exactly happened there) and all of a sudden he enjoys monstrous powers. From then on, the two no longer await a boring trial and they make sure every villain's live quickly comes to a bloody end. You can tell that the "vigilante cop" premise isn't exactly original and the monstrous touch is, in fact, the only more or less inventive aspect. And then still this movie fails to impress because of its many boring sequences and the completely illogical structure featuring at times. The rough camera-work and voice-over are a little too obviously stolen from other "cool" films like "Snatch" or "The Boondock Saints", while the top-notch sound effects often miss their effect. And yet, there are several positive elements to detect in this production! A few sequences are downright dazzling (like the first massacre, set in a filthy restroom) and there are some delightfully absurd characters introduced. Like Dr. Elgin who seems to have escaped the Men in Black cast or the typically Scottish commissioner who yells really loud whenever he speaks and compares his police squad with a set of golf clubs. The black humor certainly is the biggest trump of this film. I would label this "Cold and Dark" a missed opportunity but I reckon Andrew Goth has the potential to grow as a director. This is only his second film after "Everybody Loves Sunshine", starring David Bowie.


When Detective Mortimer Shade is somehow killed in a freezer, a parasite called a grail possesses his body, revives him, but he needs blood to stay alive. His partner John Dark accepts the new situation and together they become vigilantes, judging and killing the bad guys, with Shade sucking their blood with his claw. However, Dark notes that Shade is losing the rest of his humanity and becoming a monster, being aware and afraid of the danger Shade represents to mankind and trying to stop him.

Is something wrong with my eyes or was it completely intentional to make the cast and crew names at the start almost indecipherable? I could barely read any of the words on the screen. You would have needed to be watching this with a telescope to read the names. Anyways, onto the movie...

The story to the film is quite ho-hum but interesting enough to at least get you to watch it but it every time something is about to actually happen, it lets you down and shows nothing of interest. There are a few scenes which will grab you but it's not enough, there's just too many pointless conversations with all of the stereotypical foreign characters. If you don't like heavy accents, you won't like it either.

The basis on the movie is how Shade was killed and had the parasite re-animate him, which could have been a really cool scene but we never even get to see it. It's all off-screen which is what makes this film suffer as it is shot rather decently. I don't agree with some of the angles and effects used in certain scenes but it's not too bad.

The acting is okay, no great performances and a couple lousy performances (i.e. Chief of Police) but they do alright. The screenplay is a little confusing and jumps all over the place. The movie is very inconsistent with its pace and disappoints immensely. A few notably good gore effects hardly make up for this one and a half hour waste.

To sum it up, whenever you think something interesting is about to happen, it decides to stop and try again later and never pulls through. I'd avoid if I were you.


This movie is a complete dog, cant believe I insisted on staying up in the forlorn hope that it would get better as it progressed. We Brits are simply atrocious at making movies and this piece of crap does nothing more than reinforce this opinion in me. Yes there have been some great features to have left these shores, but as far as this movie fan is concerned, they are very few and way too far apart. I love movies, especially since TV is so dumbed down it's rarely worth turning it on other than for the news or a documentary of any kind which I believe we are exceptionally great at. But I could find no redeeming qualities in this beast of a movie at all. I guess Luke Goss may get some criticism for his acting abilities from some, personally I think the guy did OK. The real problem is the story and the script, complete and utter bollox on both counts. Me thinks they spent most of the budget on the chopper they hired for the aerial shots.


Oh my dear god, please people, before slating any other film please watch this one first, who in their right mind eats a banana in the bath and then tries to feed some of it to their dog?????? What parasite? what happened in the freezer?? This takes ages to get started and by then interest ebbs away to the point where you just end up staring at the screen blankly. I thought Luke Goss was absolutely brilliant in the TV version of Frankenstein but sadly he seemed to lack any gusto in this bag of dead goats, who-ever wrote this seriously needs to choose a different career path as screenplays are Definitely not their forte. In short this film is an absolute must for either insomniacs or amateur brain-washers.It's dreadful!!


After being brought back from the dead by a parasitic creature, detective Shade is back on the street killingand eating...bad guys. His partner, John Dark, realizes the situation is out-of-hand and tries to stop Shade before he fully transforms into a monster. This well-made by intensely boring British horror offering features good direction from Andrew Goth, who displays a strong visual style and a good eye for interesting camera angles. The entire cast gave very good performances, especially the golf-playing police chief (name of actor escapes me right now). The make-up effects were quite good, and if you like your horror movies gorywell, let's just say this is a VERY bloody flick and horror fans will not be disappointed in this department. Unfortunately, this is where the list of positive aspects ends. The plot is a big confusing mess, the violence is often mean-spirited, the narrative made no sense and the film is very poorly paced. Not unwatchably bad, but unfortunately dumb and dull. Oh, and did those CG shots of the worm-thing that comes out of Shade's hand look like crap or what?

3.5/10.


The initial premise of a Gothic cop and horror movie hybrid is a pretty good idea and certainly prompted me to hire out the film!!!! However the film is badly hampered by wooden acting, especially in the case of the Police Chief who reminded me of Kenric and Moss from a Black Adder the Third episode and seemed to be unable to grasp the difference between screen acting and stage acting, the main one being that you don't need to scream your lines at the camera!!!! Carly Turnbull's performance at Albany was very flat and while acceptable in places seemed like she spent the majority of the film reading her lines of an autocue!!!! Having said that the two main leads did put in a pretty good effort with Kevin Howarth, who I think is criminally underrated, proving his worth yet again as a villain by contributing a very convincing and creepy performance showing his characters descent from maverick cop to homicidal monster. Luke Goss did his best and put in a comparatively good performance. Also Matt Lucas cameo is well acted proving he can play straight as well.

Another resounding floor in the film has to be the Americanisation element, with the Police acting like American cops dressing like American cops and doing all but speaking in American accents!!!! The attempt to dress Luke Goss as Vin Diesel is especially frustrating. Also the parasite is a blatant copy of the stomach burster from the Alien quadrilogy!!!! The director Andrew Goth does well all being considered and uses the camera angles and cutting to good effect but with all the gaping plot holes and wooden acting he was unable to turn it around but as they said in Wayne's World "You cant polish a turd".

All in all a good idea that went horribly wrong!!!!!


I downloaded this movie because I had nothing better to do. I kind of expected to see a cool 'who-did-it' slasher flick; generic story, lots of gore, okay cinematography, etc. This movie was almost the exact opposite. The story was actually kind of interesting; a detective who's life was taken away is given a second chance due to a symbiotic parasite, but in exchange, must feed off human bodies to maintain both himself and the parasite. You could tell by watching the movie that the director tried to make it seem 'cool', by moving at a subtle, slow pace in order to deviate from a typical slasher flick. But he fails miserably. The movie is too dreadfully slow, the character development leaves much to be desired (which is almost a good thing sometimes...what was up with that Captain or General person who plays golf?). Also, some of the scenes were just plain weird. Near the end, when the female detective was sitting at the bench with the two guards in the towers, what went on there? Did she walk back to Johns house with a head wound, just in time for it to start bleeding? I found that to be a highly stupid sequence of events.

Overall, I thought this movie was fairly bad; I know nothing about the director, but the level that this movie sits at makes me think it's possibly his first, and hopefully his last.

I give this movie a 4/10.


A standard good cop/bad cop film with a bit of a supernatural twist of an alien parasite that sadly doesn't really work that well. Dark and Shade are partners, Shade has tendencies to go over the boundaries of typical law enforcers. One day he survives a mysterious incident in a freezer and an alien parasite enters his body. I rather enjoyed the nihilistic tone, and there are moment that you think it MAY get better, sadly like empty promises that never come through, it doesn't. Hopefully, just like this film was a tad better than his previous "Everybody Loves Sunshine", Goth's next film, the Chow Yun Fat starring "The Wretched" will be a tad better than this. But even if it's not, the title will be apt at least.

My Grade: C-

Eye Candy: Christie Seary is topless, she's dead, but what are ya gonna do mate?; Carly Turnball shows a glimpse of ass, hopefully we'll see more of her in the future. A LOT more


Moody, strange and very dark. Mort Shade(Kevin Howarth)and John Dark(Luke Goss)are a pair of police detectives working with the vice squad in a notoriously rough neighborhood near the docks. When Mort is killed in an altercation in a refrigerated warehouse, Detective Dark leaves the scene to get help...only to return and find his partner alive and well. Soon some of the hardest to touch criminals Shade and Dark have been tracking turn up deader than dead. Dark discovers that his parter has been possessed by a bloodthirsty evil entity that is responsible for the savage killings. Other cast members: Carly Turnbull, Carrie Clarke, Matt Lucas and Jake Curran.


I so wanted this film to be good after watching the trailer - it certainly had some potential seeing that it was British, promised to score high on the gore/violenceometer, starred ex-pop star Luke Goss (not an indication that one should anticipate a film of any quality, but in the trailer at least he appeared promising) and on top of all this featured none other than jolly old bonkers Matt Lucas for good measure.

Apart from one scene in a toilet where our fairly derivative "monster" does the business (and briefly woke me up), this film is the most pretentious, woodenly acted drivel I have witnessed since - well, not that long ago... I still remember "Underworld"...Pant's more like, but I digress...

The script seems to have been written acknowledging that most of the "actors" can't. This becomes most apparent when after around about 70 interminable minutes enter Matt Lucas, with an almost (I said almost!) Shakesperean flair - Oh joy! he speaks the first natural dialogue in the film! Sub Dr Who nonsense. Avoid.


Root canals without anesthetic are more fun. They let potential suicides watch this movie, just so they know that there are REALLY people out there who deserve to die.... such as the scriptwriter for this film. The directors name is Goth? I was going to look this up to see if it was real, but then realized I don't care. If he didn't make that name up, he certainly should have. "Failure of imagination" should be this guy's middle name. Anyone who rated this thing higher than 1 star needs to go see their "dealer" immediately, and demand a refund, or at least something that isn't cut with strychnine. Random detritus: The title comes from (how clever) the screen names of the two lead characters, one of whom is named "Cold" and the other of whom is NOT NAMED DARK. Guess that would have been "far too clichéd" for the "high level talent" they hired to script this "monster". The visual highlite of this film is a scene (I wish I were making this up) that depicts, in all it's raw power and majesty, a British men's bathroom Glory Hole (!!!) (Vomit at your own discretion). Another post comments that there is a Rubiks cube in this same scene. That is probably true, but I would have to re-watch this "horror" to verify that this is true, and I will do that the day after they remove both my eyeballs. Movies I liked less than this one: Reds (worst film of all time). 90% of everything that has "National Lampoon" in the title. Freddy Got Fingered. Joe Dirt. Die Hard 2. Movies I liked more than this: Faces of Death 18: Girls Gone Wild Edition. "A Starters Guide to Holistic Proctology". Any Driver's Ed film. Home movies of my bachelor party (don't laugh at my pain, please).

In sum: A random pick from basic cable is going to be a much wiser investment of your time. Just close your eyes and hit the buttons on your remote. You may thank me later.


Two bad cops trying to defeat all evil in todays society with a surprise hidden in a arm! This movie never gets interesting even though that the beginning try to hook you up. It's a slow moving story with a very very bad contents - unbelievable that such poor scripts still are made. The change of scenes are bad timed, and the focus in some of the scenes are also unbelievable poor. For example when one of the cops is in the bath and he starts eating a banana! To put it short, very poor movie based on a even more poor script. I simply can not believable that such bad movie still are produced.

If I have to mention a good thing, it could be the rotating camera angels at the beginning, but then again is this not standard in most movies?


What can say this German Count about this film?... what can a German aristocrat say who deeply loves ( besides his fat German heiresses ) the silent cinema? What then can be said about a film that is well known for being the first talkie (well that's not technically true, it's more a synchronized film) in film history?

As you can understand, mein liebers, it's very hard, very troublesome, very sad, very much, indeed, to talk about this talkie film. German words fail this Count (that's a perfect excuse for a silent film fan) when we think about what "The Jazz Singer" meant to film history.

The film is a typical 20's melodrama with a son of a Jewish cantor who wants to be a Jazz singer. Ah, and that's a problem, indeed!!... the youngsters always defying traditions, having no respect for the elders they begin wanting to be modern singers and finally want to make talkies!!!

"The Jazz singer" was the talk of the town, it's true.

Thanks to the adventures of Jakie Rabinowitz and some bizarre songs, henceforth the cinema wasn't the same. The public preferred simple talkie stories and forgot the poetry, the visual beauty, the sceneries, the slapstick, the German Expressionism, the frenchified films, the avant-garde movements, the Pola Negri whip, the Brooks hairdo, Metropolis, the Garbo face, the sunrise of two humans, etc. The magnificent film narrative of the silent films that at that time was especially brilliant was at the beginning of the end of a beautiful dreama splendorous, unique era of the film history.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count has talked himself out with his respect for the films of the silent era


An interesting piece of film history but not a very entertaining one. The novelty of being the first sound film having worn off, this movie truly doesn't have much to offer. Al Jolson stars as Jack Robin, the son of a Jewish Cantor, who leaves home to become a Broadway entertainer. This storyline was not much more than an excuse to fill the picture with musical numbers, and even most of those seem bland by today's standards. There are a few good moments, thanks for the most part to Jolson's performance. In one touching scene, Robin serenades his mother with the song "Blue Skies." This scene contains the only real dialogue in the movie, which just makes the rest of the film seem that much more flat. Jolson definitely has the charm and acting chops of a leading man. He could carry a film if it was worth carrying. Unfortunately, this one wasn't.


1st watched 8/20/2005 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Crosland, Alan): Sappy introduction to sound from Warner Brothers and Al Jolson. The movie made a lot of money for the studio and gave people the first opportunity to see what sound could be like in the movies. There was actually only one talking scene with sound but also a few musical performances by Jolson and Cantor Josef Rosenblatt. These scenes in itself were monumental to film and the movie has a part in the world of cinema because of this. As for the movie, it's very heavy-laden with sappiness and schmaltz as the son of the Cantor has to decide between singing for the church or taking his show on the road to Broadway. It takes a long long time for him to make a decision and the viewers can't help but yell back at the screen, "Come on just make up your mind one way or the other, PLEASE!!." The religious family lays on the guilt as his father becomes ill, and the girlfriend and Broadway show director lay their side of the argument on heavy as well. As an entertainment piece, it's nice to see Jolson especially doing his classic "Mamy" near the end but the entire movie would have been better as a video collection. Oops, I guess we'd have to wait another half a decade or so for that and by then both of the singers from this movie were long gone, too bad it would have at least been interesting.. The movie made a lot of money for the studio and gave people the first opportunity to see what sound could be like in the movies. There was actually only one talking scene with sound but also a few musical performances by Jolson and Cantor Josef Rosenblatt. These scenes in itself were monumental to film and the movie has a part in the world of cinema because of this. As for the movie, it's very heavy-laden with sappiness and schmaltz as the son of the Cantor has to decide between singing for the church or taking his show on the road to Broadway. It takes a long long time for him to make a decision and the viewers can't help but yell back at the screen, "Come on just make up your mind one way or the other, PLEASE!!." The religious family lays on the guilt as his father becomes ill, and the girlfriend and Broadway show director lay their side of the argument on heavy as well. As an entertainment piece, it's nice to see Jolson especially doing his classic "Mamy" near the end but the entire movie would have been better as a video collection. Oops, I guess we'd have to wait another half a decade or so for that and by then both of the singers from this movie were long gone, too bad it would have at least been interesting.


Cantor Rabinowitz (Warner Oland) wants his son Jackie to sing traditional Jewish religious songs at the temple. Jackie likes only signing jazz and, after his father beats him, he runs away from home. Twenty years later he's changed his name to Jack Robin (Al Jolson) and is a jazz signer...albeit not successful. He then meets beautiful Mary Dale (May McAvoy) who helps him become a big star. But his father is dying and wants him to sing for him before he dies and (wouldn't you know it?) this happens on the opening night of his big break.

Yawn. What a cornball story! This was old even in 1927 when this was made. It's more funny now than dramatic. The clichés come flying left and right--some of them were so overdone I couldn't believe it! I was rolling my eyes and smirking almost nonstop. If this wasn't one of the first talking pictures and didn't have Jolson in it, it would have disappeared long ago. Also this (technically)isn't an all talking picture. It has sequences of dialogue and signing from Jolson but it's mostly a silent with title cards and everything.

Cornball story aside the acting didn't impress me. I'm no fan of Jolson. I do admit his acting wasn't too bad but I hated his songs and didn't think he was much of a singer. When the sound came on when he was signing I kept hoping it could switch back to silent! Also he does two numbers in black face. I realize that was considered OK back in 1927 but it comes across as appalling and racist today. The rest of the actors overact to a startling degree--but that was how silent film stars DID act so I can't fault them.

A real bad film but I give it a 2 because it is historically important. Anyone who interested in cinema should see it at least once.


Why? The main character goes around in blacface and emits horrible sounds from his mouth that some people claim is singing.No matter how many persons are in Jolson's corner they can't convince anyone with a normal sense of hearing that he's some kind of singer(?).For anyone that thinks it's o.k. for a white man to sing mammy in black face go down to a black neighborhood and tell the people that.As a non-black that lived in black districts I can tell you it upsets them.When this movie came out on TV in the 1960's it made me cringe because I knew a lot of people around me were going to be upset.Yes,the good old 1960's when the riots started,showing a movie like this didn't help prevent them.The people that support and broadcast-ed this movie go around oblivious to realty.While their safe in a sheltered world during the riots I'm on the funky streets trying to be on time for the graveyard shift.Some persons now believe Leif Erickson discovered America instead Of Columbus.A change is needed in movie history too.In the best interest of a happier society I'd like for this movie not to be given any claim to fame,sweep it under the rug.May a technicality give the fame to a more decent film.


Of the various low-budget exploitationers of the 1930s, I was only familiar with the similarly drug-related TELL YOUR CHILDREN (1938), better-known by its alternate title REEFER MADNESS  actually produced by Dwain Esper, the co-director of this one and a film-maker whose notorious reputation (for lack of talent) rivals that of Ed Wood himself! Here, then, we ostensibly have the case history (cue exhaustive exposition in the form of title cards) of a doctor who indulged in various types of drugs, starting out with opium (suggested by the stereotypical wise-yet-evil Chinese) but soon progressing to heroinall of which ends with him losing everything (living in a two-bit dive and eventually turning a gun on himself!). While I was expecting horrific hallucinations or (unintentionally hilarious) hyperbolic reactions resulting from the intake of drugs, all one got is an excess of dull talk which quickly exasperated this viewer long before the film's brief 57 minutes were up! Still, there were at least three scenes which have to be seen to be believed: a chauffeur popping pills while driving gets his car smashed by an oncoming train; the lengthy "drug party" itself with the participants freely sniffing coke and injecting heroin while dancing and bickering amongst themselves; and a completely irrelevant bit (obviously stock footage) of a couple of snakes fighting capped by the victor literally swallowing up the defeated reptile!


Although this movie is supposedly based on actual events, the production values of the film betray that it is yet another old exploitation film--the sort that were produced by fly-by-night production companies to prey upon the public's fear AND fascination with sex and drugs. But, since such topics could not generally get past the censor boards of each state, they were marketed as "educational" and shown to adults-only audiences. Some of the obvious problems with the film are the use of silent film footage (when shown on a normal projector, it runs too fast and looks odd), clips of a baby being delivered by c-section (for little apparent reason other than they happened to have the film and decided to shove it into the movie) as well as choppy editing and poor acting. It's obvious th was NOT a large budget production, but made 'on the cheap', so to speak.

After showing a lot of seemingly irrelevant stock footage, the story begins. A Chinese man who looks about as Chinese as Eddie Murphy is talking with a couple American men. Later, one of them approaches this 'Asian' and requests that they do some opium together. So, they go to an opium den and hit the pipe. While this is pretty cheesy since the Chinese guy obviously ISN'T, the way they demonstrate opium and the paraphernalia is surprisingly accurate compared to the information you usually get in such films. Soon you see the two drift into a blissful stupor. Later, the American guy goes back for more and he's obviously hooked. How this turns him into a man who sells patent medicines is beyond me.

The rest of the film is jam-packed full irrelevant film footage--including odd clips of sideshow freaks, speeding cars and, cats staring at snakes--once again, whatever they seemed to have on hand--slapping it all together and hoping to make a semi-coherent film. And, unlike the segment on opium, the drug information is, to put it charitably, histrionic! Supposedly wild parties and a guy ripping the dress off his wife when he ran out of drugs are among the more outlandish scenes in this film--that, by this point, has become an almost plot less mess. By then end, the opium addict is a complete and total mess and he begins quoting Bible verses about the danger of alcohol--as he calls out to God and then kills himself. Believe it or not, this scene actually is well done--with some dandy acting by the addict. But, sadly, it's about the only well made portion of the film! Some of the problems with the film were probably not originally in the film. Many times, the film appears to have little bits and pieces missing and as a result, the film is pretty choppy. Considering this was a Kino DVD, I assume this is simply the best copy they have as this company usually does a good job in producing excellent quality disks.

It's obvious from my review that this is a terrible film. But, is it worth seeing--after all, some bad films are so stupid and clumsily made that they are fun to see and laugh at--especially with friends. Well, this film is stupid and you will laugh a bit at its horribleness--but it never quite reaches the same level of histrionics and stupidity of such cult classic bad films as "Reefer Madness". Still, it's good for a laugh or two and probably did little to educate anyone--especially with such lines as "Ladies, ladies...let's not get vulgar...YET!".


Somehow the Animatrix shorts with the most interesting premises have the worst outcome. Matriculated is the worst of the bunch (although it's a close call with Program), as it takes a great idea (showing the machines the beauty of mankind by plugging them in) and turns it into the worst experience of the 9.

As I said, the story begins promising and interesting, but ends with a long, long, long sequence of 'weird' images, a cross between the famous scenes from 2001 and VGA-rain (who can remember it), but not as interesting as neither of them.

Too bad as the Animatrix wasn't great to begin with. Add the fact that Revolutions as well as Reloaded were a huge disappointment... who knew it would end this way 5 years ago when we were all in awe of The Matrix... don't you hate sad endings? 3/10.


A friend of mine sent this to me for evaluation because I watch a lot of cheap horror films like he does. This is by far the worst 'horror' movie I have seen so far this year. It is like someone strung together their boring home movies and forced them upon the general movie-going public. It is cheap - stupid - annoying - lifeless and drags along at a snail's pace. There is not one single decent acting performance in this film, no interesting characters, no suspense and it seriously lacks in the gore department, which could have been a redeeming factor for movies like this one.

It was produced by a B-movie website and I went to said site and saw the 'reviewer' praising many movies I've seen that are beyond terrible. I know it was just his/her opinion, but hell - BAD IS BAD - Anyone giving a thumbs up to some of those bombs is obviously just trying to get free screener copies and thus is a worthless, biased 'critic'...

Speaking of the 'B' horror industry - I have noticed that it generally consists of people with little to no talent who just sit around praising each other's unoriginal home video crap. I hope THEY enjoy their OWN films, because no one else does. When this one gets out to DVD, it wish it a quick death at the bottom of the Blockbuster bargain bin. Sadly, this movie will probably make money... but how could it not? It obviously didn't cost anything! The people involved with this show complete disregard for their audience and that in itself is appalling enough not to drop a dime on this junk. End of story.


I also got a screener copy of PSYCHO SANTA thanks to the generosity of one of the people involved in this film. So, props for spreading the word about independent films that may otherwise not have a voice. People in the low-budget horror/exploitation industry are a tight-knit group of people who have good intentions and work very, very hard for very little payoff. They also take the time to answer e-mails and converse with fans... something their Hollywood counterparts never seem to have the time to do.

That said, this videotaped horror effort is unfortunately quite awful. I won't lie. It is VERY bad and I could go on for many reasons why I did not enjoy it very much, but it boiled down to two basic things...

1. The film is mercilessly padded out with scenes that never seem to end. It takes five minutes for someone to get from Point A to Point B, when it should take around 30 seconds max. I counted at least four scenes in this movie (there are probably more) that are stretched out for no apparent reason than to pad out the running time. Padded out movies are not only boring to sit through, but also make you lose complete interest in the film and what is going on in it. I noticed I had my trigger finger rested on the fast-forward button on my remote while watching this and I had to fight off the urge to use it many times.

2. There is VERY little dialog and very little actual content here; I don't think there's enough going on to merit a short film, let alone a feature length one. During one long and patience-shredding scene, a pair of burglars take several minutes to walk around outside and break into a house. If I recall correctly, the two did not say a single word to each other in that time. Even when they enter the house and drown a woman in her bathtub, they say nothing. So we don't know a thing about these two and thus could care less about them, what they are doing or what happens to them (in this case, getting killed off by the dead woman's monstrous son).

PSYCHO SANTA is a horror anthology with three tales and linking segments. The first story involves two women (a quite attractive and busty brunette and a redheaded goth chick who looks about 20 years older than her friend). They arrive at a fully-decorated-for-the-holidays cabin-in-the-woods to meet a friend, the less-attractive one takes a LONG shower to demonstrate she is pierced in more than one spot, the cute girl walks around outside for an eternity and then bops around in lingerie and a Santa hat for another 5 or so minutes. Then the two discover what happened to their friend. This segment has ONE good idea (the whereabouts of the missing friend) and a whole lot of tedium. Tale two (the worst of the bunch) involves the two burglars and the third story has a brother and sister (Eric Spudic and Krystal Stevenson) lost in the woods and encountering a facially-mutated psychotic Santa Claus. Little-known B-movie actress Kimberly Lynn Cole is in this segment for a few minutes. They don't even afford her one line of dialog. All she does is get stabbed and crawl across the floor for several minutes. The framing segment, by the way, has a young couple driving along a secluded road on way to a friend's Christmas party. They do talk in these scenes, but not about anything interesting.

I love horror movies and I love independent movies, when they are done right. To me, a B-movie done 'right' must provide a fast-pace, some campy and/or stilted dialog and plenty of nudity/sex and violence/gore. This one takes itself too seriously to come through as a comedy, is too poorly made to take seriously and does not provide enough exploitation elements to please Z-movie fans. I have nothing against films being shot on video or digital, even though the sound is often awful. It is all about how much people put into it. Stick with the underrated BLACK Christmas and the deserved cult classic Christmas EVIL when it comes to X-mas horror.

A few smoothly-directed and edited scene transitions and a couple of derivative, but OK touches, save this one from a "1" rating.


I bought this movie for 3 dollars and feel like I was robbed. As a huge horror fan I thought this film showed promise but I was terribly wrong. I could go on for ever about why this film is so bad but I will just give you a few details. First of all the movie is supposed to be set during Christmas, but there is no snow and it appears that it's summer time. Next the film is just terrible, the storyline is thin, it drags along (every scene seems like it's twice as long as it should be), and the acting is downright awful. In addition the film quality is cheap and looks like it was made on a budget of about 10 dollars. As far as gore, there is really only one scene in which you see a person killed by the Santa and the effects are almost as bad as the acting and the storyline. Well I won't go on anymore but will advise you to please avoid this movie at all costs. For true Christmas horror I would recommend either Black Christmas or Silent Night Deadly Night.


My husband brought this home thinking it would be exotic- it was trite and stupid-- no one had any redeeming value- especially the girl- and they seem to think tongues are sexy.... much hype no affection or action.


My husband brought this home-- it was an awful movie- no real plot and the sex wasn't even that sexy- unless you like to watch people lick themselves and act like idiots..... if you want to see a good sex scene rent Carne Tremula instead....


My friend Dave and I went to our local newsagents to see if we could hire out RoboCop. This was back in the days when you could rent videos from newsagents, before laws were introduced to stop the assistants from recommending films. Unfortunately for us, such laws had yet to be invented and this lady behind the counter said that they didn't have RoboCop yet, but they had R.O.T.O.R. Now being young and naïve, we looked at the box and saw that both films had similar letters in their titles and R.O.T.O.R. had a picture of a robot man jumping off a bike and firing a gun. WE WERE SOLD!!

My therapist thinks that a lot of my current problems stem back to this film and our decision to hire it. I have tried to block it from my mind, but it's burned in there and it won't go, it just flashes images from the film at me from time to time.

Here's what it just flashed at me:

There's a stainless steel Desert Eagle in it. How do I remember that? Because I think it's the only pistol they had in the film. Watch for the bit when R.O.T.O.R. is in the boat and he's going to fall I the water, and the DE turns into a toy Colt Python. I could just imagine some redneck off screen saying `You ain't getting' my sweetheart, I mean Desert Eagle, wet. That gun an me have a special relationship. She's real pretty.'

From what I remember of the story, this woman makes some kind of driving violation, so R.O.T.O.R. chases her across the country and tries to kill her. His programming has gone wrong so he'll kill anyone who gets in his way. Harsh? Yes it is, but if the punishment for speeding was death then we'd all drive a little more carefully.

Well, the budget isn't quite up to that of Water World, and I think that it was made by a group of friends (one of who was going through that transition of man to woman), but I can't really get mad at these guys 'cos at least they tried.

However, heed my warning. If a motorcycle cop who looks like a bulimic Ned Flanders ever stops you, then run for your life! You might just have met the R.O.T.O.R!!


There are bad movies that are funny. Bad movies that are boring. Bad movies that are offensive. And then there are bad movies that are just plain incompetent. You can't get angry at these movies, because it's obvious they were made by people who simply didn't have the talent or the budget to make something even halfway decent. "R.O.T.O.R" is one such movie. You know where you stand right from the beginning, where you can spot the most ludicrously mismatched day-and-night shots since "Plan 9 From Outer Space". Thankfully, the "filmmakers" don't take themselves too seriously, as is immediately evident by the continuous flow of campy and corny dialogue (about half of which is hard to understand anyway, due to its mumbled delivery). The leading actor gives an amazingly narcotized performance...and as for R.O.T.O.R., well, if Robocop had been so inept he wouldn't have lived to be in the sequels. I'd give it 0.5 stars out of 4.


This movie gets a 5 out of 10 not because it deserves five points, in fact, I don't think the quality is such that it deserves one point. But it is just so god damn bad that I love it enough to boost up the points.

To begin with, Richard Gesswein is the worst leading man ever to grace the silver screen. They had to get someone to pull a voice-over for his role, Coldyron (Yeah, that's a tough name), as well as his leading lady, Dr. Steele's part. Dr. Steele, by the way, is a bodybuilder woman with a skunk on her head.

The opening scene reveals the end of the movie immediately telling you that you are wasting an hour and a half. These three guys (the director, writer and star) came up with enough money to take RoboCop, The Terminator, and Judge Dredd (which was merely in comic book form at the time) into one completely awful masterpiece.

When we go back to the beginning of the story, the clock strikes 5:00 and Coldyron wakes up. Just as a quick note to the viewers, the filmmakers then had the clock read 4:50, as if to say, "Please, it's not too late for you, turn off the TV and RUN!" Of course, I didn't follow the directions, I just laughed. Shortly thereafter he fills up a cup of coffee with far too much sugar and you're thinking, "Wow, he sure likes sugar." (This is a joke that you will soon be hoping the filmmakers didn't find to be funny). He grabs carrots from the fridge and heads outside, to his horse. You think the carrots are for the horse, right? But he gives the horse the coffee! THAT'S why there was so much sugar! Then HE eats the carrots himself! AHA! SO FUNNY!! This is about how great the entire movie is.

Absolutely nothing makes sense in this movie. Gesswein says that ROTOR will be ready in 25 years, then says he needs at least 4. Shortly thereafter a Native American character named Shoeboogie puts his headphones in the wrong place and sparks ROTOR. It just makes no sense at all.

I won't go into too many more details, but the worst part of the entire movie must be the fact that ROTOR can take off his sunglasses AND SEE INTO THE PAST! Apparently a function called SENSOR RECALL was built into his system, but it is so insanely dumb that the screenwriter didn't even bother trying to come up with some sort of half-assed explanation. None of the technical jargon even sounds like it makes sense, but he didn't even try going into sensor recall.

You have to see SENSOR RECALL in action to truly appreciate it's sheer madness.

At the conclusion of the movie, Coldyron utilizes a technique Shoeboogie spoke of earlier to kill ROTOR, as if to tie everything together in some sort of nice neat way. One of the problems is that Shoeboogie never spoke to Coldyron. Another is that a few pieces of string defeat this unstoppable supercop.

Another is that I am trying to make sense of a movie in which the comic relief is delivered by a Robot who can think on his own, but the supercop won't be ready for another 25 years.

ROTOR is the worst movie ever made. If you can find something worse, please bring it to me, because I need it.

Please see ROTOR. It is so bad, you will hate me for making you watch it.

And then you will make all of your friends watch it...and you will love me once more.

"Look at these cheekbones: I'm either an Indian or a sissy. And, heh heh, I sure ain't no sissy." (or something like that...) -Shoeboogie


I have seen many terrible movies, most of which can be fun to watch if only to make fun of them. This movie is worse than those. The dialogue is terribly delivered (the best delivery is from the comic-relief robot!), terribly written (contrived, preachy, and generally painful). As an example, the dialogue is littered with things like "I am going to make more noise than two skeletons making love in a tin coffin." And by littered I don't mean a sprinkle, I mean virtually wall to wall, most of it is even completely gratuitous. Also any movie that has a line like "what is this some kind of bad sci-fi flick". Just avoid this movie. It sucks you in. I sat watching wondering how it could get any worse... and it does. Each twist and turn takes this movie deeper into the abyss. 1/10 (which is as low as it goes!)


R.O.T.O.R. is one of those films us Homo sapiens should put into a time capsule so that future generations/civilizations can witness a glorious achievement in 'film' which captures the zeitgeist of the nineteen eighties. Forget the Berlin wall falling or the end of the Cold War, R.O.T.O.R. is the greatest achievement of 1989 and director Cullen Blaine was Man of the Year. Not only is this the cinematic gem the worst thing ever put on celluloid, it also shares the dichotomous distinction of being the funniest film ever made. A perennial favorite at 'bad movie nights with friends', this piece of solid gold belongs in a film museum somewhere.


Wow, this has got to be one of the most ambitiously godawful flicks I have ever laid eyes on. Made for a budget of about $3.89 with some of the most hilarious techno-babble ever caught on film. Our hero is a tall,skinny, rat-faced redneck with a dubbed voice. His sidekick is a skunkhaired testosterone filled she-beast with a dubbed voice. Throw in a fat waddling robot cop, a wisecracking robot, an incompetent "Indian" janitor, and a gal who agrees to drive around for 14 hours to help our heroes and you have one of the worst movies ever made. Try not to throw yourself over the nearest highway overpass after watching this.


After surfing through this site, I came across the reviews for this movie and I just had to see it for myself. It happened to be on this afternoon. And let me tell you...

The other folks who have written comments were not joking. This movie is so incredibly bad that words will be hard to find that can describe it. Wish me luck. Here goes!

From the very instant the opening credits finish up, you can tell this film had a budget of a few thousand dollars or more. Everything looks cheap and hokey.

The next thing we notice is that nearly all of the actors' voices seem dubbed. Why in the heck was this done? Were they all a bunch of foreigners who couldn't speak English that well? Makes you wonder. Anyway, the dialogue you can actually decipher is so bad that it sounds like drunken ad-libbing. I'm sure nobody actually sat down and wrote this entire script. If so, it gives hacks like myself hope that we can actually land work in the movie business.

As far as the technical aspects of this film are concerned, let's just say that ANYONE with their own camera could have filmed this. So many mistakes! Night turns to day instantly. We get LONG shots of people doing simple things like walking across a lawn to their horse and giving him a drink of coffee (!). We see people riding up and down escalators and driving down the highway for much longer than we need to see them. All this tells me that they had a weak story that could barely be stretched out for the standard 90 min that films usually last.

The plot? Forget it! It is nothing more than a rip-off of Robocop. The film still wants to try and be some kind of a western at the same time!

The music? Absolutely putrid! Any ten year old with a little Casio keyboard could have made it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I should have heeded the warnings of the other IMDB contributors. Still, I had to see if this film was truly as bad as everyone said. After viewing it, I have no choice but to agree.

THIS FILM ABSOLUTELY SUCKS!!!!!

0 of 10 stars

So sayeth the Hound.


1. Get smashed on the back of the head with a folding chair.

2. Drag my tongue along the entire length of a men's room floor.

3. Have someone nail my hand to a length of 2x4.

4. Drink a whole bottle of nail polish remover.

5. Staple my lower lip to a corkboard.

6. Eat a bowl of nails.

7. Repeatedly smash my forehead against a concrete pylon.

8. Belly flop off a 10-meter tower into an empty swimming pool.

9. Wrap a piece of string around my index finger til it falls off.

10. Get air-dropped into the middle of the Sahara desert with no supplies and wearing only silk boxer shorts.