*WARNING  SPOILERS*

Pretty boy tough guy with an accent and blonde hair Gary Daniels stars as Jared Taskin, a former cop who had a nervous breakdown and had to start seeing a psychiatrist, Dr. Weise. In the meantime after losing his job, Jared Taskin has become a bounty hunter, which is displayed in the hilariously terrible first scene of the movie. A drug smuggler is trying to make a boy into his coke mule, but Taskin stops him through a poorly choreographed fight scene that includes some absolutely horrendous acting, particularly from the boy. After the fighting is over, the scene abruptly cuts to a sleazy motel room where a man known as Death Touch kills a hooker after having sex with her in an excuse to show nudity.

Old friend and fellow cop Bill Arkaday is played by Kent Ducanon who was in two previous Gary Daniels movies as different characters, adding to the "been there, done that" feel. Early in the film, Bill informs Taskin that his wife just left him, and he starts to violently attack a punching bag in anger. Sadly, this is the least wooden acting he shows the entire film. While talking to Taskin about the Death Touch case, Bill says he also cares about Amanda, though we never really find out exactly who Amanda is from what I can tell. We also learn here they suspect a man named Louis to be the Death Touch killer.

Death Touch later has sex with another prostitute, Jessie, but when he starts to hurt her (well, she is apparently supposed to be in pain even though she is smiling), the hotel manager comes running and Death Touch attacks him. Next, after a totally random fight scene, Taskin runs off to meet up with Bill who is going to Louis' restaurant and its self-proclaimed "Eat Now, Get Hungry An Hour Later Arena." Bill and Taskin go in and pick a fight with Louis' goons. Bill and Taskin dispose of Louis' goons in the parking lot outside before arresting Louis.

Taskin takes Bill to his house and reminisces about old times, trading terrible dialogue back and forth before a random scene where Taskin goes into his old house and starts suffering from flashbacks. Lee walks in and surprises Taskin, talking about how he needs to move on. We also learn here that he has a son he has not seen in some time. Taskin and Lee have sex on the floor while in an abrupt cut, Bill talks on the phone with the police chief about Jessie not being able to ID Louis in a lineup. This leads into yet another abrupt cut to Taskin talking with Dr. Weisehe wants her to help him look through some files. Meanwhile, Death Touch calls the police chief and warns him to stop the investigation or he will keep killing. Yet another prolonged sex scene that feels like bad soft core porn leads to another prostitute being killed. However, it looks to me like this is the same actress that played the first murdered prostitute in the movie! Taskin and Dr. Weise go talk to a former-cop-turned-security-guard about the original Death Touch case. The security guard gives them all the notes he has on the case. When the power gets cut suddenly, Taskin walks gets into a fight with several men wearing ski masks. Taskin tells Bill he found out it was "Jenks all along" and tells him the police report was changed. Bill wants to get ballistics involved, but Taskin wants to go fight Jenks. Bill tells Taskin to stop, but he refuses, leading to a fight between the two. Taskin knocks Bill out and walks away.

We are taken to the same exact boxing ring used in American Streetfighter where two women are fighting. Jenks is in the arena looking for some cash when Taskin rushes in and starts a fight with Jenks. Jenks insists he didn't kill anyonethe forged records were a payoff.

Taskin goes into Bill's house and snoops through the basement, finding a wig and the remains of someone's body in his basement. In the meantime, Bill drives over to Lee's house after snorting some cocaine for no apparent reason. Taskin walks in and Bill pulls a gun while the woman screams "Jared, it's happening again!" Taskin knocks the gun out of Bill's hand and chases him out of the house and down the street.

In an example of terrible special effects, Taskin and Bill hijack a car while fighting, but crash into a stack of cardboard boxes (hiding a ramp). The car jumps onto two wheels at low speed before spinning to a stop. The car apparently hit something and the fuel tank ruptured, spilling fuel all over the ground next to the car. Taskin forces Bill to the ground and rolls him around in the puddle of gasoline before Bill makes a run for a building.

They fight their way through the building up to the roof. Finally, after a long fight, Taskin grabs Bill, turns him around, and lights his jacket on fire (much like Kent Ducanon did to another character in American Streetfighter!). Bill stumbles around and wanders to the edge of the roof before falling off and landing hard on the pavement (much like another character in American Streetfighter!).

All in all, this is the single most unintentionally funny movie I have ever had the fortune/misfortune of finding in the bargain bin. Bad camera-work and sounds that apparently were all overdubbed in a sound studio after the fact for no apparent reason accent the terrible acting, swiss-cheese plot, and general terrible feel of this movie.


Horrible movie, but quite funny too! Lots of crummy fights, stupid dialog, topless chicks, and a boring story too! It's another one of those so-bad-its-good films, which I always love. But after reading some of the comments on here, I should explain something.

I first watched this film dubbed as American Streetfighter 2 like most of you seemed to have. It was the bonus movie on the other side of the DVD of the first American Streetfighter film. Well if you watch American Streetfighter 2, you'll not only notice it's horribly edited, but it seems to be missing numerous scenes, makes little sense, and has nothing to do with the first film. This is because this is actually the movie "Full Impact" ripped apart with crappy added flashback scenes from the first movie, and called American Streetfighter 2. The problem is that Full Impact was never meant to be a sequel to American Streetfighter. Sure it has some of the same cast, but they're completely different characters and this is a totally new story. Why they did this is beyond me...maybe the thought the movie would do better labeled as a sequel?

Do yourself a favor, go out and buy the actual DVD labeled Full Impact. It's the complete movie with all the correct scenes in place, and without those horrible pointless flashback scenes from American Streetfigher 1. Not to mention the picture quality is much improved. So if you've only seen this as American Streetfighter 2, don't judge this movie yet. See Full Impact, then you'll see the complete film that actually makes sense!


Oh man, this movie is just so bad it's good. I bought this movie at f.y.e for a dollar, and it was worth it. It's a beat em' up action with a strange amount of porn, and just over the top kungfu. During the movie, it often seems like the actors mouths don't match to what their actually saying, (if you can call them actors) even know the movie is American. Sometimes I think this movie consists only of stunt doubles. The lead actor seems like he could be Fabio double, and the main 'bad guy' could easily be a Patrick Stuart look alike. All in all, I recommend this movie to anyone with a good sense of humor, a love for kungfu action, and a dollar in their pocket, go buy this movie!


This movie is worthless. You can tell it is a unfinished movie. So they added lots of nudity and flashbacks from American Streetfighter 1 to make it a full length movie. But even with all the added on stuff, it still only runs 72 minutes long. It has nothing to do with the original American Streetfighter, which was a good movie. Not even hardcore Gary Daniels fans should waste their time.


My friend went out to the moviestore to rent a video tape. We wanted to see a fighting movie whit Juan-Claude van Damme. On the front of the moviebox was a picture of van Damme.

BUT THE MOVIE SUXS! He wasn´t in it! The movie was awful! My friend went out and drive moped cuz he was so bored!

So don´t see it!

/Gang in Sweden, BURN!


I was in college in Laramie, Wyoming, at the time of the Matthew Shepard tragedy, and will always be ashamed that such a crime could have taken place in my community. With that said, this movie gets it all wrong. They went for easy plot devices, the furthering of stereotypes (which shouldn't be Matthew's legacy), and a misrepresentation of the community. The sad part is that with a little work, they could have made a film that sent a lasting message. Instead they made a movie that portrayed a town full of simple minded rednecks who somehow have Southern accents, a police force consisting of a Barney Fife cop, and a total reinvention of certain parts of the story. Being that the idiots that murdered Matthew came from Laramie, examining the responsibility of the community is fair, but this isn't examination. This is lazy story telling that MTV unfortunately passed off as an educational film (They used to show it late at night without commercials as part of their Cable in the Classroom series so educators could tape it). If you want to see the definitive movie (or play) on the Matthew Shepard tragedy, see The Laramie Project. That movie doesn't let anyone off the hook. It doesn't look for easy answers, and it gives the subject matter the true examination it deserves.


Usually when movies are filmed based on true stories, I tend to find out something about what happened before seeing the movie. I was very aware of the Matthew Shepard tragedy from classes at school and TV reports. As well I think there are a few stories that shouldn't be made into movies unless they are handled well. Such as the Oklahoma City Bombing or the Matthew Shepard tragedy. When I heard of this movie and how it connected with the stand up against discrimination campaign I thought it would stand a fair chance and rise above common TV movie meandering. At times it did. But for the most part I was sadly disappointed. On a purely techinical level the filming was not engaging. Few shots really brought the movie alive and MTV has a way of lighting there movies that always look like an episode of TRL. The script itself was not very strong. In fact the most emotionally moving moments of the movie were clips from live news reels and candle light vigils. The attackers were lives were shown as well as Matthew's but all of the attackers dialogue was forced and poorly written. One shot of the movie does stand out. Anyone who was aware of the tragedy is familiar with the one profile picture of Matthew Shepard. While Matthew (Cy Carter) lies in the hospital waiting to die a friend says she will bring a picture to attach to a story being written, so people will know who he is. The picture is that profile. I felt a chill at that moment. Other than that...the acting was weak. Cy Carter met the physical description of Shepard and at moments captured his heart but still left me wanting more. As the attackers, neither actor really brought a fleshed out character. The strongest actor in the movie was the young woman playing Chassity. She really brought out another level to her paper thin character. In one scene her mother is accused of being a lesbian. Chassity says she has no problems with gay people and even works on the gay student union, but when her mother is attacked a side of Chassity comes out. It's okay for anyone else to be gay...but not her mother. It really shows how sometimes people can feel one way but still be conflicted. All in all...this movie leaves the viewer wanting. This tragedy, if it was to be made into a movie at all, and I wish it hadn't...deserved a much better representation than this. Yet still, the message gets through and the important facts of the trial and ensuing panic were represented well. While you feel little for the characters, you understand the effect this had on their lives and of the lives of all americans.


The problem with this movie is not it's message, but the way it delivers. It is hardly an anatomy at all, it is more a smathering of clichés and clear cut definitions. No character is complex they are the way they are, to make the plot meaningful. THe main villain is a heartless weasel who hates everyone and is abusive and the movie wants you to believe that everyone who hates gay people is like this jerk off. Also the main character, Michael Sheppard, is portrayed as Christ like as he faces oppression every day ( even from his college professor, which is B.S. because if there ever was a more liberal group of people, It's jackass literature professors). While it is nice to think that every gay person is perfect in every way, and every homophobe is the Antichrist it simply isn't true. The world isn't made up of black and white, but this movie is.


.......Nor particularly noteworthy on the filmographic CV of Gary Daniels sadly, although he does at least get to show off some pretty cool martial arts moves. Unfortunately, the film carries an ominous air of boredom to it throughout; It's almost as though no one involved had any faith in the production from the very start as evidenced by the lazy performances, generally bland action sequences (for a PM production) and a meandering 'plot' which goes no where.

There's really very little to recommend this in fact other than for Daniels completists who may at least derive some welcome enjoyment from his aforementioned fighting skills. For a much better PM vehicle starring our Gary, check out instead the OTT and outrageous, Rage and also Riot - both much, much better flicks.


I saw 'Deadly Target' in a hotel room in Zhuhai, China. Evidently, Cinemax Asia has no budget for films that have been made by anyone actually in the film business. 'Deadly Target' is an instant classic for those of us who are connoisseurs of terrible films. The name itself is a give-away as to what is in store: atrocious acting, directing, writing, fighting, etc. etc. 'Deadly Target' may be the actual nadir of film possibilities. I loved the train-wreck of it all. The best part is that the usual homoerotic undertones of buddy-cop movies are so misplaced in this film that the sexual chemistry is hotter between the mismatched police 'partners' (pun intended) than between the pseudo-Adonis Aussie and his unattractive female Asian lover. It would have made a great gay-friendly comedy. Sadly, we have one less good comedy and one more crappy Cinemax hotel offering.


I have only two things to say about this Gary Daniels farce of a film.

One, the fighting in this movie is ridiculous. True, the fighters are all real martial artists and their moves are very good. They are all trained and their techniques look good. However, one must ask: how many times can someone get kicked in the head before he gets knocked out? When Daniels does a jump-spinning-hook-kick to the guy's face in the airport or train station or wherever it was, and the guy gets back up from it--would not happen!!! Two, every cast member in this film sucked! Not a one of them has any acting skill at all--especially Daniels! Don't watch this movie unless you want to see a whole lot of good martial arts techniques applied for show without the slightest bit of realism. If you want to see really good fights or even okay acting, pass this film over.


This is a pretty complicated film so I don't know where to start from.

It is the story of 3 different families living in the same building and leaving Athens to go on vacation. On the same day. The title day. Virgin Mary's celebration. Things get a bit more complicated when a thief enters the building. The main idea behind the movie isn't bad at all. Problem is that Dekapentavgoustos often gets too dramatic, specially with the subplot of the sick little girl. Not to mention her parents and her stupid fat brother- all of them annoying characters. Giannaris is supposed to be depicting reality in his films but I believe he kind of lost it here. Why? Let's see: The family goes on vacation and the little sick girl gets lost. First couple: They run over an old lady- afterwards the girl (Theodora Tzimou) nearly gets drowned. Second couple: they take a hitcher on the car with them (Papadopoulos, leading actor in Omiros and From The Edge Of The City). He screws the girl, then steals the guy's money and leaves. Sure, these things do happen but its hard for anybody to believe all of them can happen to these related persons at the exact same time.... Actually the film managed to keep me interested for the first 65 minutes or so. After that, I stopped caring due to the melodramatic situations and the scene where the thief finds some girl in the street and gets involved with her. The ending sucked as well, sorry.

Oh I forgot to mention the "controversial" scene of the movie where the thief puts on a wedding dress and make-up. That was rubbish and was totally unnecessary, sorry. Homosexual obsessions of a homosexual filmmaker....

Theodora Tzimou has done better in some of her other works- her performance in the scene where she talks to her secret boyfriend on the phone is pretty bad. The fat TV-oriented actress who plays the sick girl's mother was horrible as well. Unlike Gianis Oikonomidis, Giannaris was never a director who went for perfection when it came to acting.

Visually, this is certainly the director's finest movie, you can tell he has a bigger budget this time and the cinematography is flawless. However, it is obvious that he is trying to make the movie look more mainstream this time as it lacks the raw, hand-held camera style of APO TIN AKRI TIS POLIS and OMIROS.

The music score had lots in common with the one in APO TIN AKRI... but it was less interesting.

Overall, I believe this movie is the director's weakest. It takes more than great visual style to make a great movie.


John Lithgow as Don Quixote is probably one of the best matchings that the film industry has ever had (ranks right up there with Jack Nicholson as The Joker). That, the scenery of La Mancha, and keeping things close to "true-to-story" are the only good things of the movie. Bob Hoskins did a decent job as Sancho, but his British accent ruined the effect. Also doing a decent job with her role was Vanessa Williams as Dulcinea, but again they should have found someone with more Castillian looks and accent. The Duke and Duchess wore clothing that did not fit the time to which the story took place. Don Quixote's adventures were well done and the special effects didn't ruin the movie as I had feared, but several well-known adventures, such as a fight with a caged lion, were noticeably missing. This makes me wish the movie was a two-part four-hour mini series. It is worth watching, but as with any story, the book is better.


It's too bad this film wasn't scraped a forth time. The idea might have been good, but it wasn't carried out in the script, in most of the acting, or the editing. If this is what Minnesota is offering up now, maybe it's time to close up shop. Skip this film and save 90 minutes of your time.


Jim Wynorski directed some extremely watchable B-movies in the beginning of his career. Deathstalker 2, Chopping Mall, Sorority House Massacre 2, to name a few. While all cheesy, they were all fun. This film, however, is not among his bests by a long shot. (it IS however writer R.J. Robertson's best, but compared to House 4, Munchie strikes back, or Beastmaster 2, that's not particularly a ringing endorsement) Dexter accompanies Marisa to Transylvania in order to get to her uncle's funeral and subsequent viewing of the video will. She stands to inherit the family mansion, but sinister Byron, her other uncle (played by Robert Vaughn, who must have needed money in a bad way). The jokes and so-called 'parodies' are lame, obvious, extremely unoriginal, and more likely to produce a groan than anything even remotely resembling a laugh. If you're a maschocist rent this along with the equally atrocious Transylvania 6-5000 for the completely laughing double feature from hell.

My Grade: D-


Summary: Four strangers with dreams of success meet in a train to Mumbai from Allahabad. Bobby (Dino Morea), Omi (Rohit Roy), Jai (Bikram Saluja) and Lucky (Sanjay Suri) land in Mumbai and don't know what to do. One day, they decide to make big money and circumstances lead them to kidnapping Musa (Sanjay Dutt) who actually turns out to be a Don. The rest of the movie is a story of wasted talent, mindless bullets and wild dances.

Comments: The story is absolutely weak with no substance. All we can see is that the boys understand the value of being at home and not exposing themselves to the dangers of their wild dreams. Dutt surely has performed well, but his Armani suits do not match with his profile of being a tough don. The four actors have done a fairly average job. The ladies in the movies didn't have much of role worth making a mention. The movie on the whole makes an average viewing.


Just Another Poorly Made TV Movie.

A combination of poor script, minimal SFX, and wild over-acting by Todd and company make this a pretty sad take on the well-known myth. Corn syrup blood spews and there's a lot of noise. That's about it.

I did derive a bit of pleasure from trying to sort out all the different influences on Todd's portrayal of the "psycho" potentate. It's Frank Booth ("Blue Velvet") meets Thulsa Doom ("Conan the Barbarian"), with a bit of Jabba the Hutt thrown in for good measure. Until you've seen someone taking a "hit" off a cattle skull, you haven't seen good cinema.

There's some vague hope that things will pick up, until the victims are tossed into the labyrinth. From that point forward, it's a complete waste of time...typical monster-in-a-cave fare. You could probably make a drinking game out of it, though...everyone slams a shot whenever a foam rubber rock moves.

Save your time and rent "Jason and the Golden Fleece" or some other film that is at least a little entertaining.


Years ago, the people grew so greedy and hedonistic that they were no longer satisfied with worshiping a mythical god, so the Queen had sex with a bull and produced the Minotaur. Didn't turn out so good, a few deaths were involved, and the creature was placed in a labyrinth beneath the palace. Now every third year eight people are cast into the labyrinth as a sacrifice.

This had surprisingly high production values for a Sci-Fi original. All the sets were quite nicely done, and even the Minotaur looked very good. On the bad side, the characters just didn't have much character, nor screen presence, and it got pretty boring towards the middle. The worst part was that, when trapped in a series of caves with a killer critter, what would a person do? Perhaps be quiet so as not to attract the attention of the beast? Not these folks. The main character especially seems almost incapable of grasping the situation; He yells at the top of his lungs on numerous occasions. Once, the Minotaur is only a few feet away and the guy still can't shut up. He's also convinced that his girlfriend, who was sacrificed three years earlier, might still be alive somehow. I couldn't quite figure out how anyone could be so dumb as to believe such a thing. There's also a woman who screams a lot - not just a regular scream, but a long, long scream. Maybe ten seconds in duration. That's a real joy to listen to.

Two of the more entertaining characters are the high priest and priestess who are in charge of the kingdom. The priest likes smoking from a bull skull, and wants to get it on with the priestess. Seeing that she's his sister, she's rather cool on the idea, and jumps into the labyrinth as well. She's about the only interesting person down there. And one of the few people who speaks in such a manner that you can understand her. I missed a lot of mumbled dialog in this movie, but I don't think it served much purpose anyway.

Overall, I think the Sci-Fi Channel may be getting a little better at movie making (they've certainly had enough practice). This one was almost good.


I lived on Crete for two years so I am familiar with the story of the Minotaur and the Labyrynth. They took that story and made some monster flick about how one dude (Tom Hardy from Layer Cake) found out his girlfriend was still alive in the maze and he set out to save her and the village. I do have to say I was most impressed with th Temple and the blood-drinking leader. I was even more impressed with Queen Raphaella - Michelle Van Der Water.

Was it a complete waste? No, the special effects were good, the monster was ghastly, and the action was what you would expect from a sci-fi film. Again, worth a look for Michelle Van Der Water.


This movie is absolutely not enjoyable. When I read the DVD cover, it said: from the makers of ''Lord of the Rings'' and ''The Mummy''. Idiot that I was, I actually believed it. They probably hired one of the Orc extra's from LOTR to be able to put that on the cover or something.

The movie starts out promising enough, some sort of mythological mumbo-jumbo story about an evil empire that worships the Minotaur. What's this? Full frontal nudity already? They don't waste time, do they.

And the the movie starts. Very slowly. We meet some stupid kids who are on their way to be sacrificed. Some guy, high on drugs, uses his magic skull to get the women high. They proceed to tongue kiss his sister, and each other, passionately.

Ummmmm. OK. What exactly was the point of that? Yes, exactly, to give the viewer a boner.

Almost immediately after that, the sister seduces our hero and gets him into bed.

Yeah.

And then I turned off the DVD-player and went on to do something else. This movie is boring, uses cheap tactics to try and keep the viewers attention... it's silly and insulting. They butcher the mythology of the Minotaur story to make this... like somebody else said, it reminds me of a bad Stargate episode.

Do not watch this film unless you are drunk, horny (pun intended) or enjoy watching bad movies.


wow.. this movie was sooooooo interesting.. zzzzz.. (falls on the floor sleeping) with the well known actors... ehh.. tom hardy who has played a minor role in black hawk down! Michelle Van Der Water who has like played in three movies! ooOOo.. the rest of the cast has either played 1-3 movies.

the story was very weak.. yey 8 people running around in a maze who is hunted by a "Minotaur". even i could have written better.. the actors must have been the dumbest ever!! " ooOoo maybe if i scream every time, even if the monster are not after me, someone will rescue me.. opps i drew the monsters attention.. i wonder why.. let me scream a little more, maybe ill scare it away!".. damn jerks..

many goofs! omg.. such as (spoiler) when one is trying to climb up from the maze, you can clearly see he is hanging by a large string..

everyone is going to disagree that i GAVE IT A two! but all the others only say the same (not kidding) "Surprisingly better than most Sci-Fi originals" something around that.. anyway i only gave this movie a two, because the minotaur wasn't so bad made and it was sooo cute...


There are definitely some people who hate Greek Mythology. The proof lies in "Minotaur" movie.

They took the story of Minotaur from the Greek Myth and they distorted so badly ending up with this awful movie.

It is supposed to chance things cause you want to improve something not to make it worst.

The original story of Minotaur based on symbolism is full of meaning. The story of this movie has nothing to tell. Absolutely not enjoyable. Like somebody else said... they butcher the mythology of the Minotaur story to make this. It's silly and insulting.


Perverse, the movie was perverse with the strange "exotic" nasty clothes they wore, the lesbian kiss? WTF!? In ancient Greece?

Incorrect: Wikipedia quote: "at nine-year intervals, seven Athenian boys and seven Athenian girls were to be sent to Crete to be devoured by the Minotaur" The movie states 8 "youngsters" every third year. How come the village has been raided 5 times already, and the movie states: northern territory, foolish plot! Marriage between sister and brother is a ancient Egyptian tradition. Sub Saharan African actors as Minoans? WTF? How stupid can you be? Whats next? Far East Asian Vikings? North American natives as Samurais? Eskimos acting Zulu warriors? Caucasians in Apocalypto 2? Hey Mel lets make all the natives blond and blue eyed, thats the REAL story! The Minotaur is supposed to be a man with a head tail of a bull (sometimes with the hooves/hid legs of one as well). And what is that creature supposed to be a minotaur? A gigantic rat with horns and hooves? Just looks stupid.

Stupid: All the running around the maze screaming each others names and the monster actually being able to sneak up to them with all its noisy breathing and running. Sniffing "gas" out of a goat skull, some kind of joke? What kind of helmets do they have? Haha, looks like something they robbed from Sauron in LOTR.

Horrible, stupid movie, I believe it's one of the worst I've ever seen. I give it 2/10 because it had quite nice looking actresses.

It's not hard to make a good movie out of a myth, how can you rape it so bad? This is not good, nor to learn history nor myth, as someone wrote.


What's wrong with these people? These movie makers, they think they can be creative and change myth and classic cartoons to suit their "vision". Where there vision is blurry and need glasses. If you want to be creative, then write something new, you don't go around messing with classic Greek stories. The minotaur is part man and part bull. Which mean he walks on two feet and has hands. What happened to his eyes? There was a flashback when the minotaur was born and he had eyes. Just because something or someone goes blind from decades in total darkness doesn't mean his eyes fall out and where is his lips? Is this Minotaur alive or some kind of Zombull? The acting and story works, but the whole minotaur thing truly destroys the experience for me. One, fur on flesh, two walks up right and three has lips and eyes. The changes totally ruin this movie and I feel anyone who knows the slightest bit of Greek myth will feel the same, it's quite obvious the makers knew nothing of Greek Myth or of Minotaurs. So I give this awful piece of crap the NOOSE!


Let me start out by saying that (a) I like the SciFi channel, and fantasy and scifi in general (those reading my other reviews might conclude that I only like French and Japanese films, and that is not the case) and (b) I do not have any bias against TV movies.

What I do have a bias against is flimsy and witless hack job rearrangements of classics--including classic myth. There is a point of view that every possible genre of literature was invented by the Greeks and we have just been ringing changes ever since; so there in nothing wrong with re-imagining the classics--Jean Cocteau's films, "Clueless" on Jane Austen, John Gardner's "Grendell", Kurosawa's "Ran" and "Throne of Blood", much of Roger Corman's work,and numerous others.

But in this case, bad dialogue, bad acting (this film makes, say, "Conan the Barbarian" look like the Royal Shakespeare Company) and a plot that, charitably, has little to do with the original and everything to do with being a framework for skimpy clothing and a bucket or two of gore, matched with an excessive enthusiasm for point of view camera work, all combine to make this a heap of (as a good friend of mine says) stinking poo.

Go watch either Conan movie, or "Red Sonia", or "Hellboy" or a Hammer film. Don't waste your time and effort on this. Guys--recognize a stinker when you see one.


This movie had no redeeming factors except it well killed a boring afternoon. The Minotaur looked silly more like a sick milk cow with a over bite. The acting was flat no feeling even when Todd's character tried to seduce his sister, sick and really had nothing to do with the movie. The"HERO" Theo acted more lick a spoiled brat and by the end you were hoping he would be eaten. The "MUTE" girl was the only one I was glad survived to the end. Plus the adaption of the myth behind this movie was badly done. Lots of blood splatters I will give that but if you have $5 to rent a movie by-pass this one unless you are really bored.


Minotaur - the word itself explains most of the entire movie.

As it happened, my girlfriend bought the DVD-release at a local rental-store (used DVD), and thought it would be a good one. Sure, it has a good looking cover-art, and a nice fancy title/logo, but the rest just lacks content.

The introduction and start of the movie makes it feel like at least a partly good one, though during its continuation, it clearly shines through as what it really is: A piece of utter wasted time and money.

Do not buy or watch this movie, it's so bad you sit there thinking if you should have done the dishes or mopped the floor instead - as that would really give more excitement than this flop.

To sum it up: if one could give a movie a dice-throw instead of the 1-10 rating, I would not even have thrown the dice.

Oh, good thing about the DVD-buy on our side: We got a spare DVD-cover for something else - a bit expensive perhaps...


This is a film that is loosely derived from the Greek myth of Theseus. Here the hero Theo also goes to join a contingent of youths taken to be sacrificed to the minotaur. He is also helped by a woman - the consort of the evil Bad Guy. Bad Guy incidentally is a cross between Morpheus from The Matrix (and thinking about that, Theo is a bit like Neo) and the evil person in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Lastly it is set in some bygone classical age as well.

However it has a dark moody backdrop throughout, strange jarring cinematography, and alternating pseudo-philosophical dialogue and clichés. The characters are all trite and very annoying. It is amazing how dull the film is for the first 3/4. Even the labyrinth is not creepy, just a boring excursion looking for lost girlfriends, random vagabond dwellers, and exits. It does get slightly better once most people die though.


Sometimes you come across movies that are so bad and so full of overacting and mistakes, they actually become hilarity. This is one of them: I can live with the 'based on' bit but I never knew it was the Irish who were fed to a bull-like monster (that failed to scare even my 5-year old son) by some drug crazed Nubians. I had Greek mythologies back at school and although I do'not remember much of it, THIS was'not part of the Minotaur story. None the less, never laughed so hard since Bridget Jones. Any good comment you think? Sure: I liked the decors, the costumes and basically the entire movie. It just parts ways with the original story and goes more the aliens/Predator/Tremors/etc tour. Thanks any-way


** many spoilers** Oh boy, was I disappointed in this one!! I had my hopes up when I saw the DVD on sale at last, having read already much about it. But it did not live up to all my expectations at all! First of all: why change the original myth about Theseus and Ariadne??! Generally I don't mind if novels or true stories are changed somewhat in a movie, but in this case the original at least had some plot in it, and in this poor adaptation simply nothing happens!! It's basically about a bunch of kids that are thrown into a labyrinth and are chased by this Minotaur creature, who kills the majority of them in apparently the only way it knows of: by stabbing them with it's giant horns. Okay, that's exciting to watch for one time, but by the tenth time it gets very boring! The kids are no treat to watch too, looking scruffy and filthy, and the supposed hero Theo looks like a scarecrow on a bad-hair day. That doesn't help very much to sympathize with them while they're running around scared. The side-story of the priest-king and his priestess-sister doesn't add anything to the plot, it's just boring too, and I guess the quasi-Shakespearian ramblings-on of the priest are the result of the gasses he inhales because they're blurred and silly. And then there are numerous inconsistencies and illogical goings-on that kept amazing me. For example: all the kids are lowered on a rope in the pit from exactly the same spot, but down under everyone is apparently dispersed and it takes about 10 minutes to find each other back, by yelling and screaming, which is a very silly thing to do by the way in a creatures cave! The Minotaur was summoned up beforehand by the priest, so it could have expected its dinner coming down, but strangely enough it's no-where to be found when they all come down. Why wasn't it sitting under the pit with it's jaws wide open?!? Then the priestess lets herself fall backwards in the pit, which had just been closed with much ado and noise. How did she do it: slip through the holes in the iron framework?? And then there's suddenly a back-door in the labyrinth, and it appears to be exactly at the spot where the creature has it's sleeping-den, just a wooden door with one wooden bolt! Isn't that a bit strange?? All the creature had to do was just ramming that door or stick it's fierceful horns through it and it would have been free and could have eaten the inhabitants of the whole village! Anyway, these things at least sort of made it amusing to watch. And to give to movie some credit: the Minotaur looked pretty decent, a sort of Alien-like head with a Rotweilers way of gallopping through the labyrinth-hallways. But as I said: there's too little plot, too much of the same things happening over and over again and you don't care a bit who lives or dies, so to me it was a big deception. I rank it 4 (because of the looks of the creature) out of 10.


I'm a real fun of mythology from wherever part of the world, Grece, Italy, Norway, etc, whatever kind of movie of this genre I see and I play PC-games too, such as Age of mythology or Titans. When "Minotaur" started, the woman's words at the beginning made me feel eager for a interesting movie, but minute by minute, that excitement was going down. I waited for something better, the effects didn't like me too much, especially when the beast was running, the plot was weak. I think that this kind of movie should have a good argument, may be from the real myth, and good special effects for being a nice film where you, furthermore you enjoy the movie, learn about Mythology. Really a so so movie.


I saw this movie and was disappointed greatly, but more importantly I'm here to see if anyone knows the origins of this movie.

I wrote a similar script (though much better) and entered it into a screen writing contest...I never heard back from them. Not long after that did I see production began on this movie and there are striking similarities to my script and this movie...though this movie is much lower quality and has less production value. But there are things in this movie that I had created for my script and did not come from the story of the Minotaur which made me suspicious. Of course it is possible that I am not the only person in the world that wrote a script containing these similarities...but any information anyone could give me to ease my suspicions would be appreciated.


This was one of the SciFi channels better offerings (although that isn't saying much). However, any resemblance between this movie and the mythology of the Minotaur is purely coincidental. The size of Athens's yearly tribute is wrong. The size of Athens is wrong. The hero's name is wrong (Theseus, not Theo). The gal who helped Theseus was Ariadne, daughter of King Minos and not sister to the high priest. Ariadne gave Theseus a sword to kill the Minotaur and ball of string to mark his way out of the labyrinth. None of Thesus's companions were killed and he took Ariadne when he left, etc ad nauseum.

But if you are not a purest and don't mind the "literary license" it wasn't too bad. The story line was better than usual, the special effects weren't too bad considering the limited amount of money spent, and character development was about the same as usual.


If this were the 80's this movie would've been released directly to video. Now it should be DVD. If you have too much time and you're into b-movies, than you might like this. Although if you really have too much time, why not watching a good movie instead?

We all have different tastes, so some people might actually like this. But the majority won't and the(ir) reasons will be the following ones: bad acting, bad script and not really the highest production values. Of course the latter is understandable, it's a low budget movie. There is nothing really good about this movie and even a Tony Todd can't save it. But since I have seen worse pictures (at least you can see they're trying here and my b-movie fable might also play a role), I gave it 3 stars!


Other than not being remotely related to the actual mythology, having absolutely awful dialog and worse readings and being a collaborative effort of six countries, it wasn't too bad.

Characters die after being gored (and lots of gore, at that). The plot dies after being bored. No, wait.

Actually, my wife and I both like Sci Fi, are fans of Stargate (in both incarnations) and Battlestar. We like those. We hated this. Complete waste of TiVo space.

Think early Godzilla meets late Cujo for the beast effects. Think lots of syrup for blood and gore. Think Grand Canyon for plot holes. This would make a great movie for Mystery Science Theater.


Donnie yen only has a small part in this and Yuen Biao plays the lead. Wu Ma runs a circus and Yuen Biao is his top performer. Because of war going on they have to close the circus. David Lam Wai (co-star of Project A2) plays a clown who becomes a drug addict and ends up getting killed. Now the circus goes to take revenge on drug smugglers.

The movie basically comes down to 2 main fight scenes. Yuen Biao takes on Ken Lo and Donnie Yen fights Bey Logan. The Yuen Biao fight starts out bad but gets a lot better once Ken Lo starts kicking. Then we have Donnie Yen vs. Bey Logan. This is one of the worst fight scenes ever filmed and I kid you not, it is worse than their fight in the Fist of Fury TV series from 2001. I don't think I have ever seen a worse Donnie Yen fight.


Enjoyed this horrible horror film mainly because I just wanted to find out what it was all about and since I have been a big fan of Dorothy Malone for many years and enjoyed her performance in the great film, "Inherit the Wind". Dorothy Malone was 62 years of age in this film and showed her age, however, she knew what she looked like and was a true actress and was eager to perform on the silver screen. This story involves a young newlywed couple and the bride inherits her aunt's mansion and all its belongings along with some 8 million dollars hidden the house. The girls aunt, Dorothy Malone committed suicide and had many ghosts hanging around the old mansion and there is plenty of horror with living dead and bodies being chopped up like chop meat. This will make a great Holloween Night Film for a spooky party after Mid-Night. Enjoy.


"Rest in Pieces" is not a very good movie. In fact, I found this movie to be quite a bore. It did have its moments, however, and was at least good enough to keep my interest.

The plot of "Rest in Pieces" is as follows: A greatly disliked woman poisons herself and leaves her money and estate to her niece. The niece and her husband then go to the small village in which the estate lies to see what they inherited. Once there, they find that the village is a front for a religious cult of undead people. The cult then is after the niece, trying to kill her and resurrect her into their cult.

This movie, like most eighties horror movies, had cheap gore effects and was full of nudity. Though some of the actors (the priest comes to mind) were convincing, most of the acting was bad. There were an uncountable number of plotholes (there was a part in which a dead person suddenly sat up. The undertaker simply said "Don't worry, that's common" and pushed it back down). On the upside, there were many scenes, such as the one mentioned above, that caused unintentional laughter. There is also plenty of nudity, which I need not say is a good thing.

This is one worth avoiding. My rating: 3 out of 10


This movie is not good, it's supposed to be horror, but it didn't frighten me at all. It has a great plot (they really thought about it this time), but it's made in a cheap way. Like for example: there's a piece of clothing flying, but you can see that it's held up by the camera man! These things and the bad acting make the horror movie a B movie. I rated it a 4 on 10 because there are much worse horror movies and because it has a great background idea (some chick being terrorized by her dead aunt and the inhabitants of her bungalows).


"The Battle of Shaker Heights" is the second offering released and made from the successful HBO reality series "Project Green light" which chronicles the search for a screenplay and director in which Ben Affleck and Matt Damon will produce for one million dollars. Then we get to see the movie being made and inevitably watch the film. I didn't see the first season of "Project Greenlight" but I did watch the product of it "Stolen Summer", a mediocre, bland, and safe offering from Damon and Affleck who don't want to take a risk considering their history for risky and edgy indies like "Mallrats", "Chasing Amy", and "Gerry". I decided to watch the second season of "Project Greenlight" and yet again it was the search for a screenplay to finance and a director.

For the second season there was the same self-indulgent ranting from Affleck and Damon, and some showing off of J.Lo from Affleck but nonetheless I watched amateur screenwriter Erica Beeney win, and a two director team Efram Potelle, and Kyle Rankin get the chance to show off their chops. Suffice it to say the season was a rip as we watched these three amateurs slog through the production, fight, and fail in all the test screenings to audiences. So, "The Battle of Shaker Heights" was made and released, and yet again after watching I realized it's still more contrived, fluffy, and safe offerings into the film world.

I can't understand why Affleck and Damon won't take more riskier projects on board and insist on financing these fluffy shallow films other than using this show for publicity. What's wrong with "The Battle of Shaker Heights"? Many things, but mostly it's it's horrible script and dialogue. Some dialogue had me cringing, some had me staring in confusion, and some dialogue just left me alienated.

We saw the series, we saw the activity, and we saw how many people actually had input on the making of this movie. It's clear by this movie, all of its characters, all of the muddled subplots taking place at once that there were simply too many cooks in the kitchen. We could see it in the series. We saw the directors Efram Potelle and Kyle Rankin, two very unprofessional directors attempting to take control of the film and re-write the script, we saw Erica Beeney trying to take control of her script, we saw producers Matt Damon and Ben Affleck weighing in, we saw Harvey Weinstein weighing in, we saw producer Chris Moore coming in and trying to take control. There was just too many people for one movie, and that's the problem. Did it occur to anyone to give them the money and let them make the film, then give your input on the finishing article?

Ultimately, "The Battle of Shaker Heights" is not a movie, it's a concept for a movie that never gets off the ground. I felt like I was watching an hour and a half trailer for a movie with a bunch of random scenes cut together without a real story, I can't wait to find out what the real movie looks like. What "Shaker Heights" suffers from with the mediocre directing job is a very underdeveloped range of characters that we never get to know. We trudge through lines like "Why are you dicking with me, you little dick. You wanna play, dick face?" and the worst of the dialogue where the main character Kelly is attempting to talk with Tabby. She is painting and she says "I'm playing with diffusion", to which he replies "Well make sure you do it under super vision." Ha ha. It's cheesy lines like that make this movie so ridiculous at times.

Kelly played by the very talented Shia Lebeouf is a world war re-creationist who takes pride in knowing about the wars fought and is a bit rebellious, and one day he meets Bart the youngest in a rich family who befriends the troubled youth and the two become friends, until Kelly meets Bart's older sister Tabby well played by Amy Smart who doesn't seem to acknowledge the boy but still befriends him slightly and goes about her business. Soon Kelly looks for any excuse to hand around Tabby knowing she's getting married which creates conflict. Very under-developed conflict.

Throughout the entire film I was thinking how good this movie could have been had they added thirty more minutes to the running time which could have left the door open for more character development and more development with its number of subplots, but once again, its story never goes beyond its concept. Kelly is an odd character, he's a war buff because hey he has a vehicle and wears the clothing, and he works at a supermarket when there's nobody there, and he has a friend/co-worker named Sarah played by the adorable Shiri Appleby, another grossly under developed character who has a combined total of five scenes in the film and is never focused on. We know the two are friends and we get the slight sense she's jealous at his fawning over another woman, but there's barely any focus on her, so who cares?

So, we see Tabby another under-developed character who's given the persona of an artistic individual who never develops beyond her character concept. She's a bit of a tease towards Kelly giving him little smiles and flirty come on's yet gets angered when he responds. She's then given the plot that she's getting married to a guy named Miner to when she's ever asked about the marriage she quickly responds "I don't want to talk about it." Why? They never explain it. It was assumed by me that she was set up from another rich family and forced to marry him. But it's never explained in the sloppy script.

So Kelly confronts her in a really bad scene when she's crying complaining her fiance kissed another woman which leads to a kiss between the two characters. If she hardly seems to care about her fiance why does she care that he cheated? It's plot holes like that that make the movie unbearable to watch at times. The character Miner, Tabby's fiance doesn't seem to be a bad guy. He befriends Kelly, talks to him like a friend, yet we're supposed to view him as the bad guy.

Screenwriter Beeney never gives us a reason to hate him, so Kelly is the one that comes off as the jerk in his pursuit towards Tabby. Then it's never explained why Kelly falls in love with Tabby in the first place, and we never really get to know Bart outside of his conceptual design as a neat dresser and proper yet friendly guy. So, Kelly is given an obligatory sub-plot which handles the job of setting up his character but is really forced. His mom is a Bohemian artist who houses a group of artists who manufacture paintings in their home and sell them, and Kelly's father works somewhere with drug addicts.

Being an ex-addict himself, he tries to reach out to Kelly though Kelly refuses to talk to him. Once again, Kelly's parents aren't given subplots nor are they developed and fleshed out, so they're simply plot devices in the end. The plot tries to reel towards comedic tones but ultimately ends up as a depressing drama about a rather annoying guy. Writer Beeney sets up so many sub-plots at once but never fleshes them out and never develops them, so everything feels forced, awkward, and rushed. Even as it transforms into a drama, the drama is forced as well in some awkward and droning scenes including Kelly confronting Tabby on her wedding day, a scene where Bart and Kelly inflict revenge on a school bully which attempts to be funny but just ends up becoming mean, and the happy safe ending which is so trite, obvious, and tacked on it left me groaning in my seat.

"The Battle of Shaker Heights" has a lot of potential to be a great coming of age teen drama, but potential is all it has. "The Battle of Shaker Heights" and "Stolen Summer" is proof that a good concept doesn't always pan out in a successful franchise. While the "Project Greenlight" is entertaining and engrossing the finishing products are poor. How about throwing more money and time to these poor people? It's no wonder HBO dropped the series.

Though this does garner great performances by Smart, Elden Henson, and especially Shia Lebeouf and the occasional entertaining moment, this suffers from a terrible script with grossly under-developed sub-plots and characters, cheesy dialogue, and many plot holes.

My advice: stop "Project Greenlight" until Affleck and Damon are ready to take risks in their investments and until Miramax is willing to cough up more money and time for making these films. Then maybe we'll get a film worth talking about.

* and a half out of **** stars.


I don't know if it was the script...or the directing...or the behind the scenes things that the Hollywood Producers did that we don't know about...but I didn't like this film...mainly because I didn't believe it...I didn't believe one minute of this film...everything seemed fake. Project Greenlight has now used 2 scripts that people don't want to see...There wasn't one scene in Shaker heights that rang true to me...


I don't know who is giving this movie all those 10's. It cannot seriously be based on the quality of the movie. The directors are more talented than they got credit for in the series, but the movie is completely predictable and full of sorry cliches. Shia Lebeouf is a decent actor but, personally, possibly the most annoying person I've ever seen.


You would think that Project Greenlight would bring in talent that at the very least is different than the crap we already see. This movie represents the lack of imagination and ability to tell the same old coming of age story in a different way. The goofy kid comes of age without really experiencing a dam thing. It wasn't funny; it wasn't inspiring, it wasn't worth seeing.


I must admit that after watching Project Greenlight every Sunday night, I was not expecting much. I was pleasantly surprised with the results. This is a very enjoyable film. Shia is great in this role. He was the perfect choice. Good job with the editing...specially the hospital scene with Kelly and his parents!!!


I don't know who is really to blame for this totally uninteresting, formulaic, unmoving film.

By watching the Project Greenlight series, you can see that nobody knew exactly what type of movie they were making. From Erica Beeney, to Kyle and Efram, Chris Moore, none of the Mirimax studio executives.

There does not seem to even be the potential of a good story in this movie. At least nothing that hasn't been seen over and over again.

This is what happens when too many people get involved in the development of a script. This is just a mess.

I wish I could say that the acting made this film better, but it doesn't.

A waste of one million dollars.

3 out of 10


Like many folks who watched Project Greenlight, I was hoping that the HBO show was just being dramatic and playful about the filmmaking events... but at the end of the day, everything would be okay.

Unfortunately for the BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS, everything is not okay.

With a million budget, this team had the tools to make a decent movie. All one has to do is look at CLERKS, CHASING AMY, the original HALLOWEEN, and BETTER LUCK TOMORROW to see what can be done for a few hundred grand or less. Instead, SHAKER HEIGHTS looks like it was made by a group that concluded a million dollars was no money and they'd put on a good show (more for the HBO audience than the theatre audience, apparently).

Once the project was picked, this group had the luxury of making a feature film without using their own money, going in debt to finish it up, feverishly look for investors, or the chore of finding a distributor (that may explain the mediocre result). This movie had NINE PRODUCERS, TWO DIRECTORS, and THE WRITER ON SET to answer questions. Sadly, it looks like little got done.

The directors adding a custom "Hot Lips" license plate to the army Jeep served no grand purpose. That use of thought and power could have been better served elsewhere.

As a whole, the movie looked like it was hacked to pieces in the editing bay. One minute the lead character Kelly (played quite nicely by Shia LeBeouf) gets to drive the Jeep... then he's huffing it on a bike... then he has the Jeep again... then is back huffing it on the bike. It looks like info was missing as to why the character would alternate.

As far as locations, they didn't have many: 3 houses, a school, a hospital, some woods, and a grocery store. Funny thing was, there were never many customers in the store. Heck, the Quick Stop in CLERKS had more customers (a.k.a. production value).

Even more strange, the filmmakers appeared to recycle establishing shots. I could swear I saw the same establishing shots of Kelly's house and the grocery store recycled as if they didn't shoot different angles... and used the same shot more than once.

Then, there is 'the kiss.' We've waited most of the movie for Kelly's big kiss with 'Tabby' (Amy Smart's character)... and it's a Jr. High kiss.

All in all, THE BATTLE OF SHAKER HEIGHTS plays like a cheap TV movie that lacked a clear leader.

In the future, I hope Miramax and Project Greenlight takes a good look at their system. Maybe a million dollars is too much... maybe nine producers are too many... maybe the crews are too big... maybe having too many trucks doesn't allow the filmmakers to be mobile and do better work.

But one thing is certain: With all the resources given, the movies of Project Greenlight need to get better than the first two.


Having missed Project Greenlight ONE, and it's movie Stolen Summer, I happened to get addicted to part 2, and religiously, obsessively watched it. so in this HOT SUMMER day, I headed to the Loews Cineplex in Lincoln Center to see it.

What Miramax feeds us, is just one of the most horrendous teenage films, I have ever seen. It doesn't have a personality. It seems to want to please everyone. But in the process manages to please no one. it's like a sequel to Mandy Moore's How to Deal, only without the heart that Mandy Moore brought to it. Mandy Moore's How to Deal, understood, that it was a drama with light moments, and gave in to it's dramatic moments. Shaker Heights ran away from it's dramatic moments, moments, that I think would have served the movie well.

And so many of the slower scenes reminded me of a wonderful television show called "Once and Again" except that the writing in "Once and Again" was top notch. The comedy includes all the cliches: The teenage rebel (been there, done that), who has a bully after him (ooohhh the originality), and who goes off on teachers who are dumber than him (well, I haven't seen that before. NOT.) The rich friend, he falls in love with rich friends sister, he has his heart broken, he grows up a little bit, and then it all comes to it's oooohhh so bland conclusion.

two things I really find fascinating: Chris Moore states that, The Hollywood system probably does work, keeping the talented in, and the non-talented out. One has to wonder, why Chris Moore is IN. American Pie is not exactly something to build an artistic career on. The last one, Ben Affleck on the phone gives advice and talks about what it takes to make a good film. At the very same time this took place, I can only imagine that Gigli was in post-production.

Project Greenlight is a failure only because of the people leading it. Not because of the people who enter it.


First of all, I can't stand the show Pokemon,and I am sorry to say, this film was no improvement whatsoever. First of all, there is this pointless cartoon, that made me go to sleep. Then when the main actually started, what we eventually got was... Awful animation, honestly if you want excellent Japanese animes, see a Studio Ghibli like Princess Mononoke, Cat Returns or Spirited Away instead. They are vastly superior to this. An utterly predictable and boring plot that did absolutely nothing for the film. The pace was inexcusably slow, the film dragged so much, it really did. The voice acting was pretty atrocious to say the least.The only voice actor I liked was the voice actor of MewTwo, but compared to other villains, he is pretty lousy. I will admit though, Mew is really cute. Team rocket i found very annoying, and the ending I didn't like either. All in all, a boring and dull film, that is one of the worst animations I've seen.Sorry, but this is a 1/10. Bethany Cox


When I entered the theater on November 10, I expected a film as good and exciting as the Japanese version. Instead, what I got was a piece of junk changed so much that it's almost unrecognizable.

The movie's main meaning and the animation remains, but other than that, everything else was different.

For example, Mewtwo was turned from a mischievous troublemaker into a 6'7" organism of evil heck-bent to destroy the world.

The music was the best part of the original, but it's the worst part of the dubbed version. I almost gagged when I saw the end credits, which was one of the best parts of the Japanese version.

If you're a Pokmon fan that hasn't seen this film, I would advise you to stay away from it. Watch the Japanese version instead.


Anime is usually pretty cool. This is a rare exception though. Pokemon has been well-established as a franchise with cartoons, toys, movies, made-for-TV movies and made for direct-to-DVD movies as understandable only by children. I was briefly involved in the craze for a couple months before I realized the story had nowhere to go. The movie is basically the same. Young Ash and his buddies are invited by the pokemon Mewtwo to a tournament to fight other Pokemon. On the way there are really, really awful jokes about vikings and inane fight scenes. I gotta tell you something funny, I actually saw this movie in the theater back in 1999, and I remember kids being so bored they constantly got up to go get snacks during the most "exciting" parts of the movie. During the so called finale where clones of the pokemon fight each other I'm totally confused. The pokemon trainers come to a startling conclusion: Fighting is bad(Keep this in mind for later). Then Ash wants to stop the fighting so he runs between two of the pokemon and gets turned to stone. Then the pokemon cry and the tears turn Ash back to normal... WHAT?! You're kidding me. This movie is trying to teach the lesson that if you cry hard enough your loved ones will come back!? Bull! Then finally at the end the memory of Ash and everyone else is erased so the lesson that fighting is bad is basically gone. Isn't this pretty hypocritical? I mean first they acknowledge that fighting is bad, and then they go back to fighting because they have no problem with exploiting these poor creatures. Ironic, and hypocritical. I mean there's no story! It's just about Pokemon fighting and everything learned is erased by your stereotypical deus ex machina. I would expect that lazy plot device in an episode of the show, not a full length movie. Once again, for a kid's movie this is terrible.


This movie isn't a complete failure. People shouldn't bin it without understanding the message this movie is trying to communicate. Sure, the action isn't that spectacular, the relationships between characters is obvious and boring, but look at Mewtwo.

Mewtwo is the star, not Ash. The movie shows the suffering Mewtwo faced, and what he did after escaping from it. Ash and co. are just a tool for the movie. It is Mewtwo that makes the movie what it is. This movie portrays Mewtwo's encounter with humans for the first time, its reaction when its being controlled and its actions after it escapes.

Sure, Ash, Misty and Brock appear, but they are not that important in the movie. I think this movie would have been worth it if Ash and his friends were replaced with characters that didn't just stand there like a 3-year old. I would give this 4/10 because of Mewtwo, nothing else.


*THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS... OR MAYBE NOT. THE WARNING IS THE SAME FOR ALL*

It's a trick question, you all know it.

It seems some scientists made a clone from Mew's DNA (Mew being an "extinct" Pokemon) and named it Mewtwo (originality at its best). But of course, reckless management of engineering finally hit pay dirt and Mewtwo ends up killing people and hating humanity as a whole. Ash, the hero of the show the movie's based on, receives an invitation to a solitary island to meet some Pokemon Master. He and his friends, and other trainers too, arrive at the island and find that the master is Mewtwo itself, who plots to create copies of their Pokemons and use them to take the world and rid it of humans and pokemon "slaves" alike.

These reviews are the hardest to make: the ones about series. I mean, they're obviously made thinking in the series' fans. So, they throw aside all the characterization inherent in a movie, because it has already been showed on the show (quite redundant, huh?). Similarly, the overall plot is also assumed to be known. Because of that, these movies obviously are poorer in development than the average.

I recognize I watched the show for some time (not a fan, I HATE that word... fanatic, yuck), so the basic premise and the protagonists were familiar to me... besides, I've played the game enough to know who Mewtwo was without needing the movie's explanation. But I'm trying to make a review about the movie, not my previous knowledge; and referring to that, the movie is somehow difficult to follow for an adult: we know from the initial sequence (if you see the uncut version... otherwise, well, sorry) that Mewtwo is the villain in the movie. You can assume Ash and company are the heroes because... well, they just seem the hero-type to us. But where the hell does that Team Rocket stand? Seeing the anime we know they were SUPPOSED to be the antagonists, but ended up being some kind of comic relief. But in the film they appear out of nowhere, sometimes acting as good guys and sometimes acting like morons, without explanation of who they are or what are they doing there.

Visually, the movie has very interesting effects. Some of them are just to show the state-of-the-art technology and are therefore annoying. But for the most part, they help to make the endless battles watchable.

The storyline? It's an excuse for making a movie, obviously... but it's actually based (kinda) on the game, so it's not really a cockamamie plot created in a brainstorming session or something.

The final verdict? Let's put it this way: when it was shown on the cinema, it was a tie between the public, because half of them were children who loved the show, ergo they loved it, and the other half were the parents who went with them, and they probably fell asleep after the first ten minutes.

Something I gotta say, though: reading Roger Ebert's review about this film, he said something about no one being able to explain the concept, not even the fans of the show. Well, I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but it's not so difficult to understand. It's very similar to collecting bugs, but these ones are actually alive... and you use them in battle.


Im in one in two minds- so Ill do two reviews!

Why the hell make a movie? Why, why, why make a movie? This is like saying "ill go out in the rain with my best outfit on" Were they all blind when the animators were making this? It was better making a series! Also this film just wants to make me laugh! A TEN year old - discovering his destiny and sacrificing his life for the sake of Pokémon. EXCUSE ME?? hello earth to planet "real life" a ten year old would not be doing that. They would be playing football. Also, this scared my little cousin to death and was crying- do you think thats how you score "good movie points"?? make half your audience cry while half are laughing their heads off?

A fun adventure for a die hard nine year old Pokémon fan! If you are completely NUTS about Pokémon then this is SO for you! Feel the rush of excitement as you watch the trainers try to defeat mew two. The most powerful Pokémon on earth. And realise the true meaning of "master" and "Pokémon". Then feel your heart burn as you see young hero ash sacrifice his life for the sake of Pokémon. A heart warming story.


This is real children's stuff! The normal person (if one exists) isn't really going to know what the hell Pokémon is. You've got all these cute looking monsters with special powers and abilities and for some reason they're fighting each other. You see chances are that the normal person isn't really going to care. The film is based on the ever so popular TV series and that TV series is based on the ever so popular video game! And that usually means 'adults beware'!

 The film is about Pokémon (of course), which translates as 'Pocket Monsters'. The main character is a Pokémon trainer by the name of Ash. He and his friends Brock, Misty and his loveably cute Pikachu accept a challenge to face off a rare evil Pokémon by the name of Mewtwo. Mewtwo is an experimental Pokémon that was genetically created by scientists. But just like Frankenstein, the experiment went berserk. So you see it's up to Ash and his friends to stop him. Now if none of this makes any sense to you then you might as well stop reading and forget about the film. It'll be probably be as complicated than an Alfred Hitchcock film!

 Now to be honest, I actually quite like the TV series. It's enjoyable and funny. But the film is a very poor effort. There is a nice link between the TV series and the film that sheds some light on a few things, but it's only worth watching for that reason. Oh, and for the 'blink and you'll miss it scene' when a Tentacruel hugs Team Rocket! Also the animation isn't really anything ground breaking. There are a few noticeable touches but it isn't really that different from the TV show.

 One great thing though was the villain Mewtwo! Now he was a proper bad guy. But this being a children's cartoon means you've got one of those violence is wrong messages and unfortunately there's also one of those dreamy endings. It's all highly predictable, simple and to put it straight, not very good.

 Before the film there is the horrifically cute short titled 'Pikachu's Vacation'. It shows all of Ash's Pokémon basically having fun and are talking in their own way (as most Pokémon can only say their name). Subtitles might have been a benefit for the parents that were dragged to watch this. Why this precedes the film is quite a mystery, though I can only suggest that it's because the film itself is too short.

 It may be awful but it's going to do very well and make a stack load of money mainly due to the incredible hype and a clever marketing campaign about collecting rare trading cards. In fact because of the success of this film, two sequels are on the way.

 Kids are going to love it! Parents aren't going to understand it! The wise one is going to stay away from it!

My Rating - 4 out of 10


First of all, I'm not a Pokemon fan. I rented this movie one day because I was frightfully bored. Now, the movie itself was not ALL THAT BAD. Sure, the dialogue sucks, the characters suck and you could care less if Ash suddenly blows up, but the movie did have a few redeeming qualities.

 The animated short, Pikachu's Vacation was not one of them. The short was nearly UNBEARABLE, as it was all in Pokemon Jive Talk. It was so excruciating I nearly fast forwarded to the movie. Now the movie itself was ALMOST average. I didn't care for any character except maybe Mewtwo, who was the only one somewhat developed. The movie does have a good message, but they almost state it directly. The final battle was almost exciting, but other than that, this movie is for the Pokemon fans. 3/10


I gave this movie a two which is the exact age you would have to be to enjoy it. I am a huge fan of japanimation and animated features in general but this film(if that is what you call it)is just a lame attempt at selling merchandise to young kids. I went along with my seven year old thinking maybe there would be something in it I could enjoy. The animation itself was good, which is why I gave it a two, but after a few minutes the lack of substance made my wish it would end.


Where to begin with THE KARATE DOG, a terrible movie from beginning to end. What could of been a funny movie ends up being a snoozer. Or, is that a woofer? Anyway, everyone is wasted in this movie. Now, I know Simon Rex is no, well, he's not much of anything but he has been in better movies than this crap fest. Jaime Pressly, his love interest, must of graduated from C.A.C., CRAP ACTRESS COLLEGE, cause if she does have any acting talent of any kind she damn sure doesn't display it here. Watching her act is like pooping razor blades, pretty damn painful. No, I've never pooped razor blades but you know it would be painful. Hell, it would probably kill you. And what's up with Jon Voight? His performance as the bad guy is so over-the-top it is pathetic. I will admit, Cho-Cho is quite unique but even the Karate Dog can't hold this movie together. I did laugh in this movie. It wasn't at anything that was said or done though. It was at the damn CGI, so crappy it made my eyes sore. They say not to lay down with sleeping dogs cause you'll wake up with fleas and I'll never lay down to watch this movie again. Damn, something's biting me!!!


Remember that dog food commercial that had dogs magically doing hip hop dance steps because they were so excited about Kibbles and Bits. Cute for a commercial but stretched into a movie not so cute. The plot about a murdered man,Pat Morita(Arnold of Happy Days fame) and his kung fu fighting dog is just plain silly. I laughed as I watched every time the dog did a kung fu stance ,it was just like the dog food commercial. And how about Jon Voight ??? An academy award winner in this movie. What was he thinking ,hamming it up for the cameras no doubt. How far has he fallen. Much too old to do action stunts most of his martial arts scenes are unconvincing stunt doubles. Only redeeming value is younger kids might find it amusing until the next pet food commercial comes out.


This movie is all wrapped up in about the first hour and half. A dog that talks karate chops a gang that has killed his master. After that, he goes around and makes terrible jokes then sniffs other dogs butts. Oh, he also chases cats. No surprises and even my dog wouldn't watch this stupid movie.

I understand that Chevy Chase could waste time in another stupid movie, but Jon Voight? I had a lot of respect for his acting career until I saw this chop suey pile of trash. In this movie he plays some southern Asian guy with a really bad dress on. I am not not sure what is going on and his hair is funny too.

It is more painful to watch than a dog bite.


This movie is so bad. You can easily tell when they use the CGI for the dog and it looks terrible anyways. The fight scenes with the dog looked awkward and bad. The voice of the dog was so annoying that every time he talked I died a little on the inside. This movie is so low budget, and its worse than other low budget movies like "Snakes on a Train", and "Ninja Cheerleaders". The continuity in the movie is terrabad. The "trained assassins" (according to the movie) were people in generic thug costumes and had no weapons, they also got beat up by a CGI dog that was movie faster than a dog physically could. The main villain is a guy wearing a white mask who can't talk unless he is holding his neck. This movie deserves a rating of -10/100 but I rated it a 1 because I had to. You know, by 2004 I thought that there would be some standards when making movies but, I guess I was horribly mistaken. In the part of the movie where the dog puts the disk in the computer that makes every other computer in the building explode with sparks that is just unreal, you can tell that the dogs paw is no connected to its body and is just a sock puppet. This movie is bad. It's Danton bad.


Star Trek Voyager was supposed to be groundbreaking, a fresh challenge, a slap in the face of what we had known. At least that's the way they sold it to us. The U.S.S. Voyager would be stranded in a remote sector of space unknown to mankind, truly exploring the unseen while looking for a way back. Too bad they(producers, writers) chickened out right from episode 1. What we got was more of the same, tired aliens of the week with a generic bump on their foreheads that spoke English perfectly, and loads of spatial anomalies and enough technobabble to fill Jupiter's Red Spot. We were supposed to have the first female lead, a female captain which was a wonderful idea, but we got that annoying midget of a woman, with a grating voice-pitch and schizophrenic personality. We got a stiff imitation of Leonard Nimoy, and a bunch of useless, unlikeable, bland and annoying characters as a crew. Plus, the ship always seemed a ridiculous coffee spoon. Not all was horrid, of course...naturally, Robert Picardo as the Holographic Doctor, the Special Effects, Jerry Goldsmith's Main Theme, and the Borg along with the sexy Seven of Nine did make this show watchable, and at times, even enjoyable. But it's sad, because, for a show that was supposed to throw all conventions through the window, it surely was the most conventional of them all.


Starting with the awesome opening episode of "Cartaker" this seems to be off on the right foot, but somewhere along the line it became the same mind numbing drivel every week and by the third year I was so bored i tuned out of star trek completely. Well done, i was a huge Trekkie and you turned me away! Where does it go wrong? Well for me (i know people will disagree) Janeway seems more concerned with her hair and coffee than she does the physical and mental well being of her crew... which makes her a bad captain. she is also emotionally closed off, annoying and, lets be honest, has a deeper voice than Barry white! Chakotay, a wonderful character well acted is reduced from rebel leader with balls to janeway's puppy in less than 45 mins. excellent choice for dramatic tension there! Paris, the guy we meet *in prison* becomes a wonderful guy who rarely (as in maybe twice over 7 years) questions his superiors. the ships will be 70 years from home, yet we meet Ferengi, Klingon's and a Romulan across the series... so much for leaving those species in the alpha quadrant. the series suffers from a reliance on technobabble never seen before, a regular joe doesn't understand half of what is being said and the rest phase out due to the internal consistency... or lack thereof. relationships develop out of nowhere (7 0f 9 and chakotay are virtually lovers in season 7 after barely speaking for 4 years) or never change at all. Kim is the same naive wide eyed guy in season 7 as season 1... great character development there guys, well done! all in all the show sucks, in star trek 4 Scotty comes across a way to re-crystalize dilithium, yet 100 years later voyager cannot do this so they need to enter dangerous nebula's to get more fuel... hmm. they state they cannot loose shuttle, then blow up several with "no way of replacing them".... then replace them by building a shuttle. nothing makes sense because there is no consistency, characters are dull, the series is turned on its head by 7 of 9 and becomes "the 7 of 9 and Janeway show" at the cost of other characters. after the brilliance of the original series and next gen, the darkness of ds9 voyager does what no one else was able to do, kill off star trek. enterprise came along and continued the same trend, but the fatal blow was already struck with this complete waste of time, money, "creativity" and resources. do yourself a favour, forget they ever existed.


Voyager started out very nicely, with a very well realized pilot, but from there it all went down hill. The first season wasn't bad, though it did rely on time travel too much, but then the writers got lazy. Key problems were weak characterization and story lines, a general lack of logic and continuity, and limited knowledge of Trek by the writers themselves.

Voyager should have been an excellent opportunity to explore new territory in an environment where the situation was not ideal, but it was never realized. Although by the first regular episode they were having power problems (though conveniently and stupidly the holodecks ran off incompatible reactors), potential problems were never really dealt with. Battle after battle, the ship could have (and should have) started taking on a beat up Millennium Falcon kind of look. Instead she looked as pristine in the finale as the day she came out of spacedock.

The series offers no genuine character growth. Personality quirks are added to the characters in a hap hazard way purely to serve the plot and are never heard from again. This might be something like the First Officer suddenly developing a passion for early space exploration five seasons in, when it was more in keeping with the helmsman Paris, all because its the First Officer who has the rank to ignore the Captain and get everyone in trouble.

As far as trouble, no scenes get old fast like a Voyager battle scene. Aside from having trouble with simple concepts like space is big and three dimensional, the writers turn the crew into morons. How many times can one ship get thoroughly beaten in combat because its crew can't be bothered to shoot back. They typically wait so long to shoot back that the ship is no longer in any position to defend itself. It gets particularly silly in later seasons when the ship is seriously threatened by shuttlecraft (I kid you not). The writers seemed unwilling to think through a plausible way to put the ship in trouble.

Finally, the writers seemed to have no clue what machines in Trek can do. I know Gene Roddenberry said writers aren't required to read the technical manuals, but at least watch some episodes. When characters are pinned down by a couple guys on a cliff, they should not be calling the ship to ask if they can help with their weapons. Most members of the audience have seen hand phasers vaporize people, so why not just go to a high setting and take out the whole cliff. This is just one example of many lapses of logic resulting from writers who didn't know the material.

With a handful of innovative episodes, Voyager spent most of its time wallowing in the laps of lazy writers. Plots were weak. Characterization was all but nonexistent, and the writers would have us believe two kids and a dog could take the ship.


Voyager has the strange distinction of being the first Trek series that I didn't like. To me there's a throughline of complexity that runs from TOS to DS9 and then just stops at Voyager. An intriguing premise is spoiled early on with pretty much all the Maquis conflict resolved within 4 episodes. The "unfamiliar" Delta quadrant ends up being populated with species that are largely derivative of other races already seen.

Lacking imagination the writers sought to shoehorn as much of TNG's cast offs into the show as possible: Lieutenant Barclay, Troi, and how could we forget the Borg. One of the biggest mistakes the show made was to return to the Borg well too often. Every time we learned something new about the collective their power and presence was compromised. How many times can a poorly equipped science vessel defeat them before all menace is removed? Voyager lacked originality and never strove to bring anything different to the franchise. The characters lacked any real sparkle and the episodic nature of the show ended up making a number of characters look schizophrenic, especially Janeway, who see-sawed in her behaviour depending on what the episode called for. This was further compounded by Kate Mulgrew whose goose-like voice, overexpressively constipated facial expressions and robotic body movements made watching a disbelieving experience.

The biggest downfall of the show was that the solution to everything seemed to be technology, especially Borg for the last few seasons. The solution to problems being the pressing of buttons did not make for high drama.

Voyager had the occasional excellent episode, usually the 2 parters, and it did have some good actors amongst the cast, though the parts they played rarely gave them the opportunity to display this.

Voyager is regarded as the beginning of the end of Trek, being less popular than its predecessors and less well regarded critically than what had come before. Voyager, like Enterprise, failed to keep pace with the wider changing TV environment to which shows like DS9 and Babylon 5 were early adopters (and maybe even trend setters - there would be no programmes like 24 or Lost without shows like these). It isn't so much a bad show as "bad by comparison".


I enjoyed The Next Generation (though it was a lot more fantasy than I was expecting from science fiction), and I do like Enterprise (despite its often cheesy writing); I've even liked the few Babylon 5 episodes I've seen. I enjoy the original series, and despite a few TOS-cast failures, I love the Star Trek movies (even the mediocre ones).

Unfortunately, I was unable to get through more than four episodes of Voyager. I really wanted to like it; however, the immense amounts of pseudoscience immediately grated on my nerves. Warp particles? The event horizon is an 'energy field?' I am a huge believer in suspension of disbelief -- horror, science fiction and fantasy are my favorite genres, largely for this reason -- but the other series generally skirt known physics or make an attempt to reconcile their plots with currently accepted theories. Voyager doesn't do this at all; the show employs painful leaps of 'science' and 'logic' that will leave anyone with a background in either cringing.

The acting varies from decent to very, very poor, from one scene to the next. The character dynamics change similarly, to the point where it's so inconsistent that the show just can't build tension. The show does have its moments, but they come in neither quantity nor quality.

I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, especially Star Trek fans.


As a life-long Trek fan, I am SO disappointed with this series! It is bad. It is SO bad. It is so WAY bad. It is just terrible! It stinks! It reeks! It... did I mention that it's bad?

Janeway is a pathetic leader, but given the crew she has, her limited abilities are far more than needed.

This series is "Lost in Space" all over again, just without the Doctor Smith character. As horrible as he was, even he would bring some life to this otherwise horrible production.

The worse part of this series is the total lack of imagination by the writers. Every other episode is a time/space discontinuity. Maybe we could luck out and Janeway and her entire pathetic crew could slip into some time warp and we'd never hear from them again? Even the final episode was a time/space discontinuity.

Danger! Danger Will Robinson! Turn off the TV set, now!!!


This film looked like it had the production budget of about 3 bags of weed. It almost looks like a student film. Bad lighting, bad soundtrack, bad plot, shallow characters and even badder acting.

I laughed out aloud at some of the bad dialogue and the main character "Taylor" who was more concerned about flicking her long hair and looking sexy than actually trying to act.

Given the obvious lack of funding, the badly written script and the amateur actors - the director than likely did the best they could - under the circumstances.

But there are a lot better Slasher style pics out there which have been made on a similar budgets and still retain a good story with lots of good chills. The indie horror film "Malevolence" is a prime example.

Wold Creek had a budget of $1 Million US - and it was one of the scariest and brutal films ever made in the slasher genre.

Granted this was an amateur effort, but that's still no excuse. An original idea may have been all that was needed to elevate this film above the level of "absurd".


I noticed a box at my videostore that looked interesting and professionally done, titled Dark Fields. It was nothing but the opposite of that. I rented it, with hopes of a good movie. This film was so awful, I was laughing at some parts. It would not even make a good college film project because the acting is so horrible. To me it was a homage of films like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. I'm not going to say any spoilers, because there are none to say. The plot is very basic, and the characters are ignorant and weak. Thats as close to a spoiler as I can get. My final judgment is... Don't waste your money for this! Rent a classical film like the original 1974 version of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or if you don't prefer that, the original version of The Exorcist may be for you.


What is my POS productions group? It stands for Piece Of Sh@t productions. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my whole life!! You can see the boom mike at times. The whole movie is supposed to be happening at night yet there are scenes where you can see daylight in the background. There are 2 scenes where you can see the shadow of the cameraman on a wall. Also, you never find out what happened to the first teen that was killed. At least show us his body or something! There are at least 4 scenes where the killer could have killed the last 2 girls left alive but he doesn't. He just walks away and disappears!! And the acting?? Can we say elementary school play? Oh I'm sorry, I don't want to insult the elementary schools! And the climactic scene is easily the worst of all time!! I wasted $4.86 to rent this at Blockbuster mainly because on the DVD box there is a quoted from IFQ magazine stating that it is "The most terrifying movie of the last decade". I WILL NEVER TRUST THOSE GUYS AGAIN!!


This movie really deserves a 0 vote because it was so cheap. the title had nothing to do with the movie and had nothing to do with the plot.

This movie was not even close to being a horror because I could not stop laughing about the horrible acting. I can't believe Blockbuster would put such crap on their shelves.

It was peculiar how the school at the beginning only had four students in the hallways. Maybe it is because this movie had a low budget. But please do not waste money on this movie. It makes for a good comedy but not a horror. Overall the plot just a mess and did not make any sense...


Up until I saw this crap film, I was satisfied with my declaration that the 80's cheese-fest "The Last Slumber Party" and the lame 90's "Ax 'Em" were tied for the title worst slasher flick of all time. Well, move over, because we have a new contender in town! I have to wonder if the filmmakers even WATCHED this film after shooting it! It's pure ineptness from start to finish and some of the most ridiculous scenes in movie history. The plot is simple: Four teens who seem to not even be able to stand each other very much decide to go to a concert together. On the way, the run out of gas and are left to explore an old farmhouse for help. It doesn't take long before one of the four disappears and the others go looking for him, only to realize that there is something not quite right about the property. Believe me, it sounds more interesting than it could ever hope to be. There are so many WTF moments that it is even hard to keep track: wouldn't the kids fill up BEFORE they departed on a miles long trip to the country in search of a concert? Does getting your hand stuck in a piece of farm equipment actually kill you? But those aren't even the moments that make this "slasher" film absurd. That comes in the form of us having to watch to of the most annoying and stupid female characters ever to appear in a slasher film! First, neither can act her way out of a paper sack. Secondly, the writer has them do the most implausible things. They never REALLY try to escape the killer, who, by the way, seems totally uninterested in killing either one of them. I think I counted 11 different times that the killer had the perfect opportunity to kill BOTH girls, but for some reason, doesn't. This is most blatant due to the fact that the either girl actually ever RUNS away. They walk! In one of the more ridiculous scenes, the girls hitch a ride with an old farmer, only to have the killer come along when his truck is stopped to kill him. This is the PERFECT time for the killer to kill the girls, mainly Because they both STAND BY THE TRUCK FOR ABOUT 5 MINUTES before walking away, yet the killer seems to care less. A similar thing happens when they take refuge in a glass office. And the climatic scene is just laughable.

Seriously folks, avoid this at all costs. There is NOTHING remotely interesting, scary, or redeeming about it and you will truly feel like you wasted 85 minutes of your life AND your voice for screaming at the stupidity you see while watching it! 1 out of 10!


Well, the main girl character is easy on the eyes. The movie, however, isn't. I have no idea how this movie made it to Lion's Gate. Poor script, poor characters, poor dialogue, worst psychopath ever, no idea what happened to the driver of the car -- yet, this made it to the video store. Lion's Gate easily spent more money on packaging than it did on the movie. The shots tended to go way too long (i guess they really needed to extend it), the use of slow motion looks choppy. The only way, I mean the only way, this movie would have been interesting if the main female character went topless (it's part of the horror genre). No idea why this movie was rated R, spent the last 5 minutes of the movie on bloopers to extend the movie more, no mention of which concert they were going to, music was flat/no feeling, over-acting or no acting ability, definitely from Canada with the accents, the trucker's beard was fake looking, the only character that acted nicely was the father from the beginning who really did look concerned -- concerned that the movie was going to be bad. I liked the car driver character only because he made me laugh. There were more holes in this story and more lighting problems than I have ever seen in a film. In summary, I feel cheated out of an hour. Lion's Gate should be ashamed of themselves.


First of all, I'd like to say, my favorite type of movies are cheap horror flicks. I love them! The cheesier the better! But this one, this one was so stupid. I contribute it mainly to the "killer". The title says he has an Axe. He never uses the Axe but maybe once. And the hair? Its just a wig pulled over his face! They couldn't have come up with anything better, even cheesier? At least put a damn mask on the guy! This movie sucked. I liked the barn idea though, the unusually big barn with several parts. Acting was terrible, I like bad acting but this wasn't even interesting. It felt like a project movie for a class. But the main problem for this crap fest was the deaths.

The first death, cheesy, gory, I like it but how is he gonna die from his arm being "grated". He just lays down and dies after his hand gets cut off. Not even realistic.

The second death, guy gets stabbed. Kind of lame and slow, not even very "serial killer'-esquire. Whatever, I'll take it.

But then, the rest of the movie is the two girls running from the killer wildly, but then entering rooms and leaving their backs to doors and spots where the killer was. Who would do that? I would be scared shitt-less looking around me. Nope, they couldn't even add a little realistic emotion. Then the rest of the movie is also the girls getting knocked out by little punches the killer gives them. It just turns into a boxing match, with the killer getting back up every time from things hitting him and knocking him out. Finally the girls shoots him with something. I don't really know what it was because I was fast forwarding, but the movie ends. No brutal Axe deaths or chainsaw stuff. Just a bunch of dumb plot and dumb boxing. No wonder it was free on demand.

Oh and the "bloopers" Not funny at all. Very basic "oh noes i messed up a line!! Lol" Boo. Overall this movie gets a 1 out of 10, and I'm not harsh critic.


I saw this about a month ago because it came on-demand and I was bored. What a mistake! This is one of those movies that gets you angry just watching,everything about this movie is horrible.

There is one major flaw in this movie that made me go crazy during the whole thing: A couple of friends are headed to a rock concert and they run out of gas. Of course, they are in the middle of nowhere and no gas station is near. Why would they wait till they got to the concert to get gas when none of them have ever been in that part of the state? It would take the same amount of time to get gas in their home town! The second most hilarious thing: Something goes wrong with all 5 of their cell phones, I think most didn't have service and the others phones died or something. That is the most unlikely thing possible.

The third most ridiculous thing: Two girls are being chased by a killer the whole night, a man in a truck eventually drives down the road, he picks them up. He has blood all over his shoes and the girls flip out and try to jump out of the tuck. The man says "oh I work in a butcher shop down the street". The girls without any argument completely believe him 100% and continue to stay in the truck.

Well you probably get the idea of this trash movie. There are many other flaws and mistakes throughout this flick. I advise to NOT watch this, don't even look at the cover in the video store. THIS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME.


even in the beginning i was seriously wondering, did they even WATCH the scenes they edited? surely there had to be a better take..... the bloopers at the end weren't funny either.. the movie was more hilarious than those little "woopsies" of the actors (who, by the way, were absolutely horrendous). there were MANY scenes where the film crew's shadows showed up. and in the scene after the 2 girls have their first encounter with farmer brown and knock him out by gently tapping his shoulder with a shovel, they wander BACK into the farm house to... well, i don't really know why... to investigate, i guess... they end up in a bathroom where they find news clippings and blah blah blah. at the end of the scene, they are startled by nothing and in the corner of the screen you see a man's hand holding up a lantern to light the set. by the end of the movie, i was really hoping he would just kill them all. i stayed watching just to see if he would. but apparently a small girl's punch to the face can easily knock him down. oooo! what a scary villain! AND!!! that butcher guy.. his beard was TOTALLY fake! it looked like they super glued cotton to his face! my high school drama department does a better job at make up and gore than this movie.