This film could have been good : Michelle Yeoh, Ben Chaplin, Richard Roxburgh (the funny duke in Moulin Rouge!) and Basil Poledouris (soundtrack). Instead of a good action/fantasy movie, we have this... thing. The story is so stupid, the special effects are very terrible. Oh, yes, you can see many good looking Asian hunks (Karl's group), but these good looking guys were not supposed to be the only interesting thing in The Touch. Poor Michelle Yeoh...


I can say it all in one sentence: "one of the worst movies EVER!" I can not believe Michelle Yeoh agreed to play in this movie! I was waiting for something big to happen at the end, but the more it got closer to ending credits, the more I realized how I wasted my time on this movie.


Action, Adventure, Romance, Humor all rolled into one!

I think not. Who in the right mind would watch something like this? It is one thing to go into a bad movie knowing you are going to expect one. I would rate this movie worse than Mortal Kombat II.

The action moves overdone... this is just not the Matrix nor the Crouching Tiger.

Adventure is mediocre at best because it does not make any sense.

Whoever wrote this script needs to get their brains rewired because anyone will puke at the sight of any of the romantic interactions.

Humor? Yeah leave this one for the last because they are all dry. At least Jackie Chan has a funny personality which make his attempt honorable. Michelle on the other hand is like Jean Claude Vandamme making his jokes. And the entire cast is just a joke.

The funniest part is when it premiered in Malaysia, Michelle Yeoh was so adamant about destroying every pirated copy of this movie. I can see why.... This production should pass GO and head to the dumpster.


Shot on a poor-looking video, the editing, scripting and plotting of this movie are staggeringly bad. The use of music is also atrocious, music library stuff plugged in randomly and starting and ending without any logic. There's some sped-up footage of teeth-brushing, and a conversation is also fast-forwarded through.

In the opening, a woman leaves a successful date to be hit on by a stranger, then abducted by men in a van who dismember her with piano wire. A doll later on is supposedly a likeness of her, but isn't by a longshot. One of the dolls is named Marionnier (I thought this might be a person who manipulates a marionette, but no). One of the abusive guys gets strung up by rope after he attacks a woman, and attacked with huge shears and a sledgehammer. A woman turns into wax in a lake and is then sculpted into a doll.

All of this may sound very good, but it is so incompetently executed, you're better off spending your time elsewhere. Go revisit Child's Play or Dolls.


OK i've seen worse, by school kids =D this is utter sh*t. one point for the sounds that somebody normalized, and used OK mics. otherwise this film is done on dvcam, with lots of hand-held shots that look like my mother was on her holiday doing a little tourist filming.

at points the music sounds like shopping TV stuff... it's that bad really, and it's not even funny.

i didn't watch the whole film for apparent reasons... and did a lot of fast forwarding. ha ha... i've done quite a bit of filming, and i can tell you that me, and my beer buddies could do the same easily. when that is true then the movie can't be great =D=D=D (not to dis myself, but to be honest) stay away from this crap.


I wish I could give this film a negative number just to emphasize how AWFUL it is. To be honest, I'm not even sure how to begin to explain it. Here goes: It basically concerns a man, who's name escapes me at the moment, well, anyway, this fella has a fetish with dolls. He takes his fetish with dolls a little too far and begins killing women to make his dolls. In the end, he said he just wanted to make girl's dreams come true. That's about it folks. As stupid and amateur as can be. Usually I enjoy foreign films, but as with American films, there is plenty of junk to be had. I just wish I could get a refund! Do yourself a favor, avoid this film. And seeing that I am the first one to review it, I set the tone hopefully.


Here's a summary of this unintentionally hilarious masterpiece.

1) A girl sees a missing woman on TV and comes to the startling revelation that she looks just like her doll. The film then shows the doll, which looks nothing like the missing woman.

2) A madman scientifically explains to his demented accomplice how he was able to turn a woman into a doll: "The pond turned her into wax."

3) The accomplice admits to the girl that he's her stalker by brushing his teeth really fast, just like she does.

4) The accomplice kills a dude in an alleyway by first throwing a noose around his neck. The noose becomes magically suspended from an invisible pole  which we never see  thus providing the leverage the accomplice needs to hang the dude. The accomplice then grabs some shrub-shears and snips some hair off the dude's head while muttering the grammatically incorrect statement, "I am barber."

5) A girl is showering and sees the accomplice on the other side of her shower door. She screams, then ignores him. After her shower, she decides to take a bath, but the accomplice appears in the bathtub with his trademark mischievous smirk that hints at massive "weed" consumption. She screams, then ignores him. The accomplice then makes quacking (ala duck) noises from the ventilation grate (which measures 6 inches by 6 inches) in the bathroom. She screams, then ignores him.

6) The madman builds a Frankenstein machine that's powered by electricity to turn the women into wax, apparently forgetting that the pond water was sufficient enough for his needs only a few minutes earlier.

7) The accomplice kidnaps or kills girls and brings them to the madman for doll production. They get into an argument and the madman says, "I have this machine. I don't need you anymore." How the machine kidnaps girls is never explained.

8) A girl is kidnapped by the accomplice and attempts to send her brother a picture of the accomplice playing with a doll in an effort to have her brother rescue her. She even types in "Help me" on the message. However, the accomplice sees her and takes the phone away before she can send the message. The accomplice sends the message anyway. The girl then shakes her head in dismay, even though she wanted her brother to save her in the first place. How the brother found her location in the middle of a forest from the rather uninformative photo is not explained.

9) The dolls are lesbian nymphomaniacs. One of them distracts a girl by hitting a piano key, while the other sneaks up behind her for an ass-grab. I kid you not.

10) The filmmakers couldn't figure out how to split up two people in a tunnel with no doors, so they just made one of them disappear.

11) The accomplice hits a guy in the back of the head with a sledgehammer. The guy gets up with a nasty gash on his forehead, and stabs the accomplice with a sharp object, before passing out for 5 seconds. The accomplice falls down in the corner of the room, magically warps himself to the other side of the room and replaces himself with a stuffed dummy, all in 5 seconds.

12) Some dolls are as big as human beings. They chase the characters with their CGI-deficient mouths. One of them knows karate, and kicks her stiletto high heel at one of the girls, who proceeds to catch it in her mouth.

13) One of the girls goes into tough mode. She wields an axe but drops it. Although she does cut the accomplice's eyeball out. The accomplice appears in the middle of the forest soon after with a bandage on his head, as it appears that he planted first aid kits in the wilderness . . . just in case.

14) The stalker accidentally steps in the bear-trap that he randomly planted in the forest earlier. After planning that a girl would escape, run a mile or so in a given direction in a 100-square-mile forest, and step on top of that 1-square-foot area where he placed the trap, he was slightly off in his calculations and suffered the consequences.

15) The dolls create a super doll (with 6-pack abs). The super doll awakes just in time to get some steamy lesbian "necking" action.

16) The deep morale of this story is revealed by the girl survivor: "Boys will never understand girls' dreams. Girls' dreams keep glittering forever. I won't let you destroy it."

17) The girl survivor decides to keep the dead bodies of her friends and brother in her house as dolls. She talks to them regularly.

18) The girl ponders, "Was it a dream or reality? I wonder." She gets surrounded by dolls and then turns into one.

Roll credits. Enter deleted scenes.

19) The girl and her brother play "paper-scissors-stone."

20) In another scene we have the following dialogue:

Girl 1: "Once in a while you own clothes." (close-up on girl's face) Girl 2: "What on earth happened?" (they look around frantically) Some random dude: "Yes?" Girl 1: "Hurry up." (they run away)

21) The girls are at karaoke with lots of cartoon characters on the monitors. Suddenly, a bloody doll cartoon emerges on the video screens. No one notices.

22) The accomplice chases the girl in fast-forward motion thru the forest. The girl catches her dress on a tree, then slingshots backward on her ass. The accomplice injects her with a serum of some kind. The scene abruptly cuts. The girl is then immediately seen running away from the accomplice in the forest, apparently unaffected by the serum.

End Deleted Scenes

Rating = 0/5

Enjoy.


OK...you remember those movies in high school film classes? Remember the ones that tried really hard to be creepy and gory with ketchup and jump cuts? Those movies were TEN TIMES BETTER than this one. There is no telling what is going on at any point in the movie. This is for sure though: there's a girl, this guy kills girls and turns them into dolls, and the dolls come to life. I'm really disappointed, because being an avid horror fan who's always looking for a new and unique scare, I really thought this had potential. NO. The film work is juvenile at best, and the plot is so incoherent that it's difficult to even pay attention. You want a bottom line? Here's my advice: watch Puppetmaster.


This movie is simply awful, it is appalling in almost every regard.

It is sanctimonious, it is self-serving, it has some of the most annoying, self indulgent, non-sympathetic characters drawn in two dimensional fashion, it is ugly and uninteresting. The good thing about it was that it was very short in length and so spared the viewer from too much agony. From the very opening of this movie to the very close the viewer is not drawn to have any empathy for any of the characters involved, they are all to self centered and they learn nothing through the movie, in fact their selfish ways are validated and they have no redemption, they just go on doing the same old. Clearly this movie is written by someone young without experience in life, or someone who just has no idea. Do yourselves a favour, avoid this film.


You have a choice. You can stick your finger down your throat or watch this pathetic attempt at comedy/drama about young adults in search of relationships. In all fairness to the actors who doggedly go through the paces of trying to bring something meaningful to a thoroughly inane script, the film fails because the characters are shallow, two dimensional, plastic replicas of people for whom we're made to feel nothing. The film ricochets off humor, bends around reality, and ignores pathos. It's shallow, hollow, empty, and is about as satisfying as tofu.


And it is! Anime is everywhere these days, even some of our most beloved American cartoon/comic characters have been revamped into something that are no longer recognizable and are adopting strange features that they are not supposed to have! In this case, Disney too now focuses on that genre, disregarding their natural talents and hire an animation company called Jetix (the same company that creates the truly awful Super-Monkey-Robot-Yada-Yada-Wha? show) to produce another abomination that is sure to attract fans of the kids magazine called W.I.T.C.H (obviously initials for the characters' names, which you can see on its opening title. How lame and cumbersome).

Basically, I have no idea what the main story is about, but it's a bit like Harry Potter (since the first movie, everyone begins to imitate J.K. Rowling's success, but nevertheless fails to generate everlasting appeal) and a dot of Winxclub (which seems of plagiarize the former, plus lots more from other original anime preferences), which results in a badly mixed barf bag which older audiences have to consume to imagine its horrible taste (think of one event in Fear Factor where contestants are required to pick up garbage from the road and eat it!). First of all, animation is, well, what do you expect from conventional studios these days, Americanized Anime. Only more yucky. The character designs are equally generic and stiff as well (probably the most uninspiring is that little goblin who is obviously derived from Gollum/Dobbie). The costumes for the so-called Guardians are the worst I've seen in recent memories; with dull colors, poor choice of design and dreadful little wings, my interest begins to wane too quickly. I mean, c'mon, even little 'trick-or-treat' Halloween kids have better appearances than these 'pixies'! Plotwise, it's just like any other teen shows you have seen ranging from Sabrina to Ginger, so there's nothing to explain here. Basic magical elements such as water, fire, water... erg ... I just wonder if the writers of the show are capable of extracting their own bits of creativity instead of referring to the text books...

No matter what the 'fans' say about the show in this section, true lovers of animation like me may agree with some of my statements, so please I beg you all to STEER AWAY FROM THEIR MAGICAL INFLUENCES!


I'll be brief:

1) The movie has a great opening scene (except for the fact that the bed jumped a lot...)

2) Devon Sawa was not excellent, but he did a good job "playing" with his hand.

3) Vivica A. Fox is really a fox.. but, so what? She was ridiculous in that movie... I don't understand why a person who made a blockbuster as ID4 (I'm not telling it is a good movie, just is a blockbuster) agrees to join such a horrible movie.

4) To be fair, I laughed in some scenes, but in overall the movie is really awful.

5) If you do not like Offspring, stick with this movie and be satisfied with what the hand does.

2/10. Addam's Family is so much better...


Now I'm not sure what to call this movie. A horror movie or a comedy? It confuses the viewer in many ways. When you expect to burst out laughing, a woman is pulled under a bed and a bunch of blood bursts out from underneath it. Its like "Whoa!" And even worse, the events are extremely corny and you lose track of what's happening. The main character, Dope-smoking, tv-watching, Anton's hand is possessed by Satan and it causes him to do things that he wouldn't normally do, like shove a glass bottle through his friend's head. He gets the girl way too fast and it doesn't even leave you time to think how he scored with her in the first place. He drops off her lost little journal thing at her house and runs away when she answers the door. When he comes back to her place on Halloween, she grabs him, throws him down on the bed and starts kissing him. The comedy is completely stupid. The movie expects people to laugh when heads are sliced off and when girls are cut into pieces with a fan. Don't expect to be amused by this horrible excuse for a comedy-horror.


From the trailer, this looked like a very promising horror/comedy. Sadly, when it came to viewing the whole thing, the horror aspect was played more prominently than the comedy. This a the major tragedy because the so called 'horror' was so very lame and the scope for physical comedy was barely tapped.

So, despite some sublime moments of black and/or physical humour (most of which was seen in the trailer), this was just another gormless collage of tiresome in-your-face 'scares' & body count, lame dialogue, and juvenile innuendo.

For tasteless teens only -- 3/10


Deciding not to read the other reviews, I may merely be regurgi--um... saying stuff all over again.

But this was not a terribly great movie. Expecting a funny movie that really pokes fun at the horror genre, but instead getting a horrid movie that pokes more fun at the characters with bad jokes, etc.

Generally, the performances were almost there, but not quite (although i still found Seth Green entertaining). Devon Sawa was damn good, considering this is the first thing I've seen him in.

The initial idea was good: boy's hand becomes possessed, he kills people. But it went downhill from there. Really.

The funniest points in this movie, albeit one of four funny points, was the manner in which the hand was finally destroyed, and the spectacle as it was destroyed.

There are better things to spend your money on if you want an entertaining evening. Otherwise, this is a good movie to spend $8.00 on to just talk while it plays. Um... yeah...


The movie was one I watched because I was doing some project on it and found the movie at the library. So when I checked it out, I hoped to find a stunning movie about a man and his immortal love. Instead, I was distracted by wild images and scene changes. The plot line was choppy, and was not easy to follow. The end was disappointing. Overall, I rate this movie a three out of ten. It's just not worth it. The actors were good, but even the famous actors and actresses did not make this move a success. Although, I must admit, some of the most famous quotes did come from this movie--"Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss!" I overestimated how much I would like this film. A nice history lesson but no movie in my opinion.


In medieval garb, scholarly Richard Burton (as Doctor Faustus) sells his soul to Lucifer (David McIntosh) in exchange for knowledge denied ordinary mortal men, visitations with a beautifully mute Elizabeth Taylor (with a body double), and Satanic servant Andreas Teuber (as Mephistopheles). ...and, other things, as needed. The deal with the devil is guaranteed to keep Mr. Burton successful and satisfied for twenty-four years. But, he is not happy. In fact, Burton seems to immediately know he's made a terrible mistake.

Tick tock, tick tock. After some interminable moments, Burton fully realizes the error of his ways. He exclaims, "The stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike, the devil will come!"

"And, Faustus must be damned!" Burton begs for forgiveness, alongside his life-sized crucifix.

"See where Christ's blood streams in the firmament! One drop would save my soul!"

Will God lift him up, or pull him down?

This must have been THE film to inspire the critical disdain foisted upon Elisabeth Taylor and Richard Burton for the remainder of their artistic partnership (for better and for worse). And, it truly is "Bloody Awful!" The movie looks like somebody gave "film student" Burton the assignment to shoot Christopher Marlow's "Doctor Faustus" for his final, with an itemized list of materials to employ. He was to allowed use his classmates, professors, wife, and a cat in the play. He should have claimed he was allergic to cats.

Possibly, this film would "Pass" on a kindly professor's scale, but it isn't worthy as a mainstream movie, which is how it seems to have been promoted. As product from two stars who were both listed in the 1967 Quigley Poll of "Top 10 Box Office Stars" (Taylor at #2, Burton at #9), it probably puzzled ticket purchasers. And, it's not the idea or material that sinks this production, it's the rampant and garish shoddiness. Yet, you can see Burton's love for the material, and Mr. Teuber is very good in his supporting role.

** Doctor Faustus (10/10/67) Richard Burton, Nevill Coghill ~ Richard Burton, Andreas Teuber, Elizabeth Taylor, Ian Marter


RICHARD BURTON gets to tear the scenery to pieces as DOCTOR FAUSTUS, directing himself into a frenzy of stylized theatrical acting as though he didn't know the camera would magnify his every over-sized movement.

Fortunately, ELIZABETH TAYLOR is only allowed to parade her beauteous face before the close-up cameras without uttering a word. Only toward the end does she have to shriek like a mad woman as Faustus loses his soul to hell.

But Burton's histrionics are on display and I doubt whether Charles Laughton or Peter Ustinov ever indulged in such extravagant overacting. His performance is a spectacle in itself.

And unfortunately, the other cast members are almost mute by comparison, none of them exhibiting anything more than amateurish acting.

The sometimes imaginative staging is pretty to look at, but none of it manages to stir up more than a modicum of interest. It's all done up in garish Technicolor with sets that look as though the low budget was put to efficient use.

Summing up: In my humble opinion, a weird sort of bomb, totally lacking any sort of entertainment value.


Richard Burton's wildly misconceived, overly stylized variation on the Faust legend completely misses the essence of the myth; it's somewhere buried under the loads of bizarre images and incomprehensible soliloquies. The result is an abomination (and a curio!). (*1/2)


I say that a mark of a good movie is that you don't have to be familiar with the book, play, etc that served as the basis or inspiration. So, having said that, and, subsequently, not having seen nor read Marlowe's play "Dr Faustus", I can honestly say the first 10 minutes of Burton's film adaptation bored me so senseless that I didn't even bother sticking around for the always-compelling Ms Taylor to make her entrance...and couldn't have cared less.

It was that bad.

And since it was solely Burton and his monologues, along with Burton's campy directorial choices which ate up those tortuous 10 minutes...I would deem this film as Burton's, and only Burton's, rotten egg.


I missed this movie when it appeared, and I saw it just lately, because I read some very enthusiastic reviews on it and, living in Germany, I think one has to cope also to the local cinematographic up-to-date situation. Well, I felt disappointed. I mean, I agree with the main point of the reviews, that is to say the extraordinary performance of Hannelore Elsner as the main character, a leninistic writer, smoke- and sleeping pills-addicted, who just after the fall of the wall decides to leave the capitalistic Federal Republic of Germany and to move to the socialistic East Berlin. But, of course, the wall is fallen and she cannot find herself anymore also in her dreamed on world. I am afraid that the main trouble with this movie is the uncapability to create a really living character, notwithstanding Mrs. Elsner's efforts, and the complete unconsistency of the secondary characters (like her boyfriend, or her son, or her former lover). Besides, the screenplay has too many holes (for instance, at the beginning she has all her furniture removed from her house in Munich, because she is leaving: but where is she sending them?): I mean, we must not know any particular of the life of any character (for instance, Bresson did not care at all about it...), but it is difficult to sympathize with a character who only speaks with slogans. And what about her outfits? What are they here for, just to present the woman as a relict from the 68-ers revolt (with a Christian Dior overcoat...)? Or was she a novel Norma Desmond wandering in her delirium? In that case, a more baroque scenery should have been more suitable. And, last but not least, the cinematography has annoyed me: I love black and white, but in this case it was that kind of arty black and white which reminds me more of some Madonna videoclips than of movie classics. So, I'm beginning to understand why German movies very seldom are exported...


do you like to watch a black&white shot that last 5 minutes of theater time watching a still on someone talking on the phone about her neuroses and chain smoking cigarettes? then this movie is for you. The only good scene was the male prostitute (he asked for 400 DM) putting at ease his client (Franco Citti in ACCATONE was good too).


Oh, come on... who the hell could find this movie of all the awards it actually got? Touching a political topic, it doesn't offer any political illumination (that is to say, no interesting QUESTION), dialogues (apart from the intense beginning) are paper-like, the story has no development (I mean: even in the petrification there have to be developments, if not we should do a painting instead of a movie), and acting is scarcely bearable. (What about H. Elsner? She has an attractive face, that's it.) A "nadir" of German movie-landscape.


The main portion of this lightweight musical story is located at fictional Midwick College, which Peter Kendricks (Peter Lind Hayes) attends due to the largesse of stage actress Grace Hayes, his real-life mother who fills the same role here, and who manages to supply his love interest through her secretary Mary (Healy) who is his real-life wife. Drably directed from a weak script, and additionally hampered by excessive cutting and poor editing, this film does provide some treasures among its eight songs, including the title number, and has nice turns by soprano Healy, Benny Rubin as a snack shop proprietor, and the dynamic tap dancing Roland Dupree.


Having some idle time before going to work, I looked at my "50 Movie Pack Comedy Classics" DVD collection and picked the most obscure title in the pack: Zis Boom Bah starring a forgotten Grace Hayes. "Classics" is obviously the operative word here since most of the titles I've never heard of and I suspect they're all in the public domain. Anyway, this movie also stars her son Peter Lind and his wife Mary Healy (who I just found out is a New Orleans native from the state I live in, Louisiana) with Benny Rubin as a malt shop proprietor and Huntz Hall, taking a break from the East Side Kids, as Peter's buddy. The plot, about a vaudeville mother trying to turn her rich carefree son into a responsible one with him unaware of who she is, is for the birds and doesn't have many funny scenes though I did like Peter's celebrity impersonations and his dance with Hall in drag. And the songs and dances are entertaining in themselves. Rubin, however, is all over the place with his confusion of the American vernacular of the time and almost everything concerning him makes no sense whatsoever (though I did like his funny dance). Since this was only 61 minutes that I'm sure played on the lower-half of the double feature bill, I'll be charitable and give this one a 3 for the few entertaining bits that I mentioned enjoying.


Oh Gawd. I want to time travel back to Monogram Studios and throttle someone in their 2 room front office for this sloppy musical. It is one watt above flat-lining for 60 of its 61 minutes and then actually shows (for the one thin minute, spread in milli-second blips across the hour) that there is real life talent being badly photographed.I just don't see the point of going to some trouble to actually make this film that could easily be energetic and actually funny and allow lethargy to be the main thing on view. The weird storyline shows cranky vaudeville trouper Grace Hayes bulldozing her blowsy way into a college where her rat-bag son is rich college clown. She's gonna fix his playboy ways, no matter what.Her real life son (weird looking) Peter Hays plays her screen son. His real life wife plays her secretary. Talk about nepotism. I suspect this talent package was almost the raison d'etre for Monogram financing this back-lot musical produced by resident schlockmeister extraordinaire Sam Katzman. As with other Monogram musicals it just looks more like a reason to film recent new furniture purchases and light fittings in order to show off to other studios that Monogram Pictures are 'lavish' in their B grade ways. Have a ghastly look at SWING PARADE OF 1946 for genuine evidence of this: they just constructed this gigantic nightclub set then found an excuse to film actors and musicians running all over it. Story? None. Anyway ZIS BOOM BAH is more BAH than BOOM. Where was Gale Storm and Mantan Mooreland when Monogram really needed them? Probably standing at the boom gate of PRC Pictures wondering if it looked safe to enter there. Junior jive hepster Roland Dupree springs to life to rappety tap his teen legs around two wobbly dance numbers, especially in the 'big show' finale set in the new and expanded malt shoppe/club set. The usual crumpled curtains are loosely hanging on the back wall, and the stage set of mis matched drapery even has one dark main rag that is yanked back and forth as each amateur sequence elbows past the previous one. The chorus girls and their very plain looking partners in this finale just look like Monogram office staff borrowed (from typing and carpentry) for the morning of filming. They have absolutely no dance talent and are so ordinary on screen... ALL the girls look like they are all called Joyce. There is even a costume calamity where they wear frilly hot-pants...on one leg only. It is all so awful and crummy...and actually annoying when one more tweak up by all concerned would result in ZIS being actually FUN. The one strangely interesting thing is the dialog delivery between Grace and her son/daughter in law: it is so casually delivered that it actually works in spite of the script and logic. She has a very life like presence which is the only thing that allows the ridiculous story to be slightly compelling. The Dupree kid is the real star. He can actually do something...in spite of looking like a tubby Liberace tap dancing teen... You read that right.


The stage star Grace Hayes stars in this obscure little film. After years of being on the stage, she is going to visit a small college town to check up on her son who is being raised by his grandfather. The kid doesn't know who his mother is and when she sees him in a local malt shop, he's a boorish jerk. Part of the problem is that he is a college clown the other part is that he's really spoiled.

Interestingly, it turns out that Mom is really quite wealthy and has been not only funding her son's life but is a hefty contributor to the college. So, she has the idea of forcing the young man to mature. She talks to the man who's raising Peter and has his allowance cut off completely--hoping he'll rise to the occasion. It also turns out that she puts the screws to the school because she thinks all these kids need to stop playing around and be more responsible.

Now here's where it gets pretty dumb. To show that they know the value of hard work, she hires a bunch of them to sing and dance at the malt shop she just purchased. Talk about contrived!! What happens next is like a long and not particularly good talent show or perhaps a poor man's version of a Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musical! I'd suggest the kids try to do something else to earn money...or perhaps sing and dance until people pay them to stop! I know I would pay them.

Considering that the talent is far from talented, Peter is a bad actor and his change from lout to responsible adult is almost instantaneous, the whole thing is a bit hard to take. Not a very good film by any sane standard, this is an obscure film that should have stayed obscure!

By the way, it is interesting that Ms. Hayes' son in the film, Peter, is actually her real life son. The only problem with that is that Peter Lind Hayes is a truly awful actor. He's not handsome enough to be a leading man and he comes off as either dull and uninteresting or downright obnoxious. In particular, all the stupid impressions he does are really bad and he has the charisma of the gelatin that you scrape off Spam. Despite this terrible performance, he did go on to have a reasonably successful acting career. Who would have believed it if you'd seen him in ZIS BOOM BAH--because here, he's about as welcome as the Bubonic Plague!!


This feels very stilted and patronizing to a great extent. The whole plot is extremely forced - especially the "gallant" effort to save the college from ruin, and the moralistic overtone (especially by the leading lady) grates a bit.

But there are one or two comic moments that do help relieve the boredom, and the dancing is quite fun (especially for alleged amateurs - ha, ha!)

The shop proprietor and the young guy doing spectacular tap dancing were particular highlights. And I liked Peter Hayes impressions of Charles Laughton and Ronald Coleman as well.


I have to admit that when I was younger, I used to love watching this show, I actually thought it was very realistic and that it had a good plot each episode. Now of course, I was only 11 when I was watching the first season and I guess since it had grown up's in it, I assumed it was true to life. I grew up missing later seasons after Mary went to Buffalo to be with her grandparents. So years went by, not watching the show, not even missing it, but then one day I noticed on ABC Family that they were beginning to show the re-run's, so I figured I would watch the series again and give it another shot.

The plot is basic, a minister's family has daily problems, usually mediocre and over blown. We have Eric, the dad and husband, he's also a minister at the local church. Annie, his wife and mother of 7, she's a home maker, tries to do little jobs here and there, but I guess Eric prefers her living at home. Matt who is the oldest brother, he's also throughout most of the series in college studying to be a doctor. Mary, the second oldest, a basketball star in high school, but goes onto "evil deeds" later on, the rebel of the family. Lucy, the third oldest, the drama queen sister. Simon, the fourth oldest, who is the bank to his siblings and is always having girl problems. Ruthie, the fifth oldest, the little know it all who gives advice and goes to special school for her talents. And lastly, the twins, who are the youngest, don't really get much character development on the show.

Now we have major problems with this show that I realized, first off Aaron Spelling casts unbelievably good looking teens(who look nothing alike, when they're supposed to be siblings), not to mention their unrealistic reactions to their problems. I have learned from this show that you can heavily make out with guys, but it'll never lead to sex. If you're a smoker, you're a bad person. You can easily turn anyone else's problem into your own. When horrible problems occur that have nothing to do with you, guilt yourself, it's your fault somehow, even if you had no clue what was going on. If your wife is on hormones and drives you beyond insane(understandably), you remain patient and tolerant. Also, if you have a few financial problems, have one beer, don't go to college because you wanna figure out what you would like to do, oh, no, you can't do that in the Camdon family, they'll just ship you off to Buffalo.

I think another problem I have with this show is that it's somewhat sexist, Annie is a house wife who really is more of a nut case than a strong female. If Lucy and her husband, Kevin, got into a fight, he just kissed her off and wouldn't talk to her about the problem. And in later seasons, Ruthie got some kind of a boyfriend at a young age, and she said she would die without him, it was just ridiculous. Another thing was how annoying an episode would be with a problem, some how everyone in the family had the exact same problem going on of some sort. The twins finishing each other's sentences was not cute, it showed a lack of material for them.

I don't mean to complain so much about the show, it just had horrible acting and unbelievable situations. While it might be good for pre-teens, this is sadly not an adult show, it's insulting to the mind. I would love to say something good for this show, but I can't really, because it's hard to think about one good thing that I could say, it doesn't really have anything good. None of the characters are lovable, like Ruthie, who was supposed to be the wise one of the family was more annoying than tolerant. It's just a silly show when you really look at it, all I have to say to this family if I met them is to start minding their own business and take care of their own problems.


This show is so full of double standards, hypocritical characters, and holier the thou attitudes. I can't even watch a commercial anymore.

The way the parents spy on their children and their ridiculous over the top reactions is laughable.

It they are "moral", than I don't know if I want to be in that category.

It is kind of scary to me to think some people actually think these are good people with good morals.

I am not surprise that most of the children have flown the coupe as fast as they could.


When I first saw an episode of this series, it seemed quiet funny to me: a sexless-Christian-perfect-family-universe with countless daughters who are each engaged for about the 20th time while not ever having married, and in the end, the parents ly in bed and cry because their son wants to marry a Jewish girl. I thought it was a wonderfully satiric piece of work.

But some days later I saw another episode and another, and soon found out that the first one was not satiric - their serious with this terribly unrealistic drama stuff!!! I don't know if that's the way young Americans see the world, but every single episode of StarTrek is so much more realistic than this 'praise-the-lord-and-love-your-neighbor' show.

Surely every conservative loves it, just as the catholic church would surely do. But as a more or less modern and open person living in the 21st century, all you can do is laugh and cry...


i cant believe this show - it has to be one of the worst things i have ever seen. The basic plot line follows a reverend and his wfire raising 7 kids up to be perfect and god fearing. But the main intention behind this show is to educate and in a way brainwash you into never doing a few certain things including - underage sex - underage drinking - drugs - to vote and many many others.

The story lines always involve the vicar or whatever he is intervening in peoples lives and meddling in their personal business. I cant believe it lasted 10 years and 242 episodes - thank god it was cancelled.


For some odd reason "7th heaven" even aired here in Austria. I only watched one episode but I have to say that absolutely nothing I've ever seen compares to this series and it's the only production that I would rate even lower than IMDb allows to (minus 10 actually).

"7th heaven" tries so hard in telling you what's wrong or right it will make you feel traumatized. After all, the series actually works - but in the opposite direction. After watching this episode I somehow felt the urge to smoke a pot and drink alcohol while having sex with a prostitute and screaming "Jesus hates you".

Don't even bother watching this!


No, really, that about sums up my opinion of this show, but I guess I'll elaborate.

I'm so sick and tired of these so-called 'morality' shows. If I had kids and wanted to teach them a thing or two about life, I'd tell them to read a friggin' book or ten, not subject themselves to this mind-numbing piece of steaming crap.

I've noticed most people who defend this show are Christians, and as much as I'd love to do some well-placed bashing, I won't, because I happen to have a lot of friends who are Christians and yet laugh themselves silly at the idiocy that is "7th Heaven". Kids who ask their parents permission to have sex? Daughters who ask their mother to find them someone to date? Are we living in the same planet here? Let us please refrain from extremities... Things in life aren't all black and white. The way this show presents it, you're only a nice person if you believe in a personal god, NEVER touch alcohol, NEVER swear, NEVER smoke, and --of course- have sex only after you marry. Everyone else is scum and should either revert to the 'righteous path' or burn in Christian hell. Can ya scream "Get off your high horse?" To add insult to injury, this show isn't even worth your attention despite the forced-upon morality. The plots are recycled and uninspired, the characters are two-dimensional cardboard cut-outs, and the writing is horrid and contrived.

And to all those people who defend this show by saying that it teaches kids a thing or two when compared to other shows... F*** that. Since when did mediocrity, denial, misogyny, propaganda and bigotry become good examples for your children?


I think the creators of "7th Heaven" really need to look up the definition of Didactic.

I'm a strong believer in the idea that a TV episode ought to have something to say. A message or theme perhaps. Now 7th heaven tries very hard to do this. Each episode ends with some kind of very special lesson that everyone learns. But that's my problem with the show. If you have something to say on TV, don't tell us with your voice. Show it to us with your story. That is one power of story telling - to teach us by drawing us into an experience where we can explore ideas and grow.

What I'm saying is, 7th heaven is too preachy. They don't even try to work on the whole story. They just concentrate on getting their message across. But the medium that this message travels upon is just as important as the message itself and that's where the show falls short. Instead of being presented with a real family we get robotic stereotypes who only exist to communicate a frank moral. It's just hard to believe the shows message when the characters are unrealistic (they have 5 year old kids on the show that talk like they are at a theological seminary. And the adult characters - their behavior is so predictable, and their emotions so ingenuine.) and the story lines are too sensational to speak to the human condition (I remember one episode where every character had to have an addiction to something. Even the little girl was addicted to chewing gum or something. The moral: Addictions are bad. *o rly? no wai!*...).

I would like to see this show start making real art. Mabey make some real characters next time. And try not to make their preachy morals so obvious. If you want to communicate and idea or a value to someone, you cant tell them. People don't want to be told things. You have to connect with them, and share an experience. This pathetic, maudlin excuse for a show just cant seem to do this, and thats why I'm rating this show a 1.


I started watching this show by accident and have been watching it ever since. The reason is I am hoping for one of the family to emerge as a totally responsible person. The whole family from the father and mother and all children are totally dysfunctional. Every new character is the same. The one who they took in their home because his father was a marine (Martin) came closest, but was also a disappointment in the end. It makes a farce of any religion I know of, but still I find myself watching and hoping. All of the children falling in love with every member of the opposite sex they meet is ridiculous. I am reminded of an Uncle I have who was a Baptist minister. He and his wife were normal people, but he had four sons, all of whom became alchoholics. Both families make me wonder about being a minister with a family.


I saw this on afternoon TV a while ago and i sat the whole show with my mouth open with disbelief. From the theme song to the styled kids and the cutesy acting this has got to be some of the most awful television i have ever seen.

The most surprising thing i guess is that this is even shown on television outside of America. I guess there are parts of the world where this would still qualify as entertainment, but i have purposely kept myself very far from those parts. Besides being moralizing garbage this also has some of the most unbelievably shallow characters i have ever seen. Just looking at them tickles my gag reflex. I mean, what's up with that little girl? She's like six years old, wearing a ton of makeup looking constantly like she's the star of an ad for toothpaste.

This was seriously awful stuff. Heavy-handed medieval Christian morals packaged into a family-oriented afternoon entertainment format. Seeing that this show actually ran for ten years is... beyond belief. Seeing this i wonder what the shows are like that never even make it outside America.


I know - it's so sorry to comment a series after it's of the air for like 10 years, but I have decided last week I will give it a try for two or three episodes, and I didn't make it... I made it through two and a half, and tried not to throw everything in my reach into the screen. They should pass out insulin with this over sweetened piece of crap... I'm feeling sorry for the American people that are judged in the rest of the world on the basis of shows like this one... On the other hand - I'm sure there are trailer parks over there, where this one was a blockbuster. The only positive thing that I have heard about this show, is that Jessica Biel is in it - didn't see anything interesting in the episodes I was watching, and probably it will stay that way, because I don't think it's worth it...


I think that 7th Heaven used to be a good show. Now it's gotten so lame that I don't care what happens anymore. The show is still a tiny bit addictive, but it just doesn't have the same appeal to me it once had. This is by far the worst season of 7th Heaven ever. The show has always been sort of predictable, but now I usually know what will happen before it does. Like this week's episode for example. Simon and Rose fought over that stupid wedding ring she forced him to buy. She made him feel totally guilty for something that was her fault. And as usual, he was dumb enough to take her back. Now it seems that they will get married after all, but who knows? Next week, Rose is supposed to drop yet another bomb on poor Simon. If the show really does end, it can't end with Simon marrying that insecure, needy, clingy, spoiled, selfish, manipulative brat.


If cinematography and period settings were not present, this film wouldn't be able to get any attention. Why? OK, here I go. First thing, above all others, is that when anybody attempts to make a popcorn flick outside of the States, the product will fail, for sure.

Second, the idea is good, but the rendering of it came out pretty lame with the thankful exceptions of a few shots, especially when Leo (the younger Jaquou) is present. But, all in all, it's a very predictable, un-original and so-so film.

Third, it's an action film so full of clichés that, with a grain of imagination, it turns out to be as dull as a Big Mac.

French films, when they're true to their origin, are usually reflective, deep, difficult, full of drama and demanding for most audiences. But, in this particular occasion, joining some other flops, enormous amounts of money went down the drain -literally, if you've already seen this film.

Olivier Gourmet, one of the most talented actors in France, could make some people, like me, watch this film. Please, if you like Olivier's previous work, don't. He's, to say the least, sketchy.


I had the memory of a "Jacquou Le Croquant", hero of a TV mini-series of my childhood, who had lost his parents by the fault of an aristocrat and more generally because of the post-Napoleonean social classes system, and who came to a revenge by leading a revolt especially against that social system and against the man which incarnates the cause of the tragedy of his family. On the basis of that, one expects to see a social fresco full of various emotions that goes along with the rich History of France of that period: tragedy, love, revenge, popular revolt (revolution against the established order), freedom seeking, and other great emotions which accompany this kind of epic stories But it is not the case.

The narration is too slow and really insipid. The actors are just as pale as the story and its rhythm. What a waist for such a beautifully photographed picture! If one can afford to see Laurent Boutonnat's version of "Jacquou" is solely because it's good-looking at. Costumes and the decoration are really really superb! The director definitely is a good director of photography, and even a good soundtrack composer but certainly not a storyteller, definitely not a director.


In early 70s, Jacquou Le Croquant series was a great TV success. Not sure this will be equally the case for this 2007 version. What could have attracted Laurent Boutonnat in Le Roy's novel can be easily spotted here : Wide spaces, fighting between nobles and peasants, post revolution ambiance..

Laurent Boutonnat comeback to movies is unfortunately not a great experience.

Without Mylène Farmer, but all sorts of meaningless symbols and a handful of ready made scenes,this leads to a very disappointing movie, This picture that could have been great is simply a succession of movie-clips , without any coherence.


I cannot comprehend how films this bad get made, what with all the time, money and effort that goes into film-making. Didn't anyone (the director, the producer, the editors) WATCH the film??? Couldn't they SEE how bad it was??? It contains some of the WORST acting I have ever seen. Reminded me of one of those "adult" films that Showtime broadcasts late at night. Just simply awful. I still can't believe that Nastassja Kinski agreed to be a part of this. Fortunately for us, David Bailey hasn't directed another feature-length film since! Avoid this piece of crap at ALL COSTS. Better yet, BUY every copy you can find, both the VHS and the DVD (I guarantee you this will be in the El Cheapo Clearance Dump Bins all over the world), and destroy them to spare the rest of humanity from this atrocity...


I can't imagine, how this film could manage to gather the actresses like Charlotte and Natasha but meanwhile to make up such a meaningless story. Calling itself a thriller, it was just able to produce a minimal atmosphere that a typical thriller movie needs, and the ending is absolutely disappointing. I think, the script writer must have lost his last little bit creativity and logic to write down such a ridiculous bedtime story. Besides, there are too many useless roles and branch plots. Give me the scissor, I will cut it from 90 min to 30 min, without making the movie worse. All in all, this time travel stuff is not an easy cake, the logic behind these kind of movie is questionable. The only way to let the audience forget asking why this why that is a good, captivating plot. But this film has definitively not one.


After reading one of the other reviews, I opted to give this film a try. Boy was I disappointed. My Dish network guide which only gives ratings up to four stars, gave this one a 2+ star rank. After watching it, I can only shake my head and wonder why. The premise of the movie, a woman coming into the police station and confesses to crime which occurred two years earlier. The hook, she couldn't have done the crime as she claims she just committed the crime the day she walks into the police station.

I don't want to disclose the ending, or be a spoiler, so I won't go there. But suffice it to say there are so many red herrings, convoluted twists, and down right silly plot lines, that the films surpasses the point of absurdity. You find yourself not caring any longer about the characters, and only wishing the film would end. This film tries to breach a number of different genre's including mystery, thriller, horror and science fiction. Sadly, the mix rather than becoming an intriguing stew, becomes a weak broth leaving the viewer unfulfilled.


It was a nice movie in the beginning. It was teasing enough to keep watching Although it was a bit too dark; it was as if it was always night and the lights were off all the time. But when the end was approaching there were too many errors in the story to enjoy it any more. The ending was really unsatisfied because of the errors in the story.


ON THE WRONG TREK

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white - Short film)

Forced to take part in a Californian driving holiday with his eager-to-please wife (Rosina Lawrence) and domineering mother-in-law (Bonita Weber), Our Hero (Charley Chase) encounters a series of crises which ruin his vacation.

Featuring a brief cameo from Laurel and Hardy (repaying a debt to star Chase, who had appeared in some of their earlier pictures), ON THE WRONG TREK follows its protagonists through Depression-era California, where itinerant workmen are dismissed as 'bums' by law enforcement officers and refused permission to cross state boundaries, and where desperate criminals stage fake traffic accidents to ensnare unwitting victims. Unfortunately, Weber isn't nearly as domineering as she needs to be, which renders Chase's reluctant obedience all the more difficult to comprehend, and most of the comic situations (including an unlikely song and dance number between Chase and Lawrence at a gathering of hobo's!) are only fitfully amusing. Chase co-directed the film with Harold Law.


Not worth waisting to much time on this, i just have to say it's one of the worst movies I've seen( and I've seen my share of bad movies from Manos to Master of Disguise), and you should stay away unless you want to see how bad sergiu got in his old age... Kinda sad he's so lame and doesn't even know it... Pretty much the worst thing that ever happened to romanian movies

I know pretty much all his stuff is awful, but he outdone himself this time. I mean It's not even so bad it's funny it's... well just bad

PS I usually don't like to insult people online but whoever gave this one a 10 is either a retard or sergiu got 10 accounts and voted himself.


First time when my son brought home the CD with "15", we just had a look. And we reacted.

We saw the opening credits, with the long list of acknowledgements - and we laughed our asses off.

We saw the opening shot, with that ferris wheel - and we laughed our asses off.

We fast-forwarded to a scene where Maia Morgenstern is in a sewer and calls for someone - and we laughed our asses off.

We FF-ed even more, to some militiamen invading an apartment - and we laughed our asses off.

We switched at random, to find a scene self-pastiched from "Revansa" (some guy jumping from a bridge on a train carriage) - and we laughed our asses off.

...This was the first impact.

After a while, we gathered enough patience to sit down and watch all the movie. And we both reached to the same conclusion: It made no difference. Really none.

And we cried our eyes off.


When i entered the cinema it was full,i thought it will be a good movie.I also saw the director Sergiu Nicolaescu(he used to be o good director)and i also thought that i will see a good movie. It started good and i said to me that it will have a good plot.But in a very short time i realized that it is a very very bad movie. It has the same idea with another very bad romanian movie from last year with that bitch from France who is searching for a little bastard who was born during the revolution and was brought to an orphanage.It has scenes that are very absurd and the dream of one of the characters lasts too much. I saw that the director and the whole crew had made all that they could do and deserve the golden raspberry.


very bad script for so many good actors including Maia Morgenstein. Director should retire after this movie even a foreign director can do a better movie about the Romanian so called revolution. for a Romanian who lived those period the movie is so lame, so many things in the movie seem so unrealistic. The main characters are going by tram at the beginning of the movie surrounded by tanks but no one is making a comment on that. Romania wasn't Iraq at that time so everybody should be surprised. Btw the trains towards Timisoara were stopped in those days by the communist regime, that city was practically closed. My advice watch the movie as an experience but lower your expectations. definitely not a good movie.


Idea: this movie presents the story of a soon to be married couple during the days of the revolution and, also the story of a journalist who 15 years later comes in search of their baby....born in those dreadful days. Result: a movie badly directed, produced and played. NOT WORTH WATCHING ! ! !

A movie like this i could produce with a budget of 300 dollars. The actors did'nt impress at all...their roles were just stupid: drunken sailor, stupid bride, ???german girl???.

1st of all...the sailor returns from seas...goes to Timisoara to marry...get's drunk all the way there....get's drunk there...goes with his bride at the hospital...get's shot by the Communist forces...believed dead is transported to a crematory...lies like stupid and burns alive...STUPID (also very idiotic part where he dreams everything is OK and then we see him burning 5 min later ) bride and her friend - bride is very very stupid as her friends are...their roles r very poorly written and acted Comunist forces and patriotic people - OMG... they have like 300 men and they switch them around...no real drama... 1 other thing...where did they get the cat and the dog in the movie? those have to be like the ugliest animals i have ever seen...if this is how the director sees this country then he should stop directing

btw...at the end of the movie ..the baby is born..is a boy.......We never find out why his mother abandons him...but 15 years later he's an "aurolac"...actually the leader of them..and in the end he get's trapped in the underground sewage(and will eventually die...i presume :D )

so....whatever u do...don't waste u'r time watching this piece of crap...

2/10 (it actually deserved 1...but i support the Romanian cinema :)


This is the worst film I've seen for as long as I can remember. It isn't even worth a thorough comment/review. Nicolaescu is obviously a delusional character (interesting - or better said, funny - to note that when the film was released he appeared completely drunk on the news, giving an unimaginably incoherent interview); I did expect something very cheesy but this just blew me away. Nothing is good in this film: incredibly bad acting, bad script, bad directing, you name it. This can't be considered a historical film. This film is a bad joke. "Rambo" is a historical masterpiece compared to this thing. The fact that this film was funded by the state (!!!!!!!!) should raise some eyebrows...


I am truly disappointed... I saw the cast, and I was really expecting something out of this movie. I try to give Romanian cinema the benefit of a doubt, but this film is more than a sane person can stand.

Two particular comments (other than the ones of my colleagues): (1) I am a strong believer in the fact that if you want to see disgusting scenes with no apparent role in the plot, you should try a third-rate horror movie, the kind with zombies and crap. In no circumstances such scenes should appear in a supposedly respectable film about historic events and social issues. If the director wanted to induce psychological tension, there are other ways to do it, except extensively showing people die and being burnt alive!

(2) Also, for someone who has lived in Timisoara all her life (the place where the action takes place), I can really tell that the accent of the actors is far off. You want a movie that takes place somewhere else than in Bucharest? Fine! But have the courtesy to make a survey of how people live, behave and talk around there! Otherwise, it is just NOT authentic. It really sounds fake! (Especially the "German girl"...)


This movie is bad, because of the script, directing, acting ..., everything. There is an awful attention to detail and you can see today's Romania everywhere in the so called '89 era..., from the plastic chair in the train stations, signs, renovated roads, and even foreign cars. And incredibly today's Romania looks as awful as the Communist age, so cannot support the directors opinion of how any things have changed. The script is an artificial construction, collecting some horrible facts, into a story that tries to disgust and haunt you. And the characters..., oh god.., they are so week, and acted so badly. really pointless, nothing to connect to. The settings are all wrong, there is nothing of the great openings and large masses of people that acted the Revolution. The film might suggest to the unfamiliar, that these were some kind of Paris riots, where the police used real guns. Everithing is suburban, a world of vagabonds. And what about the whole France thing, maybe Nicolaiescu tried some fine irony, when the french editor suggested the journalist that she may write something about: orphans, dogs, AIDS, crap like that..., so Mr. Nicolaiescu WTF.., is in your movie..., isn't exactly the same... SOME FRENCH GUY WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME STEREOTIPICAL CARACTERIZATION OF ROMANIA ...

And the people of '89 Romania, they all had BLUEJEANS, WOW..., incredible, And what is with all those poor animals, thats cruel and unfair and STEREOTIPICAL as well. And finally why the Romanian revolution is portrayed by its most brutal and inhuman episode..., and Elena Ceusescu is the only guilty one. Why everyone is portrayed so nicely..., and caringly... WHY I DON't FELL ANY HATE TOWARDS THE COWARLDLY MILITIANS WHO DID THAT!!!..

and finally What is the point of the scene where people get shot on a bridge..., if the guy is dreaming..., why that is the only scene that merely brushes with the reality I know about the revolution, when everything else feels artificial and farfethced

!!!FLAMING:!!! Sergiu Nicolaiescu should have just remained silent after '89. It's unbelievable how a guy who had it all under the Ceausescu regime. If it's not a overly nationalistic-inflated historic movie, or some stupid action thriller portraying the regime in an good light, Nicolaiescu cannot do a decent job. That's because for some tyrannosaurus-Communist-red people, freedom of speech is such a bad thing. I cannot understand the nerve this guy has in preaching to us his "truths" .., I still cannot believe that the very same people that build the Socialist Republic of Romania, still think they can teach us something, to us the people that made the '89 revolution, we the young, the generation that pushed this ass-pit of a country towards NATO membership and EU. !!!/end of FLAME!!!!


I went to the cinema to see this one, but I left after almost an hour. I learned my lesson after watching Orient Express and I did't stay for the whole thing again. Unlike Clint Eastwood who makes great movies at his age, Sergiu Nicolaescu just got old and makes movies that only he and people who remember the "good old times" like. Sergiu did make a few good movies "at his time", but it's time to stop and maybe help others. This movie, 15, is as bad as it gets, don't waste your time and even if you have nothing to do but watch this movie, do nothing! I'm not sure how the script for this movie ever won an award, because it's awful, it's got nothing new and some of the worse character lines I've ever heard. The cast is good, but without a director it all falls apart.... I saw a few comments by people who liked the movie. The only way someone can say 15 was a good movie is if that someone worked on the production of this movie or hasn't seen it. Because everyone I know curses the time spent watching this movie.


I caught this movie really late at night on the Sci-Fi Channel - aka Insomniac Central - which seems to proudly own the rights to every bad movie ever made. If you think their daytime programming is awful, you should check out what they wait until after midnight to air.

Movies like this.

It was a 120-minute train wreck that I truly couldn't take my eyes off of. I have seriously been witness to one of the worst movies ever made, complete with a cast that, if they play their cards right, might one day graduate to bigger and better roles in amateur porn.

It's nothing you haven't seen before - typical giant bug of the day run amok due to irresponsible toxic waste dumping movie (complete with exclamation point) - only worse. It's an anachronism in a way - a throwback to those cheap giant bug creatures of the 50's. Only this one isn't played for camp.

It actually takes itself seriously.

There is, though, one reason to check this out during one of the 1,265 times that Sci-Fi will re-air it over the next 5 months: 'The Dance' scene must be witnessed to be believed.


A group of irritating young American dudes and babes explore a cavern in India. Our sexy adventurers don't know how to cave, but they sure know how to smirk.

I found none of the characters likable. But worse than that was the deplorable lack of the most basic caving knowledge, exemplified in the dialogue and the visuals. We're told the cave is three miles deep. In reality, the deepest known cave in the world is a little over one mile.

In the "depths" of this movie cave, most of the lighting comes from an unidentified background source, and resembles moon glow. The cavers never seem to notice it. In real caves, even at fairly shallow depths, except for light the cavers themselves bring in, absolute darkness prevails. In the movie, the vertical technique used by the cavers is all wrong. Further, their behavior inside the cave is juvenile and moronic. And I know of no cave wherein the passageways are conducive to ... sprinting.

For me, "Centipede!" did not evoke tension or suspense. There was just too much that was hokey. The inside of the cave looked like an indoor movie set. There was nothing about it that was awe inspiring or foreboding. The large centipede was less menacing than merely clunky. And the film's plot was unoriginal and predictable.

As for the acting, I thought the fake centipede did a better job than the actors. The film's dialogue was dreadful. And the Indian officials coming to the rescue lacked credibility. The one element of this film that did have credibility was the background music.

Overall, "Centipede!" is cheap looking and spurious, mostly as a result of a dreadful cast, a weak script, poor special effects, and an apparent lack of knowledge of caving basics.


This is one of those flicks that is just inexcusably bad. There have been less than a handful of really good monster movies ("Alien", "Aracnaphobia" and "Tremors") in the last quarter century, so no one should expect SciFi Channel movies to be theater quality, particularly their "Creature Features". But at least their offerings should rank up there with Maynard G. Krebs' "The Monster That Devoured Cleveland." Unfortunately, "Centipede" is just rank.

One can usually forgive inept acting and low grade special effects. (I particularly liked the truck load of dynamite that caused a boffo fireball -- but didn't blow up the truck.) These things cost money. But how do you forgive scripts that attempt to create tension by having the protagonists do stupid things rather than by having the antagonist do evil things? Through the last half of the movie, these guys are continually chased by a "monster", so instead of running like hell they just as continually hang around until one by one they get caught. These characters are so inept that one wants to cheer for the monster, even if he does look like a latex hand puppet. Oh, it is a latex hand puppet! Personally, I kept hoping the bug would get them all because they all deserve (need) Darwin Awards. Unfortunately, three get away.


I can't help but wonder, did they attempt to base this thing on the centipede video game? Anyway...

The film centers around a group of friends who, to celebrate the upcoming marriage of one of the group members, decide to go caving in a remote, extremely deep cave system. What could possibly go wrong?

This could actually have been cool. Those who know invertebrates realize that centipedes are powerful predators, and that a centipede the size of an anaconda would be terrifying, but bringing such a beast to life was just too much of a challenge for these filmmakers. From the beginning of the movie, they do whatever they can to hurt your suspension of disbelief. For example, this movie is supposed to be set in India, yet all of the Indian characters speak English...when talking to each other! I'm pretty certain that soldiers in the Indian army don't speak English when talking amongst themselves far from any Americans. In addition, the cave sets look fake and the centipedes themselves, when they are finally revealed, look like...well...puppets of some kind. It's not pretty.

"Centipede!" gains two stars because, first, it is so horrible it will make you laugh. Second, the actors are far better than you think from watching the movie. Think about it for a minute: would YOU be able to act scared, or even concerned, while being chased by a giant puppet?


There are many awful movies which have been produced by or for the Sci-Fi Channel. The Sci-Fi Channel seems to have focused on trying to hit new lows in every new production. This Centipede movie is a top contender as one of the worst Sci-Fi Channel movies ever made. The cast is horrid. The acting is non-existent. The lighting is terrible. Apparently they were so concerned that the Centipede should not be seen that they have nearly every action scene in total darkness. They could have just filmed a wall in the dark and dubbed the voices to pretend that action was going on. Did I mention the gore? There is none. Since all the action takes place in the dark, nothing is ever seen.

On the few occasions that the Centipede is seen, it looks like one of those Chinese Dragons from a Chinatown New Year's Festival Parade. It was either made out of vinyl canvas or rice-paper. This production was so low budget that they apparently could not afford a rubber monster. Having seen the Ed Wood movie (with Johhny Depp) a couple of nights earlier, I was mildly surprised to see that the rubber Octopus that Ed Wood used was more realistic than the vinyl Centipede that was used in this movie. If only Ed Wood were alive today, the Sci-Fi Channel would have given him lots of work as a screenwriter, producer, and director.

Not to spoil the ending (if that were possible), but how many times can you blow up and burn a vinyl Centipede before it dies? And how many times can various actors be standing next to an exploding mortar shell, dynamite, and hand-grenades and just get tossed about thirty feet and then walk away without a scratch?


OK, OK - I'm an idiot. I should have known that any movie requiring punctuation in its title (i.e. !) is of questionable quality.

It is clear that the writer, one Mr. Gregory Gieras, spent minutes upon minutes researching the means and methods used by cavers. This becomes apparent the moment the soon-to-be Purina Bug Chow enter the cave. Sara and David take a full 3 seconds to tie off their belay lines and then "jump" into the abyss - hardly a method one would expect of prudent cavers.

And the dialog was priceless. "Dirk, Sara, Owen, you guys go north. Jake, Zoe, and I will head south. Look for an up-shaft. Copy?" Copy? Copy?! Did he actually say, copy? Is David a wanna-be astronaut? What a hoot. But they did find a shaft . . . and the audience got it. The funniest part of the movie was the final scene when the caving "experts" turn out to be explosives "experts" as well. Caves and explosives - I wish they'd offered these classes at my school.

I just have to ask; Did the actors do their own climbing, or did the climbers do their own acting? It's hard to tell.

If you have an hour or two to kill you might consider watching this or you could do something really entertaining like conducting evolution experiments in your refrigerator.


This was on the Sci-fi channel, on a Saturday night (11/7/04), at 9 p.m. What a waste of prime-time real estate. I'd thought they had dusted off and aired just about every horribly movie ever made, but this one was a new one to me. It was so terrible that any negative adjective would adequately describe this mess. Do not watch it, don't rent it, email Sci-fi channel for even airing it, and consider yourself lucky if you missed it. Possibly the worst character development, acting, dialogue, and plot devices ever used on an audience. I can't even compare it to another movie because it was so dreadful. Trust me that I'm being nice because of the IMDb filters with certain words. It was like a car wreck that you just can't take your eyes off of; which I should have, but I wanted to be able to say that at least I saw it in full.


When the title came up on the screen, it actually had an exclamation point after it... CENTIPEDE! Like a musical. Come to think of it, this movie might have been better if it had a couple of snappy musical numbers in it. It makes you wonder if they were going for that self-referencing Sci-Fi PG-13 funny/scary movie thing that Blue Devil, Monster Island and Bite Me! have captured so effectively. A bunch of spelunkers go to India to explore a creepy cave before one of them goes off to get married. Like a bachelor party in a cave or something like that. They are attacked by giant latex centipede puppets. The end.

Not much to recommend here, boils and ghouls, except for one truly bizarre moment. So, this Indian guide leads our heroes down into the cave, and they all decide to have a party while their in the bowels of the earth. We find out through some really unsubtle exposition that the soon-to-be-married guy used to have a thing with one of the other girls on the trip. There's supposed sexual tension between them as they try to ignore each other. I guess this girl was supposed to be sultry and sexy and mysterious. I thought she was kinda Plain Jane, but maybe the director was dating her or something. We'll call her CC (Casting Couch) for short, because I can't remember her character's name.

While they're all partying down in the caves, someone turns on a radio and some of them start dancing. Really awkward, watching all these actors trying to pretend like they are having fun. It's a cringe-fest. But then they all start looking at CC and chanting, "Do the dance. Do the dance." She coyly shakes her head. I was watching it thinking that this must be why they cast her, maybe she can do some freakish thing like wrap her legs around her head and dance like that. So this big build-up around the DANCE, and when she finally gets up and does it... it's like this White Girl Cabbage Patch thing that, quite literally, gave me a stabbing pain in my stomach. It was a NAPOLEON DYNAMITE moment. I watched her do the DANCE like five times in a row. It was crazy. I wanted to vomit. That's why I say maybe they should have kept the exclamation point at the end of the title and made this movie into some weird kind of horror/musical.


Well I can't honestly say this is a great movie, it might even be good if you're into Bug Monsters. This might have been made to honor all the giant bug movies from the 50's, but personally I thought the plot was thin, the premise was formulaic and the whole movie was a little contrived. Typical college kids vs. monster movie. Some bouncing babes, some male to male social conflicts, a legendary cave and a final party for a soon to be married buddy. Add plenty of extra people for fodder and away we go. I have to admit the Indian background characters are a good change. In the final tally, it's still an average SciFi channel small budget movie. Alright for a diversion, but I doubt if I'd rent it. So I give it a 4 out of 10.


The movie is almost satisfactory, not too scary, but interesting. The rappelling and caving however is crap, the cave exploring that is shown in the movie is totally wrong. The gear, the techniques are absolutely unreal. Where did all the light in the cave come from? They are supposed to be 5 km deep in the cavern. There should be no light whatsoever, except for their flashlights. They didn't have any safety precautions, no spare batteries for headlamps. They didn't even have appropriate clothes. It is very cold in a cave so deep, about 5 Celcius or less, you need thermo suits, lots of food, fuel and other stuff. They were wearing t-shirts. An expedition into a deep cave lasts weeks not hours. They had enough rope maybe for 200 - 300 hundred meters. They didn't make any anchoring. You just can't hold a rope while somebody is descending, it has to be anchored. When one descends on a rappel he has to descend slowly and gradually. At the speed as shown in the movie you burn the rope, burn your fingers when you touch the metal parts of your gear. Don't try this at home boys and girls, you'll get killed.


Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.

OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.

The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.

My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.

For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.

The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.

I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.

Here Kitty, Kitty...

Tom Willett


I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.

It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.

The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere.

It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.


So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.

1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.

2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.

To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.


I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.

Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good.

I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand.

The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief.

I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.


Extremely slight actioner featuring clean-cut, country club kids turning into suburban Rambos when one of their friends (a busty blonde, no less!) is kidnapped by nefarious third world villains, who naturally keep their caged hostage half-nude. Boring low-budget baloney served as veteran actor Cameron Mitchell's sad cinematic swan song. Pity Linda Blair, apparently placed amongst the cast only to get her name on the video-box (she has absolutely nothing to do). Why not make Linda the star of the show and do a distaff variation on "First Blood"? Apparently, nobody involved with this rinky-dink thing was really thinking--not director Lawrence D. Foldes nor his TWO screenwriters, Russel W. Colgin and Michael Engel Don O'Melveny. Shame on these guys! NO STARS from ****


If Leonard Pinth-Garnell, the Bad Cinema maven from SNL, ever compiled a list of ten examples of "Truly Bad Cinema," this epic would have to be on it. Now, I usually don't consider films like this one to be worthy of mention on a bad-movie list. Normally, I prefer the grand turkeys like "Conqueror" and "Exorcist II." Still, Linda Blair is Linda Blair, and it was her starring in it that got it made. So I guess we can blame her for this turkey. The fact that these college-age dudes and babes can suddenly shoot like Green Berets is a variation of Roger Ebert's "thirty-second genius" motif. That is where the lead hears the whole plot from somebody in 30 seconds, and immediately knows what to do. In this case, the kids practice shooting for a couple hours, then are ready to do battle with an entire army. My favorite bad moment is when the kidnapped girl is ravaged by one of the enemy soldiers. The Commandante comes along, shoots the soldier, then has HIS way with her. She must have had more Latinos land on her than the Bay of Pigs. My favorite character is the American soldier-of-fortune, played by Richard Lynch. They should have called him Pizza-Face Jones, since a) Lynch's face has more holes in it than the Van Wyck Expressway, not far from where Lynch grew up in Brooklyn and, b) he acts like Harrison Ford on 'Ludes. There's not much more to say, but if you must see it, try to catch it, unedited, on one of the premium movie channels. If you rent it, do so on two-for-one night, along with something that you know is good. A couple beers will help you bear it.


Making a film that's even stupider than Schwarzenegger's "Commando" seems like an unimaginable feat, but here it is. Starts off with some gratuitous nudity, then degenerates into a ludicrous action film. Some of the dumbness was probably intentional, but that doesn't make it excusable. Linda Blair is curiously absent during most of the big action scenes, Cameron Mitchell, in his last film appearance, has a brief cameo, and the main villain is a Fidel Castro lookalike! The film is thankfully short, though (not counting the closing song, it runs about 73 minutes). (*1/2)


I don't really remember why I rented this movie, but it was a HUGE mistake. I WANT MY 73 MINUTES BACK!!!!! Basically this movie is an 80's teen flick totally stereo typing Latinos and adding to the already bad Cuban image. Not only could a child still in the womb predict the outcome of this movie after only watching 10 minutes but the last half of the movie was just one big gun scene. WHERE DID THEY GET THE BAZOKA!?!?!?!?! I mean, I have one just LYING in the backyard too but.... Really, if you want to waste an evening or you really like one of this actors, please, rent it. If you want a good movie or a bad movie that is okay to laugh at, look elsewhere.


A definitive example of 80s action trash: probably the only people who would shell out cash for a ticket were wasted teens looking for some skin and lots of explosions. Watch the opening sequence and marvel out how shoddy the editing is: when one of the baddies fires at an officer, there is actually what looks like a break in the film (as if to chop a few frames out) followed by a painfully out-of-sync death scene of the fat officer- ooph!- getting plugged by a bullet, which apparently stopped in mid-air for five seconds while the camera crew switched reels.

By today's standards (and 80s standards, probably) the action is sub-par, not gory enough to be interesting but violent enough to be morally inexcusable. Thankfully, every once in awhile Night Force falls into softcore porn territory- this is the only movie I've seen that interrupts a cheap shower scene with flashbacks to a cheap sex scene- but not nearly enough to make the rest of the movie bearable. Night Force exploits pointless violence and gratuitous sex, and poorly. Virtually everyone involved in making this film- actors, actresses, FX technicians, editors- have officially lost any artistic integrity they once had.


What a lovely movie to look at. Wonderful costumes and sets make this movie a real treat to the eye. Some of the best I've seen in a period horror film. The acting is also quite good. It's just too bad that this is all The Son of Dr. Jekyll has to offer.

It's easy to see why this film was titled The Son of Dr. Jekyll and not The Son of Mr. Hyde. Other than the opening scene where Hyde (I'm not entirely sure it was Hyde) has about five minutes of screen time, we see him for less than 10 seconds in the rest of the film. Very disappointing. Without Hyde, Dr. Jekyll has a tough time carrying a movie by himself.

The movie is really more of a crime mystery than a horror regardless of how it is listed on IMDb. The "son" spends the majority of the movie tying to figure out who is framing him as mad killer. While it is a decent enough idea for a movie, the killer's true identity is given away so early that there are few dramatic or tense moments later on.


The story starts out talking about Hyde as if he were a true monster who had murdered his wife. It shows a furry-headed, heavy-browed Hyde running into a house which is then set ablaze by a pursuing mob. Jekyll, now looking like a normal human, steps out of an upper story window and falls to his death.

But (SPOILER!) thirty years later, his old friend Dr. Lanyon is revealed to have falsified Jekyll's notes in a scheme to drive the Son of Dr. Jekyll mad, so Lanyon can steal the Jekyll estate...to replace his own fortune lost defending Jekyll Sr.

Aside from the moral backflips Lanyon has to perform to go from valiant friend to chiseler and murderer, the movie never comes clean about who Mr. Hyde was. In order to make young Jekyll look insane, Lanyon fakes those notes and swaps "Acrostyn" for another chemical, so that Jekyll Jr. turns hairy and fanged - then faints - in the movie's only transformation scene. It's an odd medical breakthrough for Lanyon to have gone broke defending.

Or is young Jekyll only hallucinating his transformation? Lanyon even boasts that he only needed mob hysteria to turn Edward Jekyll into a "monster." But a hallucination would be an even bigger cheat - because the audience sees an actual transformation after Edward is unconscious.

Then the closing crawl smugly notes that both Jekyll's original notes and Lanyon's forgery are archived at Scotland Yard as a solution to the Jekyll/Hyde myth. Huh?? When did it become a myth? Opening crawl, meet end credits! The movie does get props for reusing Mamoulian's color-filter trick for revealing painted makeup in stages, devised for the Fredric March 1932 version. And Holmes Herbert from that film shows up here as a policeman. Lester Matthews (the hero of "The Werewolf of London") plays lawyer Utterson, a character from Stevenson's novella usually omitted in screen adaptations. Alexander Knox, the model of rectictude as "Wilson", is wonderfully manipulative as Lanyon.

Apparently, the idea was to make a monster movie with a minimum of expensive makeup sessions, and the script seems to have had numerous contradictory revisions. The production values are fairly threadbare, not many steps up from a 3 Stooges short of the era; at one point, Jekyll's "1890" home is clearly a modern 1951 house with flagstone facing. But the studio cleverly reuses the big fire scene from the opening to close the picture with a bang.

But that bang is still not loud enough to make you forget all the illogical and dishonest tricks the story plays on the viewer.


Just think what Carpenter's HALLOWEEN hath wrought in the years since its release. MADMAN is just such a movie. Shot in New York in 1982, it tells about a bunch of summer campers and their counselors being mowed down by a killer farmer who starts by hacking up his family. I'm not sure, but I think a couple of the counselors were played by porn actors/actresses, especially one horse-faced blonde with a decided lisp or hearing problem. Some of the killings are appropriately nasty but the film ultimately is an unbelievable bore. It's mostly these summer people yakking on and on, until they each get theirs. And the farmer is no Jason, believe you me.


I think I must have seen a different movie than the others who posted reviews here, because there was very little redeeming about the dreck I watched. For starters, the performances were ghastly! These so called actors wouldn't have made the cut for a grade school play. I've also read the reviews that praise the night photography. WTF?? There is so much light in each scene in the woods that it looks like they were shooting in Shea Stadium with all the floods on full! Just where is all this light supposed to be coming from anyway? Of course the snail pace of the action doesn't help either. Very few clichés are missed: person slowly backing up not realizing the killer is behind her; girl limping slowly through woods to escape killer; killer slowly approaches vehicle just as it pulls away, etc. etc. Slow being the key word here folks. The story gets so repetitive that we know exactly what will happen next: person goes out in search of missing camper in woods (alone of course), stumbles over body of last person who went out searching (alone) and promptly gets whacked by Madman Marz. Snore. Special effects? Not really special at all. When Marz kills his family at the beginning it looks like the axe is splitting overripe melons. Look ma, no skull!

If you've seen Friday the 13th, Sleepaway Camp or Halloween you know what's going to happen and pretty much who will be left at the end, though they added a slight twist to keep you awake. Too little too late I say.

Now, on the positive side, I will say that parts of the film were equally as funny as Scary Movie. My favorite 3 comedy scenes are:

1. The hot tub love scene. Was this supposed to be sexy? OMG! Clearly everyone associated with writing and performing this was a virgin.

2. The mess hall stalking of the girl with the Melissa Manchester hairdo and voice that could call dogs. This one had me laughing so hard that I was thankful I wasn't drinking anything or it would have come out my nose.

3. Richie's discovery in the basement of the farmhouse. The look on this actor's face is so slow and pathetic that I almost felt bad for him. I could practically see him trying to find the right expression, which, alas, never comes. Priceless.

What did we ever do to deserve this? It's no wonder that most of these actors never did another film. Even Gaylen Ross used a pseudonym.

For those of you who think this is a decent slasher film, I urge you to view Halloween, Friday the 13th, or Nightmare on Elm Street. You'll see the difference.


A low-grade ripoff of "Friday the 13th", (would that make it Friday the 12th?) starring the most aesthetically unappealing cast in movie history. On the last night at a cottage for gifted kids, Max the proprietor of the place, tells a story about Madman Marz, a local farmer that killed his own family and was properly hung by the locals for this crime. Supposedly he did not stay dead which is very rude and if anyone says his name out loud well, you ain't gonna like it. This is the cue for one of the counselors to immediately say his name. Not too bright. Marz returns to his house which seems located conveniently by the cottage and picks up where he left off. Surprisingly he does not go to a family crisis counselor and talk about his pent up feelings. The cycle of violence continues.

There is nothing here to suggest that this is a cult classic rather than a cult wishing this was a classic. This is far and away the most ugly cast of actors I have ever watched. From pointed noses, to oddly spaced eyes, to terrible hair and bad mustaches it leaves little wonder why most of these actors never appeared on film again. If ever there was a movie to be broadcast in braille this is the one.

The cottage is home for gifted children, all six of them, and must be an experiment as they are saddled with a bunch of functional retards as counselors. Every character in this movie makes the most boneheaded decisions that ultimately leads to his or her own death. The formula gets old quick. One person goes into the woods. Gets killed. Another person follows. Repeat until you're bored to tears. One imbecile actually tries to flee Madman Marz by hiding in a refrigerator. When the final counselor left rises above her monkey intellect and realizes what is happening, does she call the cops? No! She calls Max the old man storyteller that went out to the bar that night. Simply brilliant. Most of the acting gives the forest a run for its money as far as wooden performances go and the kills are lackluster at best. Still, it was amusing when one of the counselors stumbles upon a headless corpse only to query, "Are you alright?". This movie IS the ugly tree!


To begin with, i find it funny how the guy that started all this crap did not die. The acting is very VERY bad. At the end when she is getting dragged by the hairs, she shows no sign of pain and yells very boringly ''ahhhh'' A grown @** woman is more scared of the caveman looking farmer than the little kids, they didn't even seemed worried or scared at all. Something more dumber is that they all seem to see there friend dead before them dying, it is repetitive, the only different death is the last one. Finally, they said he didn't feel a thing when they bit his nose off, how come he was wining when he got stabbed or his hand was getting hit with a pole? Don't watch it if you really want to be disappointed.


The sense of derivation runs strong within "Madman", as the essence of the "Friday the 13th" influence is all that this movie seems to promote. Yes, here is more campground mayhem from the early 80s, really no different than the Crystal Lake massacre or Cropsy's rampage. A group of young person's at a remote campsite are picked off, one by one, by a deranged maniac inhabiting the dark woods. The beginning story teller describes the killer's crimes in detail - he was a farmer who butchered his family one night and now murders anyone he can get his disfigured paws on. His name: Madman Marz. As much as I enjoy summer camp slasher films, "Madman" is just a terrible attempt to cash in on the success of the time, and really lacks in every aspect. The concept is basic, even for this type of film, the gore is below average and the nudity is absent... Marz is a cool looking character at times, but the majority of the movie is just down-right dull with people slowly wandering through dark areas with flashlights. Very unnecessary since it is obvious who is going to live from the start... Very lousy slasher flick.