The Alternate, a story of President's mock-kidnapp that turns into a real hostage situation was aired just recently on nationwide TV here in Czech Rep. I saw it rather accidentally all through to the very end as I really wanted to know if every other minute will be as stupid as all the previous.

The Alternate really does it all, but unfortunately the other way out. All the plot twists (all places tha are supposed to be twists) are really the weakest links - the characters do almost always the opposite of what would any sane person do. The president just sits there (afraid of heights), our main hero makes silly phone calls with FBI in which he only says that he is fine and that he is the guy in the suit, and the bad guy (as well as the good guy) just always miss and in situations that should be filled with action, they just start with lines of stupid chat.

Really nothing in this movie was quite right. The FX were sometimes really silly, the martial fights were oscillating between acceptable quality and total crap and out of the thousands of rounds fired in the movie there is hardly dozen on target.

The act is horrible, but that is mainly due to stupid script and bad direction. You should see this only if you fancy B movies that are so stupid, that you can laugh at them.


When i first saw the movie i couldn't actually determine if it is an action movie or a movie mocking other action movies. I was surprised when they used the ultimate tom and jerry prank were the good guy literally pulled the carpet from underneath the bad guy sending him into a magnificent somersault in the air.

I personally believe that its very naive. there is no plot what so ever. It is a movie about a guy who was so lucky and avoided being killed several times in one day.

The stunts are bad. There was a moment where i could have almost swear that the guy was gonna trip and fall on his face


Warning! Keep a way This movie is a waist of your time and money. I never saw worse acting than this. The effects are ridicules, especially the weapons effects the Special Forces in the beginning of the movie are firing m-16s at the attackers but they seem to hit none, zero then finally they hit the attackers keep in mind that they are using full auto and they are facing each other!!! but the worst scene was when the attackers moved in a small room and the special forces attacked them by entering the room firing rapidly with their m16s and some how they did not hit anyone then the attackers used a smoke grenade to push the special forces outside the small room.


The president of the USA is addressing a charity dinner. Anybody attending is searched for weapons, but they have not reckoned on several of the guests turning up with drinking straw blowpipes that shoot poison-darts disguised as toothpicks at incredible ranges, and with such accuracy that the president's minders get it in the neck every time. What a weapon. I'm going out to buy a packet of straws and a box of cocktail sticks right now, and I'm going to wreak havoc in my neighbourhood.

It's an attempt by sinister forces to get the president re-elected by staging a fake kidnap attempt and have him escape to make himself popular. The president knows nothing about this plot and has a sudden attack of self righteousness, and the fake kidnap attempt turns into a real one.

Eric Roberts comes out of nowhere and does his Die-hard routine. But the difference between Eric Roberts and Bruce Willis as Die-hard is that Bruce Willis actually has a reason to be in the building.

Eric Roberts stymies the kidnap attempt after being shot in the knee, continually whacked by an aluminium pole, scorched with a flame thrower, falling down the side of a skyscraper and again down a lift shaft. He certainly earned the ransom money in bearer bonds that the president said he could keep at the end. But it would have been curtains for Eric Roberts if only one of the villains had thought of puffing a drinking straw at him.

Apart from those few little details this film is perfectly believable.


The original concept, the president sanctioning his own kidnapping to help his popularity, is always an intriguing one. Unfortunately, then finding out that the President didn't authorize anything and that it is the Cia and then not really the CIA and that Eric Roberts is some anti gravity, bullet dodging hero ends any

integrity the movie started out with. Find something else to watch or watch the grass grow. It will provide more entertainment.


Sure Ice-T is cool and Michael Madsen is cool in strange way and Eric Roberts has a cool sister. Unfortunately she wasn't in "The Alternate". I've seen thousands of films and this has got to be the baddest yet, not bad in the good sense, just plain bad. The "action" scenes were among the poorest I've EVER seen, or Eric is just plain good at dodging the several million rounds fired at him. His Glock should be investigated as it held in the neighborhood of 100+ rounds between reloads, perhaps that's why he couldn't hit anything-the thing was too heavy from all the bullets. The director, who's name I choose to forget and I hope Hollywood does likewise, should be given one more chance, to direct a kindergarten play in Spudville, Idaho. I will admit that Eric's use of the action verb "GAACK" several times was one of the thrilling moments of the film, perhaps the apex.


The Alternate (aka Agent of Death) appears to be a take off on a Jackie Chan film. The good martial arts actor declines to use his gun on the moral grounds that he cannot shoot American citizens. The evil martial arts actors uses their guns often, but are very bad shots. The result is a long string of martial fight scenes. In each fight, the good guy is driven from the scene and makes a miraculous return. (This is repeated with several variations). Add to the mix an inpotent SWAT team, bad dialog, and illogical events, and you have a really bad attempt to mimic a Hong Kong martial arts film.

The Alternate would probably do well in the Hong Kong market if the English sound track were dubbed out so the audience would not know how stupid the actors appeared to be. For example, in the midst of a hostage situation, the good guy gets to a telephone and contacts the commander of the SWAT team. Does he tell him how many hostage takers there are? Does he provide information about the condition of the building's security system? Does he report on the President's physical or mental condition? Does the SWAT team leader ask any of these questions? No, he says "Who are you?" and the reply is "I am the guy in the Tux". End of conversation. In none of the scenes that follow is there any further attempt at strategic communication.


Watching Agent of Death aka The Alternate I had the feeling that the movie was going to suck. After all it had a good premise, fake kidnapping of the President goes bad when someone decides to make it real. It also has a cast of famous names, Eric Roberts, Ice-T, and Michael Madsen. Yet the film went direct to video, not a good sign. After watching the film, I know why it went direct to video. The screenplay is filled with terrible dialogue and bad scenes. Several times in the movie, either the bad guy (a bad performance by writer Bryan Genesse) or the hero (a bad performance by Eric Roberts) has an easy chance to kill the other one, but gives it away by talking to them. Ice-T is ok, until his character disappears from the movie right away. Out of the rubble comes the great actor Michael Madsen to save this movie. This might have worked, except they gave Madsen the terrible role of the FBI agent in charge of getting the President back. Madsen is as good as possible, but is given nothing to do. Don't watch this movie.


I got the movie a couple of years ago, on a double pack. It's bad. There's only one good thing about this movie: It's so bad it's funny (for example, the scene with the flamethrower). The plot is OK. It's about presidential elections coming up, and we are introduced to the current president, who wants to win again, but he is quite unpopular. The FBI, or whatever it's called in this movie, try to let everybody think he gets captured, and then gets free again to improve his popularity. But then some terrorists real capture him, and it's up to "The Replacement", or "The guy in the tuxedo" to rescue him.

There are some scenes which are just really stupid, like the scene with the flamethrower, the scene at the swimming pool, the helicopter that crashes, the same car that explodes twice, etc.

The scene with the flamethrower is just hilarious. It begins with some kind of Face Off with the bad guy (played by a certain Bryan Genesse) and The Replacement. First you see The Replacement from a distance. Then it swaps to a closer angle, and you see him closer. It goes to another angle, and then we only see his face. That piece is just unbelievably funny, but you have to see it before you know how funny it is. Then you see this bad guy shoot at The Replacement with a flamethrower, and The Replacement runs through the exact same door 3 times, the only thing that changes is the angle that it's filmed from.

There is also some FBI guy who leads some "special agents" and "tries to rescue the president". Well, actually, he does almost nothing. And those "special agents" are so bad, they're more like random people who volunteered to hold guns.

And what's also really funny is the part where the bad guy falls off the roof. The camera swaps to the FBI guy, who just casually stands and looks a the guy falling from a high rise building.

So, if you want a great comedy, get this movie. But if you want a action movie, don't bother about this one.

2/10


Eric Roberts and Michael Madsen, wow! This is probably a really exciting, well made thriller...but it isn't at all!! It is one of the very worst movies I've ever seen!

The plot seems interesting for two seconds there but then suddenly Roberts starts pulling a gun and stuff and the movie just keeps getting worse and worse. Roberts being the most pathetic and stupid looking "hero" ever running around like a complete idiot and trying to clean things up while the stupid president is being kidnapped by a wannabe psycho. It doesn't work at all man!!!

The action scenes are so bad edited and directed that I didn't want to agree with what I saw, Roberts getting a iron-stick stuffed into his stomach and banged all over his body too many times don't seem realistic, neither does a jump from a chopper from 30 meters above ground, neither does a safety wire hanging from Roberts' belt on his "super-exciting and super tough" escape from the roof, neither does a over-and-over attempt from Roberts to look where psycho wannabe is standing on the other side of the bathing pool, neither does the extremely dum coffee-idea from Roberts making the terrorist female die from electricity, neither does the car exploding twice cause of bad editing, neither does Madsen's dum performance as the dum negotiater...it doesn't work at all!!

"I know I loved her?" "So why did you kill her?!" This must sincerelly be the worst movie made 4-eva!! In the ending it seems like the makers of the movie thinks they've been making a Oscar-nomination motion picture, with Roberts walking out in the dusty s*it calling himself "the replacement". If you want a really good laugh, this movie is a very good ALTERNATE (title)!! STARS: 1/5 (if zero was possible, this would have been a sure winner of that number)


Fortunately I read the comments on here before viewing this movie and was therefore able to enjoy it purely as the giggle-fest that it is.

The DVD box cover shows a black and white photograph of the Whitehouse, which is also the title screen of the DVD itself. This is only really worth mentioning because the Whitehouse features at no point in the film. This is a clue.

The box also lists its Special Features as Scene selection and Trailer. There is, of course, no Trailer on the disc. This is a clue.

The disc itself is just plain white bearing only the title and certification. This is a clue.

The stunts are laughable, the dummies are appalling (see other comments here for more vivid descriptions of how truly dreadful they are) and continuity errors abound - at one point we see a gun battle from two sides of the same door which has three times as many holes on one side as on the other.

There are many, many flaws in this piece of celluloid nonsense which have been picked apart most ably by others on this site but what truly amazed me was the out-takes at the end which showed what had been taken out but gave no excuses for the ninety minutes which had been left in.


I love action movies. Die Hard, Lethal Wepon, you name it. I would have said exactly the same thing as the previous reviewer. The shootouts were a joke. Why would anyone take the time away from watching their prisoner to drag dead bodies into a helicopter, destroy it and try to get a helicopter to fly away in? He should have just left in the first place.

There must have been 10 million shots fired in this movie. They were all expert marksmen yet no one was ever hit by a bullet.

Not only was Eric shooting at the president who was shielding the bad guy, but he flew Tarzan style across the pool with a gun in one hand shooting as he swung. No aim. How dumb..dumb..dumb.

The actors seemed embarrassed to be in this movie. They should be.


The plot is totally SUPER BOGUS. The action is so awful you'll sleep throuhg it. It's G.I. JOE, fire a 100 shots and still no one's hit. The acting is not even plastic, it's hysterical and pathetic.

The cast made me watch it. BUT 1)Eric Roberts's is a career wasted and the film does'nt add much to it. It even makes you wanna swear you won't watch his movie ever again.

2)ICE T falls asleep in the first half hour and does'nt get up. (Maybe he ran away.)

3)Micheal Madsen looks like he shot for the movie while going for a walk and did it just for the goggles.

Rest of the crew is the hotel staff 9I'm not kidding.)

Save yourselves from it.

I COULD'NT.


I personally was brought up on Mystery Science Theater 3000. In light of that, I have to say that what makes this movie good is the riffability. The plot is weak, the acting's bad, the situations are totally unbelievable. Some highlights include Eric Roberts' constant gasping for air and groaning, the Super Soaker flamethrower, and the bad guy's ability to kick the back of his head.

This movie has terrible editing, terrible action, really crappy fighting. Essentially, it's sheer cinematic punishment. How the bad guy can fling a heavy chain around Eric Roberts' gun holding hand is beyond me. It's not exactly a whip. The reason I don't give character names is because there are none. But I digress. The straw dart guns are fun to watch. Watch for Eric Roberts' sneaker/tux combo when he and his team first enter the hotel. That also leads me to think about the 20 person protest against the President of the United States. What they're protesting, I don't know. It definitely isn't plot-related. Watch for forgotten lines, and this one Secret Service dude who appears in about three other roles. He's kinda overweight with reddish hair.

This movie avoids a 1 rating due to the fact it is so darned funny!

The whole point of getting this turd would be to get in a few cheap laughs. I don't wanna give the other points of hilarity away, but I will say that it is worth the few bucks for a used VHS. Buy it. Take it home. Watch. Laugh and be satisfied.

P.S. Michael Madsen's whole character and his incompetent LAPD is another highlight.


Easily the worst Universal "horror film" I've ever seen, and it makes previous candidates of mine like SHE-WOLF OF London, THE FROZEN GHOST, and JUNGLE WOMAN look like thrill rides alongside it. Hell, I'd even watch LIFE RETURNS again over this one; at least that's bizarre enough in its badness and resembles an Our Gang short in spots. DOCTOR Rx doesn't make one bit of sense, with nothing going on but talk, talk, talk, and feels like it goes on forever despite that it's only just over an hour.

The cockeyed plot seems to be about a series of murders against criminals who got off, committed by a mysterious doctor. Shemp Howard and Mantan Moreland are mixed up in all of this, but they don't even offer anything fun in the comical department. Anne Gwynne had always been the cutest Universal gal for me, but despite all her pep here it's all for naught. And Lionel Atwill is just wasted. The only somewhat decent thing I can say for this turkey is that it was semi-interesting to see Patric Knowles cast as an insensitive jerk for a change, and the 3 measly minutes we spend in Dr. Rx's laboratory with a chained gorilla is a tad unsettling ... even though I can't for the life of me see how it fits into the rest of this picture! A wretched movie.


"The Strange Case of Doctor Rx" is billed as a horror film, but it really isn't. It's an all too obvious murder mystery with just one horrific scene that seems spliced in from another movie altogether. William Nigh probably relished the chance to direct at a major studio instead of the salt mine of Monogram, but though the film has handsome production values Nigh brings to it all the trademarks of his Monogram work: dullness, no sense of pace and an unwillingness to tell any of the actors they're overacting. Though billed second, Lionel Atwill is barely in the movie at all until the final reel. The title is obviously intended to evoke memories of Atwill's great film "Doctor X" from Warners in 1932, but the comparison only makes this film seem even worse than it is. The great Black comedian Mantan Moreland easily steals the movie out from under all the white stars; he's genuinely witty and a charismatic screen presence, and he gets the first line of dialogue as well as the final gag. Next to Moreland, the most entertaining aspect of the movie is Patric Knowles' gorgeous Art Deco apartment, where all too much of the film takes place. Why Universal and TCM chose this for their "Cult Horror Classics" boxed set instead of the neglected 1934 masterpiece "The Man Who Reclaimed His Head" (also with Atwill) or the interesting 1942 Edgar Allan Poe adaptation "The Mystery of Marie Roget" (also with Knowles) is a bigger mystery than the supposedly "mysterious" identity of Dr. Rx in this plot.


Detective Jerry Church returns of Rio after a year and immediately finds himself embroiled in the Dr Rx murders. It seems that some one is killing off the high profile defendants that have been acquitted and leaving a note signed Rx and a number. As the sixth victim falls, in the court room seconds after being acquitted Church finds himself pressed by the police to aide them as well as the defense attorney responsible for most of the acquittals (he fears the end to his career because who would hire him if you win only to die?).

Sounds like a promising mystery? Well forget it its not. Its a mystery looking for some one to pay attention to it. This film is mostly concerned with Church, played a bit too cocksure by Patrick Knowles, and his relationship with Kit, a one time girlfriend who becomes his wife in the second scene she appears. She's a mystery writer who bugs his apartment for ideas. They bicker and quarrel and would be an interesting update on Nick and Nora Charles if they had a (better) script. The mystery comes and goes and is never really solved.

In all honesty this film is a turkey. How can I tell? Because out of left field Church is tied to a gurney by a hooded villain who tries to use a gorilla in a cage to get rid of the detective. Normally I would find this fun, but here it just destroys any notion of credibility (and probably the series they were hoping to start). This is a bad bad movie.

The only reason to watch this is the cast that includes Knowles, Montan Moreland, Lionel Atwill (a red herring with maybe five minutes of screen time) and Shemp Howard. The scene of Howard and Moreland gambling for a bottle of liquor is amusing.

3 out of 10 for the cast and some witty dialog. This is a movie thats not worth your time- even if it is only an hour.


Private Detective Jerry Church (Patric Knowles) is asked to investigate the strange deaths of several recently acquitted men. The only clue is the mysterious calling card found on the body of each victim of a man known only as "Doctor Rx". Soon after taking the case, Church is on hand to see a man named Zarini acquitted, only to fall dead before he can leave the courtroom. To solve the series of murders, Church is kidnapped, his wife's life is threatened, and he is strapped to a table by Doctor Rx and prepped for an operation involving organ transplantation with a gorilla. Will Church survive this ordeal and unmask the killer?

As far as the classic Universal horror (and horror is used very loosely here) films of the 30s and 40s go, The Strange Case of Doctor Rx is about as bad as you'll run across. I place it at the bottom of the heap with the unfortunate She-Wolf of London. I described The Strange Case of Doctor Rx to a friend as a Charlie Chan movie without any of the charm or interest of a Charlie Chan movie. Knowles' Church doesn't make for a very effective or interesting lead. He's just too bland. Lionel Atwill is billed second, but he has so little screen-time you'll forget he's even in the film. And when Atwill is on screen, he's reduced to playing the role of the most embarrassing red herring I've ever run across. Gwynne is okay as the love interest / wife, but she can't save the film on her on. The highlights of the cast are Shemp Howard and, especially, Mantan Moreland. They have a scene together involving shooting dice that's laugh-out-loud funny. Moreland, as usual, steals most every scene in which he appears. Other weaknesses: the films plotting is plodding, the direction is pedestrian, the mystery isn't very mysterious, and the horror is pretty much missing altogether. As most everyone who has written about The Strange Case of Doctor Rx has pointed out, the one scene of real horror feels like it was cut from another film. Other than Moreland, the one bright spot worth mentioning is the "look" of the film. Like most other Universal pictures from this period, the movie looks like a million bucks. Overall, a very disappointing affair that I'll be generous to and give it a 4/10.


This obscure Universal "B" horror flick is also included in that yet-to-be released Box Set I mentioned in my review of HOUSE OF HORRORS (1946) above and, unfortunately, while I would certainly say that this one is more readily enjoyable, my verdict overall is equally lukewarm. For one thing, much of the film's entertainment value stems more from the interaction between "master" Patrick Knowles (an insurance salesman moonlighting as a private dick!) and klutzy valet Mantan Moreland (who even devices a convoluted method for remembering his most basic instructions)! Also on hand are Knowles' girl Anne Gwynne, distinguished lawyer Samuel S. Hinds (whose guilty but off-the-hook clients are meeting sudden death at the hands of the enigmatic titular medico), the bumbling investigating duo of Edmund MacDonald and Shemp Howard (of "The Three Stooges" fame) and even a brief, thankless "red herring" cameo from a mousy(!) Lionel Atwill. As I intimated earlier, the surfeit of comic incident (not to mention the endless, dull chatter in which various parties, including Hinds' brother Paul Cavanaugh, try to talk Knowles out of taking on the case)  far outweighs the film's horror elements which are puzzlingly relegated to the last five minutes of the 66-minute movie  as if the screenwriter suddenly realized which genre he was supposed to be working in! What happens towards the end, however  with the belated "in costume" appearance of the raspy-voiced doc suddenly hard at work on transplanting the brain of his caged gorilla with that of Knowles?!  comes so utterly out of left field as to seem ridiculously far-fetched and, therefore, unable to redeem this would-be chiller. But, at least, Moreland and, to a lesser extent Howard, are funny


Hollywood is known for its summertime action "flicks", and recent action films such as The Matrix began to show a hopeful turn towards a trend of thoughtful plots and interesting stories. Unfortunately, the large success of Resident Evil: Apocalypse may very well be the deathblow to this promising new trend. In a sense, the title speaks for itself; Resident Evil: Apocalypse may very well be the apocalypse of intelligent action movies.

After a new virus breaks out in a large industrialized city, citizens begin mutating into cannibalistic, flesh-eating zombies. The Umbrella Corporation, consisting of the people most directly responsible for the outbreak, takes measures to quarantine the city, turning it into a horrific sanitarium. The story follows several characters as they attempt to survive and escape the city with the help of an unseen ally who keeps contact with them from outside the city. Things further complicate when "Nemesis", the movie's biggest, toughest monster, arrives for the sole purpose of killing just about everything he perceives as a threat.

The plot of Resident Evil: Apocalypse is, perhaps, the single worst piece of writing recently played out before the eyes of unfortunate movie fans. From the very beginning, the story begs questions that are never answered: who gave the Umbrella Corporation a building permit for a gigantic wall that would circle the city and with which they could, at a moment's notice, lock everyone inside? Why does Alice come crashing into a church through a stained-glass window, on a motorcycle, "armed to the teeth" with weaponry, to rescue the protagonists with perfect timing, despite the fact that she has never met them before and was, in the previous scene, walking around in the street with only a shotgun and no motorcycle at all? These and many more mind-boggling questions are completely ignored; the person who was in charge of this film's continuity should never work in Hollywood again. In fact, Resident Evil: Apocalypse has more plot holes than moldy Swiss cheese. However, even when ignoring the numerous plot holes -- which is almost an impossibility -- the story itself is still laughable, revolving partly around an insipid "fight for survival" that seems to rely on the main group splitting up and one of the subgroups being brutally slaughtered for no good reason, with the other part being about Alice (a character invented by the script-writer, as she was never in the game it is very loosely-taken from) and her relationship with the monster "Nemesis". Surprisingly, the director managed to craft a story that is significantly less interesting the one presented in the video game version. To cap off all the "excitement", the movie reaches its climax a full fifteen minutes before the end of the film! After a handful of survivors have escaped, Alice is caught and put in a lab, where she not only manages to escape, but also to manifest psychic powers while quipping off several lines that were used to advertise the movie in commercials. What was the purpose of this 15-minute epilogue? To set up the next movie in the series - a completely unnecessary task, as the film has already made it clear that there is absolutely no help for the next sequel in terms of quality. In a way, it could be said that the one thing the plot truly accomplished was setting the stage for even more cinematic fodder in the future.

The acting was not bad, and, in general, was as good as it could have been, given the material the actors had to work with. Although Alice is mildly interesting (do largely to her reflections) and well played by Milla Jovovich, the rest of the characters were mostly stale archetypes. The most blatant example is the character of L.J., played by actor Mike Epps, who embodies every "black" stereotype that is popular today. This character's only true purpose is comic relief, and to that respect, he does it dryly.

The cinematography offers a wide variety of different camera shots, as well as providing a constant supply of "eye candy". In what is easily the highlight of the film, Resident Evil: Apocalypse shows some impressive-looking stunts, such as a scene of Alice running down the side of a sky scraper with either the intent to kill, or the intent to break her legs. Either way, the scene was a joy ride for the vision. Truthfully, the only badly shot scenes that come to mind are the blurry scene (unnecessary, ugly, and pointless), and the climatic fight scene at the end (badly cut and confusing). Overall, though, the cinematography was decently good, which is likely the cause for this film making so much money in the box office.

The setting was exactly what you would expect for an apocalyptic zombie movie - a big city with lots of undead people. The sets maintained a Gothic look throughout, and few scenes took place in daylight. Thankfully, the lighting was very well done, so the film maintained a dark, night-time look while simultaneously allowing the viewers to perfectly see all that was happening. Sets based on real buildings, such as schools and police stations, all looked exactly as they should. Resident Evil: Apocalypse had a big budget, and that fact is made apparent by the great sets and props.

Unfortunately, nothing saves the movie from its horrible plot. A plot should provide any movie with its base, and with a plot so holey and incoherent, everything that could have made Resident Evil: Apocalypse good simply falls apart. Despite the big budget, some reasonably well-known actors, and a license and subject-matter with a cult following, nothing can gloss over the essential flaws that keep this movie from any kind of greatness. People who prefer to see mindless exaggerated action sequences, devoid of any decent plot, will likely enjoy Resident Evil: Apocalypse. However, those interested in intelligent, well-written stories will do well to look elsewhere.


This movie is so bad I couldn't finish it. Normally I am patient with bad movies, hoping that the ending would salvage them. But RE2 is one exception. The script is atrocious, clichéd, or just plain juvenile. Character development is non-existent, so the scene where the two main female characters meet for the first time was quite appropriate: Jill asks Alice, "Who the **** are you?" I kept asking the same question throughout. This new character of Jill was probably the biggest mistake here. There just is not enough room for the two female characters to co-exist.

Bad acting (which to me translates to bad directing) is commonplace in RE2. Case in point is when Alice, after blasting away some zombies, spins her two guns, a la John Wayne, before putting them back in the holsters. I laughed out loud at that ridiculous scene. From that point on, I just couldn't take the movie seriously.

What a waste of money (I actually bought the DVD, shame, shame, because I liked the first RE). Don't make the same mistake, unless you wanna to be annoyed.


The first RE had a lot going for it.Nice cast.Good fx.Some suspense and general scares.A nice visual style.And a surprise ending that set the stage for a lot of promise to build on toward making one hell of a Horror flick.But a lot of people griped that Re was not like the game enough.Well the bad movie gods heeded their collective whine and have given them what they wanted.While the rest of us are still reeling from this disaster.

Its really a big screen version of the now-classic Playstation game RE 3.It takes place right after the first.Things start out okay.We're introduced to Alice,Jill,Carlos,Nemisis,etc.But after the opening 10 minutes it is all downhill from there.

For starters why give Alice Super powers?It takes away from the first movies realism,makes her shallow,and a grade z matrix wannabe.The stakes go from high to low.Whereas the first you never knew who was gonna live or die.Where is the tension?

The Nemisis is kinda fun to watch.They got him right.But even he is sabotaged by the random shots that reveal him to be an over-sized Stuntman in a rubber suit.A competent director would know to shoot around this.Even the Roger Corman cheapies know how to do that on a tenth of this flicks budget.

Where are the zombies?For the most part they are again sabotaged by the director,who keeps them out of focus most of the time.Its like they are ashamed to say this is a horror flick?

Where is the freaking logic here?The characters do the stupidest things?There is some howling dialog here.Its hard to sustain interest upon hearing what comes out of the cast mouth.Why the hell would they bring a kid along on a rescue attempt?The action sequences resemble MTV videos from 1986.

Milla is okay as Alice.I would watch her in a soup commercial.But she comes off as really pompous here.Sienna Guillory and Oded Fehr are about the only ones that come off well in RE 2.Mike Epps,Thomas Kretschmann,and Jared Harris are wasted here.The cast all come off as kind of smug in my book,and its hard to like them.

The directing,scripting,and visuals all look terrible here.I don't wanna be hard on Witt.But I would have went with Anyone else but him. I suspect its not all his fault though.I was never part of the I-hate-Anderson-crowd.But I think the fault here lies with him and the producers.He ruined AVP.Now this!I think he owes me 20 bucks now for paying to see the combined dreck that is AVP and RE2.In the same year no doubt!!!

RE2 held a lot of promise that has sadly been flushed down the proverbial toilet.Ever more cringing is the fact that a RE3 is on the way.


Badly scripted, acted and shot. Everything feels really rushed, especially the pacing of the shots... one minute a character is fighting off a zombie, only 3 seconds later he's 40 paces down the street... it seems the director really liked the matrix but had no idea what he was doing... the cut scenes in the video game are better directed.

The plot has been rewritten from the games, but instead of refining it, they have taken the games premise and just added ludicrous plot points. The video game was better written, and that's saying something.

Spoilers BELOW ****

By the end of the film the story has gotten so dumb, The main bad guy of the film, "Nemesis" becomes good (?!), and the main character Alice has strangely gained mind powers and she seems to be able to kill people just by looking at them!!?!?!?!

Utterly stupid... don't waste your time with it.


WOW. I remember the first movie was okay so i decided to see the second one ONLY BECAUSE the trailer made it seem like she was in the same setting as the resident evil 2 video game. The game rocked! Within the first 5 minutes of me watching RE: Apocalypse, I knew it would suck. How crappy was the first scene with those astronauts entering the vault and getting the parasite lose. The movie sucked. Oh my god, i cant stress the fact enough. How is it that you cant shoot one of those licker things in the church with bullets because they dodge them, but the hero of the story can jump off of her motorcycle and crash it into the monster sending both the motorcycle and the monster 100 feet into the air... Then blowing the motorcycle up, a perfectly good vehicle to use during this chaos. This movie was so bad, i thought i was infected with the T-Virus when i had a strange urge to eat the brains of the people next to me in the movie theater... but they wouldn't mind, they were watching the most brainless movie ever.


Please excuse my short outburst but this movie is utterly awful and bares practically no resemblance to the videogames, especially in terms of style and action.

I'll try and re-elaborate on this. Resident Evil Apocalypse is nothing but TRASH. Pure, post-Matrix trash. The first movie was vomit inducing, resulting in pulsing headaches and dissolved moral. I had a small pinch of hope for the sequel, namely because the hack known as Paul W.S. Anderson wasn't directing (he was too busy murdering FOX's prized franchises) so the directing duties was given to first-timer Alexander Witt. I have come to the conclusion that Witt was just simply Anderson's alias.

The director just copied and pasted what Anderson achieved in the first film, namely rapid editing, a hard rock soundtrack and YAWN, kung-fu melee. The end result was simply a hacked attempt at copying a previous hacked attempt. Was Witt pressured by the studio to copy another Hack's style? The acting. Well, Milla Jovovvovovovocichs hams up the screen time a plenty. Serena Guillory looks quite hot in her Jill outfit but resembles a hooker for the undead. The rest of the cast are just equally as bland. And Nemesis, oh Jesus Crumbcakes. How could you feck up such a powerful, iconic character from the videogames? Easy, get Anderson involved. They MADE Nemesis a complete pussy. And why did he go after Milla? The whole point of the Nemesis in the storyline was to hunt down S.T.A.R.S. Members so why was Milla a hunted target? She has bugger all to do with them. She's just screen fodder.

And the final showdown. LAME. A fist-fight between Milla and the Nemesis, and she fricking BEATS HIM????? And then Nemesis dies by having a helicopter crash land on him? Anyone who played the RE3 game will know what a complete cop-out that was.

If you're a fan of the game, AVOID THIS FILM. But, if you've never played the videogames, enjoy post-matrix filth and into new culture crap and don't give a damn about the quality of films, just want a cheap thrill and all.........AVOID THIS FILM AS WELL!


What do you get when you take the greatest survival horror video game series and have a complete idiot(Paul W.S. Anderson) put it into a movie? if you answered a god awful movie your right. RE:Apocalypse is a complete mess for several reasons. 1:Thier's no story to back any of this mindless zombie blasting up. 2:Thier's no character development at all you don't care if any one in this movie dies because you don't know what makes them important. And 3: Overall this movie is no where near as good as any of the games. RE:Apocalypse tries to trick you that it'll be a good movie with characters from the game. But any resident evil game fan well quickly realize that it was a pathetic excuse for there money. Overall if your a zombie movie fan avoid this and see the Dawn Of The Dead remake or 28 days later, If your a resident evil fan it might be worth a rental I guess if you liked the first one. Anyone else watch something else because anything beats watching this crap for the next 90 minutes.


*Spoiler Alert* (coincidentally can you spoil crap?) Where on earth to start...oh my, I'm trying to sit here with my friend and figure out how to best describe the utter stupidity presented in this movie...truly a waste of the breath in my lungs...

OK, lets start with one of the main characters, Alice whom my friend and I repeatedly referred to as "Boomer" because of her ability to constantly amaze us. This name is merely an understatement, as we are presented with multiple encounters of seemingly "near death" situations in which she quickly devises some witty plan, gains the strength of an ox, the agility of a rabid bunny, and the brain capacity of Stephen Hawking. One incident in particular is the scene in which "boomer" valiantly smashes through an assembly of stained glass windows on her motorcycle and carefully times her departure from the vehicle in the form of a triple back-flip, projecting the motorcycle at high speeds towards the apparently "bullet-fast" creature within the building's confines, only for the motorcycle to attain a vertical position along the creatures' abdomen, turning perfectly, exposing the "ever-so-small" gas tank, allowing "boomer" an effortless, but nonetheless accurate shot at the flammable contents of the tank, and thus "efficiently" dispatching this foul creature from existence... With her flawless perfection of shot, and ample bosom, how could anyone despise this movie...for laughs. Certainly not for actual enjoyment.

This movie was so bad, i purged in an empty popcorn container, forgot about it, picked up the container once again, and proceeded to name the individual ingredients i recognized as food, and formulated names for things that looked supernatural. That was a much more fulfilling use of my time than watching this crappy flick.


I thought that the original Resident Evil was quite good, and have seen what the games have to offer. If the producers, directors etc. had put more of what's in the games into the film then Apocalypse would have been halfway decent. Instead, we get much of what we had in the first - but no where as good. The zombies play a minor part in the film, the Lickers appear for a very, very short time and we have the dogs: again. The film may have been okay if it had included some of the suspense, isolation and gore that the original had but the sequel lacks a lot of this. I would have rather watched a film that had yet another group of hapless victims entering the Hive and getting slaughtered...


Video game based movies are a shaky ordeal. The original video games have their visuals and story so a director trying to make a movie based off of one might feel cheated since he/she won't really have to imagine much, just recreate and transpose onto the screen. That way the film will be faithful and fans of the game (the only real surefire audience) will be happy. However, directors who are presumably naturally creatively thinking people, won't want to stop there and instead add a bit of their own flair to the film. The first entry in this now franchise had that from Paul W.S. Anderson. It wasn't a great movie, but it was enjoyable with its action scenes and overall design which included some fun on screen deaths and gore.

This sequel is pretty much a direct continuation and goes right from the ending of the first film, but soon into the film you can see that things are missing. The design is pretty good and you feel like you are in the devastated Raccoon City, but the plot is tissue thin and the action very mundane. Action movies never really need deep plot (just watch the first "Resident Evil"), but they do need visual flair (also shown in the first "Resident Evil"). Here the action scenes are just one after the other quickly edited chaos and carnage. If you manage to see the deleted scenes on the DVD you'll see they're mostly dialog, Essentially any shred of a plot is there, while the film as released is just action. But done in a mundane way. And naturally the end sets the scene for another sequel. --- 4/10

Rated R for violence and profanity. Ages 13+


well no sooner had milla jovovich done away with her previous zombie killing fest, another adventure lurches menacingly toward her, or so the makers of this film would have you believe, in fact this films does little to further the praise (if there was much for the original) franchise, its loud brash incredibly clichéd, wise cracking black man anyone? and loose on any meaningful plot, in fact the film makers deemed far more appropriate to deal with the flashy fight scenes and sexy protagonists than anything else.

so racoon city is now over run and milla jovovich and jill valentine team up with various other survivors to escape from the zombie infested city, whilst being pursued by the umbrella corporations new toy, project Nemesis, an uber hard as nails villain, there s a less than engaging sub plot involving a doctor guiding jovovich and her lot to saving his daughter in return for there escape, and thats about it, there's no gravitas to any of the proceedings its just shoot explode zombies run and repeat, you wont care about the characters because there's nothing to make you care about them they act as eye candy and Little else.

the style of this film is very out dated as previously mentioned they even decided it was a good idea to include a token wise cracking black guy in it all, along with the non stop techno music accompanied fight scenes, if at point you do feel drawn into what happening in front of you it so still dispelled by the drivel that holds it together.

if you're a fan of the games then you may notice a few set pieces from resident evil two, the police a station and the gun shop are among the most obvious and there are a few corridor/alley way shots that a ripped straight from the game, other than that it strays so far from the original source material,if you don't know the games then you'd be forgiven in thinking the game was something of a devil may cry ilk.

still if you like formulaic,dated horror action films then you'll lap it up if not then it'll do as post pub fodder.

and if you don't drink then there may be nothing to stop its mediocrity depressing you, and making you wish you'd done something more worthwhile with an hour and a half


Attention was somewhat lacking after twenty five minutes of this film. While the beginning was interesting, the film itself was simply not as entertaining as the transport car get smashed to bejesus and back.

The whole premise of this film is during a party, the convict that escaped after the transport vehicle was destroyed escapes and hides out on the rich slut estate. The boyfriend cheats on his girl, and in the end it's the male and female main character, the slut, and the cool horny guy who stay the night after a couple of party goers get killed. Aside the token stereotypical Scottish grounds keeper, the film was pretty much boring. Only two of the kills (including the death scene in the killer's origin which isn't as far fetched as it would seem if you read the news) were really believable. I'm sorry but a beer can to the skull would crush and wouldn't penetrate into the brain. While that guy wasn't dead, even the force used to drive it against the skull wouldn't do that much damage.

In the end, the killer becomes inhuman and manages to stand atop a car going 45 while trying to continue his bloody rampage and just won't die. While the premise showed promise, the film was just way too out there and definitely not all that interesting. They made the killer too inhuman and pretty much made it so he could move from one place to another in a matter of seconds, while if I were to run the same distance, it would take ten minutes. A ludicrous film filled with bad acting and bad writing. Only thing it did for me was make me really horny, which really wasn't a help for my single life.


Telefilm Canada is government agency that helps fund movies and TV shows. It has been criticized for mostly funding obscure films with little appeal to the general public. It has been trying to fund more mainstream movies but it's too bad they didn't pass on this one. It was on a movie channel and I began watching I immediately assumed it would be a bad movie and it surpassed my expectations. But I was stuck on the couch and wanted to see how bad it would get. After watching the movie I assumed it was a first time director who somehow got the financing together. In Canada productions are often made by people who know how to write the proper grant applications not the people who can produce something of quality. But I found out the director has been around for many years making bad movies and I guess he knows the ins and outs of financing but never learned how to write or direct a movie. I thought at first it might be an over the top movie that was meant to be humorous but that was not the case it was a clichéd slasher film without any redeeming features except the bodies of some of the women in it. But if I want to see attractive woman I can watch an adult movie and they take their clothes off. This movie has no nudity but a fair amount of cleavage. It makes no sense and one doesn't care about any of the characters. Avoid this film. Don't let it make any money and perhaps the Canadian Government will be more careful about financing films. Movies can be mainstream and good at the same time. I hope Telefilm Canada learns that lesson one day.


This movie could have been set up a lot better and would have actually been a decent movie if it would have been set up right. For starters the majority of the movie should have been night. Night is what instills fear in most people anyway. Also the death scenes were horrible. The one where the guy gets a can stuck into his head is probably the worst. I guess I wasn't aware of the type of material this can was made of obviously to go through someone's head it must have had a razor sharp bottom and been made of something far stronger than an aluminum can. The most expensive piece of equipment that they people who filmed this owned was obviously an underwater camera which they used way way way to much. May have cost you more to get it but it actually made the movie look cheaper than it was. The plot was not terrible overall though it actually showed some potential but it wasn't without flaw. I would however be interested in viewing some other movies by this director if anyone knows of anymore of his movies.


coming from a huge horror fan, i normally have an open mind watching new horror films but i had to rate this film a 1, when it really deserves a -86. this not only was one of the complete worst movies i have ever seen, it is a complete disgrace to horror movies in general. i do not know how this crap even got made. i am not sure what year it was to take place in, but at no time did police cars look like 86' buicks spray painted black. second of all, i thought this was a slasher, since when do slashers not have any blood/gore? that is the point of a slaher film last time i checked. i am still not sure about the "killer" in this movie, OK i get he was an escaped mental patient that looked like an idiot, but was he also a super hero? he sure seemed to throw like one. i could go on forever about this movie, from its awful direction and cinematography to its lighting and its score, not to mention the films amazing acting. why don't these people have an Oscar yet? these people definitely did not even pass drama class in high school.

overall, this is the worst movie i have ever seen and a complete disgrace to horror films, if your going to make a horror film, do it right. i do not recommend this to any person on the planet to watch this piece of filth. Boon Collins, is a disgrace to all horror directors.


I rented this really wanting to enjoy this film, i like this genre,i think it had some strong actors,however i was disappointed it seemed forced it reminded me of "garden state" another painful film...

It was full of moments where justin would deliver a supposedly profound line, pause, as if to suddenly inspire you,he wasn't a bad actor he just seemed very misplaced.

I found rebecca to just be simply ridiculous she delivered her lines with the expressiveness of dried paint, she tried to be the quirky yet cute girl next door, then the dark broken stoner girl, roles few can pull off. How is it that this movie had so much acclaim? watching this movie simply made teenagers look like angsty,medicated,sex crazed fools. i felt the irony of keanu reeves character just over the top and to awkward. i feel as though this film had some potential. I also sensed and element of Imaginary Heroes,a movie that has stayed with me almost as a guide as to what this genre can truly but but rarely is.


This movie was too boring to finish. I gave up hope for something to happen after about an hour, switching to something more fascinating (doing the laundry). Though I liked the figures and the setting I could not help wonder why I should be bothered with Valium on screen. Besides, the soundtrack fits in perfectly (not a compliment in this context). The only highlights: Vince Vaughn as a teacher and the adorable Tilda Swinton as a frustrated but at the same time optimistic mother and housewife. With only a few alterations this could have been an acceptable coming-of-age-story. But it ends up in neither being funny nor exciting nor challenging in any way. Finally, the thumb sucking wannabe-leitmotif just sucks.


I have quite eclectic taste in movies and will give any genre a shot but I sure wish I bypassed this one. The story was so dull that I actually envied the main character in the scenes where he is in the dentist's chair because root canal surgery is preferable than viewing this film.

There is not a single character in the movie that seems real and its not the fault of the actors they were simply working such a terrible script that there was no hope of rescue.

Normally I would write quite an in depth review but this film does not warrant one and the only reason I wrote anything at all was to maybe save 1 or 2 other people enduring the hell on earth I have just endured.

Only one mans opinion of course but I am sure others have felt the same hope its of some use to someone.


I understand that this movie strongly supports the truthful concept of social development and evolution through redefining one's self, be it with a group activity, or drugs. I will even go so far as to say that it strongly promotes a "what makes us different makes us special," which is ethically very well. However any shred of ethos that can be derived from this movie is instantly lost when faces with the overwhelming fact that the person telling us this is Keanu Reeves.

That being said, i know many will feel entitled to tell me that a lesson learned from anyone is still a lessoned learned, which is true, i suppose, but it is still keanu reeves, and he plays a chain smoking dentist The argument is further broken down into pathos and logos The pathos of this movie is most likely the strongest element, not because it is in anyway strong, but because the logos is poorly executed, there is no logic to this movie. Logically it doesn't make sense. The kid receives hypno-therapy from his dentist? He partakes in a semi-nude drunken orgy with his debate team from alcohol he receives from his teacher? i am sorry, that is just inane.

Finally the redeeming pathos, well not thats not true, the pathos is far from redeeming, but it is there, which should count for something. By the end of the movie you do feel as though the kids life has emotionally effected you, you feel for the kid and his family, but that is about it.

All in all this movie is a poor attempt to teach us a lesson you either learn in first grade, or never learn, and that is that people are different and what is "popular is decided by the populous."


Very dull. Maybe you have to be familiar with "progressive" parenting and an "I'm OK, you're OK, we're not your parents, we're your pals" bland suburban childhood to get into this, I don't know. Which is fine to make a statement about, but I didn't BELIEVE the characters in the movie; it rang false. They could have done something more interesting with this. I didn't find any moments of poignancy, illumination or any sort of reason for me to be watching this. I watched "Me and You and Everyone We Know" after this, and that is more along the lines of something I like to see in an indie film and films in general- an alternative point of view, some subversive humor and symbolism you're not beaten over the head with. It isn't the ultimate masterpiece, but good, and I enjoyed it. This film is no "Donnie Darko," either. Just based upon its own merits, though, this film was a crashing bore and waste of my time.


This movie was just terrible. It was a complete waste of time and money, and although I am a fan of Keanu Reaves and Vince, they really should have avoided this script.

I watched quite a while back, so can't really comment on the editing, etc - but the bitter after-taste still lingers and when I came across it here on IMDb, had to vent some latent frustration that had been pent up.

It's over-rated as a comedy, actually there's nothing remotely funny about it, and has no direction as a "coming-of-age" movie.

My advice : save yourself the hassle of returning to this page and commenting on how much this movie sucked.


With all the big name talent in this film, I found myself snoozing. This is why film is so subjective, and why it concerns me as a writer that this project got made. I felt nothing for any of the characters, and I wasn't interested in where it was going. Bad things to create in a viewer.

What did Tilda Swinton see in this to help produce it? The quirky idea of a 17-year-old who sucks his thumb doesn't hold up over the course of a feature film. Even the "quirky" supporting players came off corny. Keanu Reeves channeling his "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" character as a dentist.

I respect that the filmmakers got this made, so maybe there's hope for other films with good stories to reach the light of day. Money back, please!


I wasted two hours of my life watching this movie. It felt like it was 4 hours long. I kept watching because it said on the box "rated R for sex and a shocking scene." Well guess what? There was neither. I know the critics liked this movie, and it had that independent film feel to it, but come on, it moved slow and there was no conflict or drama. Just a weird kid who who did weird things. (I would say more but I'm unclear on the spoiler guideline.) Maybe I'm just not smart enough to appreciate the movie on all it's levels. It just seemed boring to me. However, there are couple semi-funny moments, but not many.

I recommend passing up on this movie at the rental store.

Thanks


My friends and I were browsing the racks at a local big-name movie rental place, and we came across this film, which promised to be shocking, exciting, and provocative. Being that most of the other titles were tame, we decided to take the risk.

I guess we built it up to be more exciting than it really was, because by the packaging, we were practically led to believe that this was going to be an absurd, shocking, and possibly humorous. There was also the added bonus that it appeared to be overtly sexual as well... So we thought, "nothing like some gratuitous nudity to go with this seemingly wild movie!" Personally, I was sadly disappointed, because the movie was more serious than anything, and frankly it really didn't have much that appealed to me. The portrayal of the teenage boy and his struggle was believable, but I'm only 25, so I still remember quite well what it was like to be a teenager. But as far as the struggle itself, I felt like it was really typical, if not beat to death.

Plus, I should add that the soundtrack was the crappiest thing I've ever heard, and I felt that it clashed with the movie. It also had the unfortunate effect of ruining any of the impact of the movie, because it was extinguished by the horrible use of music. I would have even rather heard circus music as a soundtrack.

I gave it a 4, because the plot seemed to be decently thought out and executed. Maybe my mediocre rating would not have been here, if the film was actually marketed and labeled properly, instead of trying to mislead people into thinking that it's some type of sensational and provocative material! We probably should have just watched Bram Stoker's the Mummy, again. That scene where Richard Karn gets electrocuted is simply the best.


The Plot A troubled teen has the habit of sucking his thumb. His orthodontist puts him under hypnosis and he soon gets rid of the habit. After being diagnosed with ADHD, he begins to take Ritalin. But the Ritalin changes him completely from a quiet nerd that nobody had time for, to a loud-mouthed brat who suddenly became the confident head of the debate team. The film raises the question of whether to medicate your children, which is a very topical issue today.

The Pros This film could have been better. It suffers from bad film-making, which causes it to be boring. The only pro is the cast and the acting.

The Cons Thumbsucker takes too long to get its point across, which for me ultimately was not much of a point at all. There was not enough conflict and drama to satisfy an audience. The woman next to me slept through the entire film and by the time it finished, I could not help thinking she had the right idea. .

Final Word This film is too slow and plain uninteresting. There are so many better films out at the moment for you to see. Leave this off your list. Thumbsucker gets two thumbs down.


The Trianas are like a plague to Colombian cinema. Jorge Alí has made almost unbearable pieces of crap on Tv, stage and film, and now (uh, oh) comes his son, Rodrigo, with this once again irresponsible film about how the poor people of Colombia are nothing but savages, uncapable of dealing with something so simple as having electric power on their neighborhood. This one is a mean-spirited movie, wich makes fun and turns into a comedy the difficulties that the lower classes of Colombia have to deal with in their daily life. All of the characters lack any dignity, spirit or, for that fact, anything good: They're all reduced to cliches and sketches in order to amuse the audience, with no thought whatsoever given by Triana to make them three-dimensional, dignified, troubled human beings. ¡¡It even has a role for "Betty la fea" in there!! On a narrative and technichal level, the movie does represent an improvement on most colombian cinema, but it's a pity that this goods service such a morally bankrupt and corrupt movie, made by the upper class as a school assignment on the lower class: just like looking at frogs and going "Ewww... look how this savages kill each other". Shame on Mr. Triana.


This is possibly one of the worst films ever. There is no suspense, the plot is utterly predictable, the dialogue ludicrous and the acting appalling. Apart from the fact that one has to suspend all disbelief to forgive the script its premise, it doesn't even evolve into fantasy. It remains incongruous and implausible. Some thrillers thrive on this and actually pull it off, but Dead Man's Run fails in all aspects.Once John Savage has been 'outwitted' his acting reaches histrionics which are so funny, one doubles up. Unfortunately it wears thin and one cannot even laugh at it. The two other blokes are not too bad, but alas the two actresses are at best terrible! Is this all the director and scrip-wright's fault? Perhaps. If you really have nothing else to do, rent this one for a few laughs, but don't expect to be scared.


This movie is a total bait and switch. I went into it having some positive expectations, namely, that I'd see a lot of grade school kids murdering their parents in a series of bloodsoaked rituals. However, this kind of stuff never really happens and it isn't until the FINAL 90-SECONDS that the director pulls out the stops, providing us with a hilariously bad "massacre" scene that had my brother and I rolling. The rest of this movie, however, is entirely forgettable and I can't recommend it. That final 90-seconds is awesome, yes, but you have to sit through a lot of boring crap and listen to a lot of bad writing to get there. If you just have to see the funny clip at the end where the kids all get killed, I'd search the web versus wasting a rental slot. Trust me, this movie sucks. A lot. ---|--- Reviews by Flak Magnet


I've seen a lot of trashy horror films, but this film is maybe the worst picture I've ever seen. The movie makes absolutely no sense at all and has the production values of a home movie. The worst part is when the main characters daughter participates in the killing of a woman freely, but is apprehensive about consuming her flesh. One of the other children remarks "but it's good try it" and she's like "okay" and dives right in. That sentence makes it sound almost comical, and maybe in the right disgusting, deplorable film it might be, but there is no entertainment value to be found in this picture. The movie manages to cram many adult deaths, a rape scene, and the slaughter of all of the children into the movie into 90 minutes, with not even one moment of it actually being scary or terrifying. For those that walked out the theater, I'm sure it was because of boredom and a general disgust at the subject matter over feeling truly disturbed at any of the hokey stuff that goes on in this garbage movie.


Now, I understand this movie is made for fans of Trama Studio's work and is a cult classic. But this movie is horrible. Cult classic or not, there is no reason you should enjoy a movie made on a budget that's less than many people make in a year. The special effects are the worst ever, there are constant mess-ups and errors, the sound is atrocious, and the video quality is horrible, even for a movie that's over a decade and a half old. The plot is just...unbearable. For unexplained reasons an innocent kid kills his father in the very beginning and eats him. Now, this might be more understandable if the kid was in a satanic cult or they were on Indian Burial Grounds or some other nonsense Trama might use to explain the storyline better, but there isn't. There is no reason at all.

It's been mentioned that many people might take offense at this movie, I didn't. I think it's horrible for other reasons. But there is children being slaughtered, extreme violence and gore, murder, nudity, and even rape. There is no reason or explanation for much of this. This is in my opinion, the worst movie ever and I think the one that we are forced to give it is overly generous. Avoid this movie as well as Trama's other work as much as possible.


I have yet to see the big-budget Beowulf movie from a couple years ago, probably never will. I don't care for big-budget movies, I like them old and obscure, and sometimes, downright awful. Despite all that, I got a strong feeling Beowulf is probably a decent watch compared to this one. And whatever vague connection these two movies share, really makes no difference to me, because big-budget cinema ain't my cup of tea, and Beware: Children At Play ain't worth a damn.

Yay, it's a camping movie from the 80's. Father and son, playing, and frolicking among nature. Awkward little scenes involving the father quoting Beowulf, and father and son singing "Old McDonald". Father chases son a tad too much, and gets his leg stuck in a bear trap. Son sits by dying fathers side for days, listening to him go insane, and obsessively quoting Beowulf, and eating beans. A lot of talk about cannibalism. Father croaks, brain-washed son ditches beans, and mutilates and eats freshly deceased father. Wait a minute, this isn't a camping movie, this is an extremely low-budget, not well thought-out, non-Kaufman, Troma movie... from the 80's.

Fast forward 10 years. John Dewolfe, along with his irritating little family is driving out to rural New Jersey to help out his old army buddy (sherriff of Rural New Jersey) and his irritating little family, who are all stressed because his daughter was kidnapped. Actually, a lot of kids from this little town have turned up missing. Is it foul play, or did they simply take off because they were sick of this lifeless town? Well, whatever the case, sci-fi writer, John Dewolfe, Army-buddy-Sheriff, his pal, Dr. Fish, and a psychic should have enough brain power between them to get to the bottom of this.

After the first few scenes, involving father and son time, my expectations were already low enough. I had come to terms with exactly how bad of an experience this was going to be. Which, if my naive assumption had been accurate, this movie wouldn't have been all that bad. Enter John Dewolfe and family, and everything goes to Hell. Beware: Children At Play is just plain boring, and there's no way around it. Not the worst I've ever seen, not even remotely the worst from Troma, but this just gives you no reason to welcome it into your collection. For far more worthwhile non-Kaufman Troma's, check out Decampitated (an actual camping movie), or Redneck Zombies (masterpiece), or Combat Shock (most depressing comedy ever made). Sure, Beware Children At Play does offer head-ache inducing boredom, an unappealing, cheap, keyboard score, zero intentional or unintentional humor, and, pretty much, nothing else, but if you actually make it through this entire movie, you just might look back on your experience in Rural New Jersey with fond memories. 3/10


I've seen low-budget horror movies before and they provide that so bad it's funny feel to them and this was no exception. However this was the worst yet! I swear the actors must've been reading off of cue cards because they put absolutely no emotion into it whatsoever, it was like they were all monotones. To get a scary effect in the background a scene would consist of a tree shaking and unfortunately they did this multiple times. I was just so bored with it I wanted to cry. I did laugh at a lot of the death scenes though since they were done so poorly. Oh and the ending is hysterical since there's no reason or justification for it whatsoever. When one kid gets shot at his head just pops, I think they used a balloon as a prop...no kidding! The guns were like Revolutionary War muskets and I got a kick out of that as well. The dialog was retarded and whoever wrote a script this bad should be shunned from the film industry for the rest of their natural born-lives!!! Only watch if you want a good chuckle and for an ending that you won't find anywhere else.

Final Cry:

Movies: If this made it into theaters I was the first President of the U.S.

DVD Purchase: That'd be a no!

Rental: Only in extreme situations!


First off, I have to admit that the story to Beware: Children at Play isn't bad. I mean, some of the plot points are unique, and it's at least nice not to see the same assembly-line horror plot that you'd see in a bigger-budget movie. Yet, the low-budget ultimately ruins the movie. Sure, you'd expect the acting to not be up to par, but in this movie, the thespian work is really bad. It's on the level of skin flicks. Also, the special effects, for the most part, are even worse than what you'd find in a B-movie. It's more like what you'd expect from a recent film-school graduate. As other people have mentioned, the movie does have many boring points. The ending, while nice, isn't good enough to warrant a recommendation on my part. So, I can't say that I'll ask people to see this flick.


This is the worst Troma movie I have ever seen and I normally love Troma films. The pace of this movie is that of a snail. The violence/gore is too sparse and VERY badly done (there is a scene of a stabbing where you can clearly see that the knife is just thrust to the left of the victim), with the exception of a couple of death sequences. The scene progression is often non-linear. The dialogue is boring, and unfortunately it takes up far too much of the film. This film had a very low budget and it shows. I often wondered while watching this movie, if they even auditioned the child actors (most were terrible at their job). The ending, however, is pretty good and totally unexpected. If I ever see this movie again it will be for the ending and/or attempting to understand some of the references and concepts displayed in the film's dialogue.

Not recommended, even for most Troma fans.


This is easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Basically it's a Children Of The Damned wannabee. The acting is very bad, especially the children. The script is boring and relentlessly dull, punctuated by such zingers as, "you moronic Bible thumper" and "show me a warrant otherwise I'm calling the police" (said to a sheriff). One of the children in the movie could have written better lines. The gore is laughable in here. It's obviously so fake. One victim can be seen breathing after being killed. Another is stabbed, obviously, way to his left, like underneath his arm pit. The well hyped ending is ridiculous; it resembles getting together with neighbors and making a home movie and throwing in a bottle of ketchup. The background music is extremely annoying and one of those all-in-one keyboard machines was obviously used, the kind that make drum sounds, synthesizer effects, etc. The music is very typical over-synthesized 80's trash. The producers should have saved their money and bought a can of ravioli for the kids, instead of making this movie. 0 of 4 stars.


FF7 was less then average at best. The problem with it is that it had to compete and overdo it's ancestor, FF6, the best video game ever made. FF7's storyline even resembles that of FF6's, including an evil corporation that is trying to take over he world. In FF6, it's "the Empire" and in FF7 it's a corporation. Way more characters are met and played in FF6; 15 beings are acquired, compared to FF7's 7 or 8. The most annoying thing about FF7 is Cait Sith, a poor excuse to include humor in an otherwise failing game. Cait Sith is to FF what Jar Jar Binks is to Star Wars. Don't waste your time.


Final Fantasy VII does not have much going for it. It is exceedingly bad for a Role Playing game. It's even worse when you consider the fact that is part of the Final Fantasy series of RPGs, which are noted for their excellence.

First of all, the story, which is the most crucial part of any RPG, is not only stupid and boring, but it has numerous holes and is completely mundane. The plot does not drive the game, it only bogs it down.

Secondly, the gameplay ruins any fun you might have with the game. It robs the characters of any individuality they might have, and reduces them to blobs of polygons, only differing in color and shape.

Finally, the worst feature of Final Fantasy VII would be the character development. Most characters have very little, if any, substainial development. Others, like the main character, are developed in a fashion that makes you want to hate that character. The impact of the quality of the character development(or lack there of) can truly be seen when compared to the game's predecessor, Final Fantasy VI, which had excellent character development. FF7's character development leaves a void which bother the player throughout the game.

Overall, this game is not worth the $20.00 one would spend on it, unless that person is easily pacified by albeit excellent visuals. However, sadly enough, visuals are the last basis of judgment for RPGs, which makes this game a total bust.


*this review includes spoilers*

Ah, Squaresoft, until 1997 you were nigh-infallible. You had created the great RPG Chrono Trigger, which is almost certainly one of the all-time best RPGs. You had created the first six Final Fantasy games, all of which deserve a place in the pantheon of video gaming (and number 6 can compete with Chrono Trigger for the head seat at the table).

Then the time came to leave the Super Nintendo for the Playstation. You took the big step.

And tripped, horribly.

You got so caught up in the new, grander visuals you could create that you forgot to concentrate your resources on things like "plot" or "character development," the two key elements in making your previous games great. Even your marvellous composer Nobuo Uematsu got swept up in the techno-fever; his FF7 soundtrack can barely compare with his for FF6.

In many great pieces of literature or film or video gaming, the villain is the best (or at least, most outstanding) character. Just look at Kefka in FF6; he stole the show. But Sephiroth, the villain of FF7, is really the *only* character; the rest are cardboard cutouts given three-dimensions physically, but not emotionally or spiritually. When you killed off Aeris, I was supposed to feel sad; instead I was bored. The deaths in FF6 were much better handled.

Unfortunately, the masses were hypnotized by the pretty pictures and bought the game in droves, leading you to think you had created a good game. Thus we got an abomination like FF8, which lacks even a good villain. Fortunately, FF9 and FF10 each were better than the previous, leading me to hope that you're recovering. And Chrono Cross, the sequel to the aforementioned Chrono Trigger, was a very good game indeed (save the ending). As was Final Fantasy Tactics, which had notably 'poorer' graphics but a much better storyline and more realistic characters.

With any luck, you'll soon return to your former level of greatness, and FF7 will be remembered not as a classic, but what it truly is: a mistake.


CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS!!!!

Owning every other U.S. released Final Fantasy game during July 2001, I decided that I might as well pick up a copy of part VII as well. Early, the plot is somewhat linear and easy to follow. The music is excellent... actually, the music's always good in this. And the story still has some good spots during most of the first disc.

Then on disc 2, Square did one of the stupidest things. They added this whole horrible subplot about Cloud being a clone. Any sort of love I had for this game was forever destroyed with that one little scene. (Hey, it almost killed Spider-man, so why'd they add it here?!) The plot continued to get worse as time passed, and soon the entire game was a horrible scar on my memory. About the end of disc 2, any sense you can make of it is dead. Also, the ending is the worst of any video game in existence.

Now to tackle the graphics. They are the worst of any video game in existence as well, making even the old NES graphics seem beautiful by standards. Scenes that were supposed to be serious like Aeris's death and when Tifa and a now vegetable Cloud tried to escape a destruction of this one village looked so ridiculous I couldn't help but laugh.

The materia system? Trash. This destroys any sort of difference between the characters, and without them you can't do jack squat. Of course, it is slightly better since you can still use items, unlike part VIII(But at least 8 was still good)

Don't get me started on the characters. I hated Cloud's guts the entire game. He's supposed to be this tough soldier, but he's nothing but a whiny schzio. Cait Sith has got to be the most useless character ever. And Aeris? I CHEERED when she died! Whenever I used her, her magic spells would almost always miss! And with her low HP, she just pretty much held my group back. Everyone else was incredibly shallow, except for maybe Yuffie, Vincent, and Sephiroth(the only characters I liked)

One good point: The music's pretty good. A few of my favorites include One Winged Angel, the boss theme, and the Gold Saucer theme(it reminds me of Disneyland!)

BOTTOM LINE: I like the music, but hate the game. Well, the soundtrack's a better buy anyway.


Africa Screams, one of the least seen of Abbott&Costello's films was an independent production that was released through United Artists. The thin plot has Hillary Brooke believing Costello has the map to a hidden territory that is rich with diamonds. Bud and Lou go to Africa at her behest with her two companions, the fighting Baer Brothers. Of course the payoff she has in mind is different than the one boys are expecting.

Not that Universal studios exactly invested Abbott&Costello's films with much in the way of productions values, but this one is really really bad in that department. What budget they had they must have spent on getting both Clyde Beatty and Frank Buck to do guest appearances playing themselves.

On the plus side the boys do have some amusing moments, especially Costello in the cage with one of Clyde Beatty's lions which he thinks is just Abbott in a lion costume. Joe Besser and Shemp Howard also provide for some additional laughs.

My favorite moment in the film however is with the Baer brothers, Max and Buddy, both of them having fought Joe Louis and coming out on the short end, in Buddy's case twice, falling out and starting to fight as Max says he'll hit Buddy harder than Joe Louis ever did.

The film could have been a lot better, the boys are fine, but the production values give the film a look like something Ed Wood might have created.


Even by Abbott & Costello standards, 'Africa Screams' is a terrible film with a few amusing moments. There are some items of interest to movie buffs today, such as the casting of two of the Three Stooges, Shemp Howard and Joe Besser, in secondary roles; this was seven years before Besser replaced Shemp as the 'third Stooge.' 'Africa Screams' was a rare independent production for A&C. It was filmed by Nassour Studios, though the team was still under contract to Universal. The previous year had seen Bud and Lou reach the top of the box office after a slump in the mid-forties, with 'Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein,' arguably their best film ever. Whether 'Africa Screams' was planned prior to that success or was a result of it, I don't know. In any event, it was a 'one-off,' as A&C immediately returned to Universal afterward and stayed there until 1955, when they were dropped. They made one more independent film in 1956, 'Dance With Me, Henry', before calling it quits for good. 'Africa Screams' is a hodgepodge of old routines, a few new ones, and an 'African safari' plot that pops up occasionally, mainly to justify the presence of animal trainers Clyde Beatty and Frank Buck. The pro boxing brothers, Max Baer and Buddy Baer, are along for the ride too as a couple of tough henchmen. So we get the obligatory 'lion-taming' sequence from Mr. Beatty, and a punch-out scene with the two Baer brothers. Frank Buck, fortunately, has virtually nothing to do. Joe Besser has one funny moment when he hears one of the others reveal a secret; he punches the guy on the arm and in his best spoiled-brat voice says, "Ooo, you're such a snitch!" Shemp Howard, like Frank Buck, is nowhere to be seen during most of the action and when he is, has nothing amusing to do. As for Abbott & Costello themselves, they resurrect any number of old routines, most of which are not related to the plot at all. It's almost like watching an early television variety show where they come on at intervals, do a sketch, then depart. Abbott does the familiar bit where he thinks Lou has been killed and delivers a long, mournful monologue about what a great guy Lou was and how he, Abbott, is to blame... even though Lou's standing right there. (How many times did A&C AND the Three Stooges use that routine?) My favorite is Lou reprising the 'whispering threat' business from 'Wistful Widow of Wagon Gap' where he challenges the bad guys to a no-holds-barred fight, but from a distance where they can't see him and in a voice so slight they can't hear him. For about three minutes, it's a very funny film. The casting of Besser and Hillary Brooke, as the female lead, foreshadows in fact the Abbott & Costello TV show of the early fifties, as both would be regulars. Production values of 'Africa Screams' are bottom-of-the-barrel, making any of the team's Universal flicks look like 'Gone With The Wind' by comparison. Well, the good news is, there are about 35 other Abbott & Costello films to watch instead.


Leonard Maltin gives 3 stars to this movie, and only 1.5 star to "Abbott and Costello Go to Mars". That's strange, because not only is "Africa Screams" easily worse than "Go to Mars", it's probably one of the worst films that Abbott and Costello ever made. There are some funny moments (Lou whispering threats to the bad guys when they have their backs turned to him), a lovely leading lady (Hillary Brooke), some impressively trained animals, and some good special effects. But there are also too many tedious stretches (this is one of the longest 78 minutes you'll ever spend), and too many predictable gags (hmmm, they have made a trap for a gigantic orangutan, do you think Lou will fall in it?). In some of those gags, Lou is made to look downright retarded instead of amusingly dumb. The scene where he mugs to the camera for about 3 minutes straight because he is scared of a gorilla is more excruciating than funny. (*1/2)


So it goes. There's always going to be that inevitable time when a person just runs out of ideas, and this film seems to be that moment for Abbott & Costello. The whole of this film seems to me, just a bunch of their old routines and gags run together in order to fill up the running time of a feature film. This is why it's so very difficult, even for veterans like A&C, to keep a film moving, especially at feature length. Difficult for the writers first of all, to keep a story together and include comedic bits without it all seeming to be just a patch quilt of non-related ideas. They all went through this at one time or another, i.e. Chaplin, Keaton, Laurel & Hardy, etc. That isn't to say that this is a totally bad film, just parts of it. The giant "kong like" ape that's being searched for, for instance, is just too much. Good comedy exaggerates the realistic but never should it traverse into the "Twilight Zone" just for effect. Something that's interesting about this film is that there appears a current "Stooge" with a future "stooge", namely Shemp Howard and Joe Besser. Joe Besser was not, in my opinion "stooge material" but here with A&C and Shemp, he's an actual riot. Ironic. This is certainly not one of the better A&C films but worth watching, maybe as a double feature with "A&C Meet Frankenstein".


If you ever pick up a dictionary and look at the word 'boredom', underneath in the many definitions of the word would be the title of this film. If you ever thought endless scenes of soft-core sex set to lazy music could ever lull you to sleep more than a triple dose of Lunesta, you just pick up this DVD, buddy, and welcome to dreamland before you get halfway through the mercifully short running time. Looking for dubbed-over, cornball narration that will make you want to slap the 'mute' button on your TV? This is the place to look! The list of everything wrong with this film could probably take as long to read off as the running time, so in short order, save yourself the hard-earned scratch and spend some money on something better.


I watched this on TV. I was sucked in by the first third which set up a believable situation involving strong motivation for an uncivil act. A man is in need of quick cash, a woman needs to escape an abusive husband and a scheme is hatched for them to achieve both of their goals, not to mention continuing their trysts.

However, as the movie goes along it descends into bad acting, a convoluted and unbelievable plot, and an unsatisfying ending. Plot elements are introduced that may be necessary for making this into a feature-length film, but they do not correspond to any believable human behavior. Would you take the time to write documentation for a crime you were about to commit?

This has the feel of a low-budget made-for-TV effort.


Well, few surprises in this movie. Alien invasion, or is it? A smart scientist figures it out, sinister gummint organization, nuclear weapon launched, abort sent, etc, etc.

The characters - almost every one of them was over acted. The hero, with his Clint Eastwood breathy voice. His wife, the beautiful doctor with always-perfect hair and makeup who works in a public hospital: puh-lease. The slavering general. Cardboard cutouts, every one of them. Grace Phillips in her braless strappy top (and to her credit she looks OK in it) gives some idea of where one of the target demographics of this movie was. The female mud-wrestler type cast as a security guard could be another clue. And almost all the other women, who for some strange reason had short skirts and very high heel shoes, might be yet another.

Special effects were reasonable, although the multiple alien spacecraft sitting in the crater, each one an obvious copy/paste of each other... at first, I thought it was a computer wallpaper. And the stories with the nitrogen inhalers - please, give us nerdy audience types at least a tiny sliver of background knowledge.

I think that the worst sin this movie committed was that it couldn't make up its mind as to what combination of seriousness and comedy it was going to be. But again to be fair, if you set your expectations low enough you might well be entertained.


This movie was so bad that it more resembled a very tired TV series than a movie. There was no action, the acting, writing, and directing were abysmal, and it wasn't even decently filmed. I will give it credit for having suspense, though it was the half-hearted, stressful kind of suspense you get when you are in denial about the fact that you are sitting through a numbingly pathetic excuse for a movie and you are clinging to a futile hope that in a couple of minutes it might get interesting. This isn't an alien thriller... it had no aliens, or convincing alien technology, and there was no sense of imminent threat (beyond the very real possibility you are having 2 hours sucked from your lifespan by some hack film maker.) The story (Department of defense cover up about alien invasion) might have been good if an actual writer took the idea and built a script around it, but the way this was done, it shouldn't have been more than a half hour long. Don't waste your time... and don't listen to the votes... this isn't better than a 2...


This is the most pathetic "thriller" ever. The plot goes one way, then changes 180 degrees. It flips back dozen ties. The rate of plot twists actually increases to the point of utter silliness.

Now sci-fi can get away with no good plot, *if* the effects are worthy. Nothing like is here. It's a pretty cheap film. Chyna is a horrible actress. They tried to use her fame from wrestling, but it doesn't work. There's a reason her film career has flopped.

Another big failing of this movie is one has no concern for any of the characters. The acting is so fake and forced, I couldn't care less. Again, a great sci-fi can get away with this, if there are effects. None were here. I couldn't care less if there were aliens, or if aliens took over the world, or what happened.


In San Diego, the powerful Bill Templer (Dale Midkiff) leads a governmental defense agency, and after the explosion of an expensive satellite, the government intends to shut-down his agency. He frauds the government and the population with images showing the danger of an alien attack to justify the explosion of the equipment. The aliens were in the hidden side of the moon ready for attacking Earth. Templer convinces American government to send a nuclear weapon and blows the alien force up before the invasion of Earth. Detective Kevin Anjanette (Dondré T. Whitfield) finds that the images used by Bill Templer are forged and threatens his plans to regain power. This story is so absurd and ridiculous that becomes funny. `Alien Fury' hooked my attention until the last scene to check the capacity of a writer and a director to make such an unbelievable mess. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Fúria Alienígena' (`Alien Fury')


This is just another movie in that well-trodden genre of "Mysterious aliens intend to take over the planet". It adds a unique twist or two to the plot, but nothing you couldn't have predicted in the first reel.

Plot: so-so. Effects: basically non-existent. Characters: With the exception of the detective, nobody you'll really care much about.

If you need some sci-fi background noise, this movie will do just fine. But if you're looking for entertainment, you'd do far better to go outside and watch the birds.

By the way: CD-RW discs are silver, not green/blue. The green/blue ones can't be re-written.


1st watched 12/17/2004 - 4 out of 10(Dir-David Butler): Cute but minimalistic fare from the Olsen Twins of her generation, Shirley Temple. The best parts of this movie are the dance routines with the black slave butler-like character and Miss future Temple-Black. We really don't get enough of these and the story itself, set in post-Civil war times in the south is pretty flimsy and setup just so "the cute one" can save the day with her charm. She is definitely charming, but it doesn't carry this particular movie unless maybe for the younger girls of this generation who also like the similar plot-less "Olsen twin" type movies.


Oh dear, if you're diabetic then I would seriously advise against watching this film. It' so sugary it'll rot the brain right out of your head.

Why on earth Eastman and Laird allowed this to be made is beyond me. It's soooooooo far removed from their black and white comic book. Okay, I know the cartoon series was too but the first movie did have a hard edge to it. I mean, take a look at the cover-the Turtles are smiling and happy. Then look a cover of one of the original comic books. They're almost always gritting their teeth and frowning. THAT'S how it should be. Not like this.

Even the animatronics look fake. The first 2 had a rather believable Splinter but now he's juddering and stiff and obviously operated by a couple of technicians loitering a few feet off camera. His voice is also totally different and he seems a touch more upbeat and lively. HARDLY the way Splinter is supposed to be.

The plot itself defies logic and there are massive holes all over the place. With such a dramatic change in locale from New York to Fuedal Japan you'd think the movie would take advantage of that and go nuts with imagination.

But sadly not. It just...goes nowhere. I mean, what is the deal with the character of Whit. Why does he look like the great, great, great grandfather of Casey Jones.

In fact, the return of Casey is the only reason I am not giving this a 1-star rating. It's a pretty wretched movie but Elias Koteas can make it a tiny bit less unbearable.

Hopefully the new cartoon show and the possibility of another (harder) movie will cancel this one out. It's nothing but dated, mindless fodder for under-fives. At the risk of repeating myself; this is NOT how the Turtles should be.

Extras are almost non-existent but the animated menus are cool. The 1.85:1 anamorphic picture is in pretty good shape but the Dolby 5.1 track isn't up to much I'm afraid. The film was originally recorded in Dolby SR so this is obviously a remastering job. It's just adequate is all I'm saying.


Okay, I was a fan of the first movie. And, embarrassingly enough, I was sort of a fan of the second one. But this one...

Okay, first off, there's NO fluid movement to the Turtles AT ALL. They look about as mechanically-enhanced as those crappy singing robots they used to have at your local Chuck E. Cheese. In several shots, you can actually SEE where the turtle mask ends and the body suit begins, thereby magically creating the illusion that this is a guy in a turtle costume. The Splinter costume/puppet/whatever is SO. BAD. In the first movie, he was nuanced and realistic, but I guess that's why the folks at Jim Henson's Creature Shop make so much. Apparently, New Line couldn't afford them anymore.

The plot is... SO ridiculous. The "writers" send the Turtles BACK IN TIME to ancient Japan(?), a place where they don't have any villains from the comics or the cartoon. Some Japanese guys switch places with them in the present to be baby-sat by Casey Jones, and fish-out-of-water hilarity ensues (HA HA HA kill me). I actually have a theory about this: I think someone dug through a bunch of crappy action movie scripts, found one that would work with the Turtles and wrote the Turtles into it. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.

And P.S. -- the "jokes" are... not.

Anyway, avoid this abomination at all costs. If it means anything to ya, it ranks near the very bottom of my Worst Movies Ever list (somewhere below The Cat In The Hat but just above Freddy Got Fingered).