I'm not a hater of Pauly Shore by any means, he can be a very funny guy and I rather liked Biodome which came after this film. But this one really stretched Shore's smart aleck personality way too far.

Jury Duty is now something I try to avoid figuring that back in the day I served on three of them at one time or another. And the next time I'm eligible I would be over 70 years old and would get an automatic exemption should I choose. But if you have nothing else to do, your life isn't going anywhere, why not take that magnificent sum of $5.00 a day for service.

That's what Shore figures when his mother Shelley Winters and her long time boyfriend Charles Napier get married and he's at loose ends. And wouldn't you know it, he gets on the jury of an accused serial killer, Sean Whalen. Shore however finds a way to make Jury Duty not only profitable, but quite comfortable.

Whalen is accused of butchering and dismembering several fast food managers when he's found sleeping at the place their bodies were stashed. If he didn't do it his hopes for justice rest on the shoulders of Pauly Shore a fate I'd not wish on anyone.

Pauly gets way too over the top in Jury Duty and you'd better like him if you have any hopes of liking this film. Also I just can't believe that fellow juror Tia Carrere would ever fall for someone like Shore. But that's movie magic for you.

Among other places Pauly takes his cues from is that flawed classic 12 Angry Men. When I reviewed that I said that Henry Fonda's actions, one in particular would have been grounds for a mistrial. Ironically because of what Shore does, Judge Abe Vigoda does declare a mistrial.

Justice does get served in a highly unusual manner. If that pleases you by all means see Jury Duty. Otherwise people who are not Pauly Shore's fans will have a hard time with this film.


It is a bad movie that gives wrong idea out to the public. There is no way that wasting taxpayer's money can be made to look funny. The guy is healthy educated guy and living on his parents money. And then he decides to live off tax payers' money like a parasite. That certainly does not count as funny.

Being a jury is a serious business. Making a comedy is a serious business. Unfortunately, the movie maker seems to care for neither. I would not recommend this movie to anyone. It is a waste of time.

The actors did a fairly fine job in the given scope. Story and direction failed the movie.


In my opinion, a film starring Pauly Shore is going to be bad, however, while some of his films are good/bad (Encino Man), this is not one of them. This is Shore at his most gratingly annoying, throw in a tired storyline & terrible jokes & you have jury duty. Nothing can save this film, it's bad from start to finish. I expected better from some of the cast - they must have really needed the money. The strange thing is the premise of the story could really work - if it had different actors, an appealing lead & a much better script. Unless you are a die hard Pauly Shore fan I suggest you stay away from this one. There are thousands of better films to watch.


I am sure that there is someone out there in movie audiences that like Pauly Shore. I mean, he has to have made something worth watching, right? Well, it certainly wasn't this movie. Except for Tia Carrere, there really isn't anything to see here.

The concept is innovative, I have to admit. Made homeless, he gets on jury duty in a murder case to get sequestered, and he keeps the jury going (Spoof of 12 Angry Men?)to keep a roof over his head. But even the murderer (Sean Whalen) gets irritated. I got irritated long before that.

Well, let's just wait for the next Pauly Shore venture with American Idol, Ruben Studdard. I am sure it will be as good as this one.


i saw this movie on a DVD last night and the movie reminded me of a Bollywood film named "EK RUKA HUA FAISLA" which means A PENDING VERDICT. jury duty is a total rip off from this movie. but the Hindi flick was far better scripted and it was brilliantly acted by some of the most talented actors Indian film industry has. if you ppl don't believe wat has been written then check out this link.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0157571/.

the Hindi movie was released in 1986 whereas jury duty in 1995. so at last we have a Hollywood film ripping ideas from a bollywood(i prefer to call it the Hindi film industry). and it was done way back in the eighties!!!! so guys please for one time spare the poor bollywood film makers guilty of lifting off ideas from Hollywood .


Come on. If you're watching this movie, you can't expect too much. Two words: POLLY SHORE. Watching this movie now, you can see how ridiculously dated it is. It was released in 1995 to capitalize on the world's fascination with the OJ Simpson trial. 10 years from now, is anyone going to know what the one-liner "Say hi to Judge Ito!" means?? It's not the absolute worse thing I've ever seen, and there are some mildly funny bits here and there. 3/10


When this was released for video (the same year it was released in theaters, a shockingly low 3 month gap in between) I was expecting it to be just a silly, lightweight farce involving no imagination. Nothing much can really be expected from Shore's movies but despite his whiny personas, they can be fun on a mindless, youthful level.

 Since everyone else in this movie is a caricature, all it has going for it is Pauly Shore's whiny personas and nothing but. At first it's harmless but as soon as Shore's character cheats the judicial system it becomes both excruciatingly brainless and dull. The film's main point was to spoof the almost coinciding Simpson case, but all the "humor" in that (and Shore's "attempt" at "humor") was completely idiotic.

 If it weren't for the scene with the dog on the game show, I'd have to honestly say that this is *THE* worst movie ever.


I've heard about how awful Pauly Shore's humour is. This film easily and quickly confirmed that.

This film is a horrible parody of a great film, "12 Angry Men". It disgusted me to see such a great film treated so.

You are better off steering clear of this film. If you are interested in a quality drama, just watch "12 Angry Men"; if you want a good laugh, make sure Pauly Shore is not in it.


First of I want to point out that I like Pauley Shore and have enjoyed watching other comedy movies that he starred in and but I just didn't like Jury Duty and didn't find the humor to be that funny and it was kind of boring and a let down compared to Bio-Dome and other Pauley Shore movies! I had bought this movie on video before I watched it because since I had liked his other movies I assumed I would also like this but I didn't like it and I learned a lesson that I should watch a movie first before I buy it! This movie just didn't appeal to me at all! I would recommend people rent this before buying or try to watch it on TV first!


A Paul Naschy vehicle in which he plays an East Indian guru named (what else?) Krishna who may or may not be responsible for gang of murderous zombies on the loose in London, but the real 'stars' of this flick are the unintentional humor and the relentlessly kitschy soundtrack (the end title theme is particularly memorable, in that "so bad, it's good" category). Other things to watch out for include the stock footage of London, grinning zombies, a blinking corpse, and an "out of left field" plot twist. Stupendously bad, but terrific fun for those into this sort of thing.


What a mess! Vengeance of the Zombies tries too hard to be everything. The film doesn't devote near enough time to any one element of the plot. Vengeance of the Zombies is all over the place. It's one part Satanism, one part Eastern mysticism, one part Caribbean voodoo, and one part revenge. Throw in some bad acting, a lack of logic, and a twist out of left field and you've got a recipe for disaster. I'm trying real hard to enjoy these Paul Naschy films, but thus far I'm not impressed.

My rating would be lower if it weren't for some special effects that work quite nicely. There's one decapitation scene in particular that far exceeds the quality of anything else in Vengeance of the Zombies.


Shades of Jess Franco...this one has all the marks of a classic Franco hack-a-thon, and comes out of Spain. As with almost everything Franco did, this director obviously had the knowhow to create a decent film, but he couldn't be bothered to go back and polish all the rough parts. And the movie seems to be nothing but "rough parts" all the way through. The result is like watching the "rushes" for a talented neighbor's home movies for a script he hacked out in a day, if your neighbor had a photogenic wife (like "Rommy") and a 35mm camera.

The plot is completely lurid, which actually part of the movie's charm. It starts out with a masked guy (very "Phantom Of the Opera") reviving dead women as zombies to do his bidding, which mostly involved strangling people who obligingly just stand there and let them get on with it. (I have to admit that the make up on the zombies is pretty effective and one of the real reasons to watch the movie.) At least that's the opening scene. And before you know it, the plot has become a freeway pileup of Indian mysticism, serial murder, topless women, stylized slow motion assaults, zombies (of course), Satanism, ritual sacrifices, hallucinatory nightmares...have I left anything out? Oh yeah, all done to a swinging heavy jazz soundtrack that starts a new theme every two or three minutes, stops in the middle of a musical phrases whenever a scene ends, and in general seems to have nothing to do with the action on the screen.

The DVD print I saw (part of a "Drive In Movie Classics 50 pack) was awful; it was a full screen "pan and scan", but managed to consistently leave out one or all of the actors in a given shot, instead giving us revealing shots of the middle of the set.And mixing for the sound was apparently done in the bottom of a steel barrel. The overall sound managed to be muddy but was nevertheless so shrill and tinny that I was afraid it might make the neighborhood dogs start to howl. This was a shame because the dubbing for the dialog actual was one of the better efforts I've heard from this era - the dialog is still stilted and clumsy, but it seemed as if the ESL voice actors might have been allowed to actually rehearse a little before they had to jump into the studio. And again, the jazz music was mostly very sprightly and vivid - sort of the stuff you'd hear in a TV commercial for the new model Lamborghini or something; it would have been nice to hear it the way it was performed. My guess is that someone in production intentionally mixed things to sound best coming out of the speakers at a drive-in movie. Either that, or they hated us and wanted us to bleed from the ears and die in torment.

So yes, it's a mess. But somehow, it's an enjoyable mess, if only for the ambition of the lead actor, who casts himself in three different parts and the director, who tries to mix three or four different horror genres in one screenplay, and some hard working supporting actors who try their best to give the proceedings some dignity.

Do NOT pay money to see this, unless it's part of a collection. If you pay more than $5 to own a DVD of this movie by itself, you will probably be looking around for a throat to slit when it is over.


Vengeance of the Zombies is a head on collision of seven different horror genres. A hodge podge of gore, nudity, black gloved killers, voodoo, Satanism, surrealism , and unintentional camp. Naschy plays a dual role as the good Indian Guru Krishna,and his evil twisted and deformed voodoo doll making, Satan worshiping , masked killer of a brother. Obviously the plot is muddled. It reminds me of the old poverty row horror films but filtered through the distorted mind of Jess Franco. The most Franco like aspect of the film however is the jazzy score, which remarkably made the film a lot more tolerable for me. Naschy tosses in a few homages here, he's doing Blood and Black Lace in one scene, Curse of the Crimson Altar in another, things that are fun to spot. If you are in search for a good "bad" horror film with everything but the kitchen sink tossed in then you won't do much better than this.


In the beginning of this movie there is some bird or owl that got too close to the camera that it makes this annoying sound. This movie is awful and the painful acting doesn't help. In some scenes the peoples mouths move but the wrong words come out. There must have been something wrong with the dubbing that day. At one point I thought that it was being narrated but it isn't. This is just another terrible movie. Every killing is in slow motion and when the lady is being kidnapped she doesn't even try to escape. It's pathetic. Also the music sounds like a bunch of hyper active kindergardeners in a jazz night club. There is also a bad wrestling scene, a pop can on a guys neck and too many redheads. I got confused and thought that the main redhead was dead but then she wasn't and it was just another redhead. It doesn't matter anyway. Just avoid this movie.


I know one reviewer of this film that had the audacity to compare director León Klimovsky to Tarantino. Give me a break. The film jumped all over the place and switched scenes with no apparent rhyme or reason. One minute you see a love scene begin and a second later someone is running their bicycle into a car.

This mash-up of Hindu mysticism, voodoo and zombies never had any coherent plot.

It did have great zombie makeup. They looked dead!

It also had Mirta Miller. A voluptuous veteran of countless Euro-horror films, she again appeared scantily clad with her breasts heaving as she fell into the clutches of the zombies for their ritual.


This is the tenth film featuring Spanish horror star Paul Naschy that I’ve watched; though best-known for his series of “Waldemar Daninsky” werewolf movies, he made all kinds of genre efforts – even scripting many of them himself under real name Jacinto Molina.

Given the film’s title, this one obviously highlights the living dead – but, thankfully, it doesn’t follow the then-prevalent flesh-eating pattern cemented by George A. Romero; the plot, in fact, is pretty complex and also involves transcendental, voodoo and occult rituals as well as a masked assassin! Naschy, by the way, plays three roles here (though one of them, a horned demon, is only featured in a sequence depicting the heroine’s nightmare) – another finds the star at his most Brando-like (albeit inspired by the Method actor’s variable stint in the psychedelic star-studded concoction CANDY [1968]!) as a mystic and the last is the latter's evil brother, the disfigured man behind the mask who masterminded the titular plot.

The gory bits include a harmless old man getting a hatchet implanted in his face, a woman being memorably beheaded, a morgue attendant hilariously killed by having a soda can(!) viciously pressed against his neck, while the impalement of a pair of oblivious lovers clearly rips off Mario Bava’s far superior A BAY OF BLOOD (1971). As for the zombies, their attacks are rendered a bit more effective than would have otherwise been the case by the use of slow-motion. Typically, the lounge score (curiously highlighted by some otherworldly chanting!) is notable, as are the Swinging London settings; incidentally, the hero is a Spanish actor appearing under the name of Vic Winner – similarly, his character is hilariously named Laurence Redgrave, while that of the Scotland Yard Inspector is Hawkins who has an assistant that goes by the name of Basehart! Naschy...er...Molina presumably intended these as a tribute to their Hollywood namesakes, but they came off as unintentionally amusing instead (as is the film's very opening scene in which a couple who are hard up for cash decide to have a go at grave-robbing, to their eternal chagrin!).

The film has been released on DVD by BCI Eclipse but, since I can’t say that I’ve been all that impressed by the star’s outings so far, I don’t own any of them in this format: in fact, VENGEANCE OF THE ZOMBIES itself came via a full-frame English-dubbed edition sourced from a damaged VHS and accompanied by forced Finnish subtitles!


This movie is so cheaply and badly made that "Plan 9 from outer space" looks like a big budget production in comparison. This, however, would still be excusable.

The worst thing about the movie is that it features the on stage slaughtering of a real chicken.

What a waste of live for such a crap!

Has to be avoided at all cost!


This was an incredibly important subject...treated in an amateurish, arrogant way. The director expected the audience to understand what was going on...this was impossible: there was no plot, no script to "speak" of, no plot points, no character development, no story development. It was filmed in a shaky documentary style (which is valid if you have something to say). I was always taught that any narrative, be it a movie, book, play, even a piece of music, has to have a beginning, a middle and an end - this dreadful excuse for a movie had a beginning...and then it waffled for the next hour or so until the woman we sort of guessed was the heroine, ran off into the night. Let's be specific: The opening sequence wasn't that bad - very evocative scenes in the dessert, camels, Bedouin, a group of Eastern European women, a campfire, lots of Russian and Arabic chit chat - OK, "expectations build": Next scene (after the first obligatory rape scene): auction of the Eastern European women as prostitutes: very noisy, not sure who the English-speaking (French-accented) person was - a buyer or a seller: couldn't make that out. A van drives by with two people in the back (man/woman) staring out at the auction...who are they, why are they there? Nobody knows. Next scene: in a nightclub (after the "hosing down" of the prostitutes - a highly contrived scene, calculated to make us think of Holocaust victims in the showers - come on Amos, what are you really trying to say? The woman from the van (we eventually learn her name is Rose - Rosamund Pike) which was driving around the auction and her boyfriend (is he her boyfriend?) arrive at the nightclub, one of the prostitutes asks her for help. Rose is totally confused: "What, how, why - I can't help you...why me?" she says indicating that she doesn't even understand the cry for help. Next scene, Rose and her boyfriend (?) are in the passenger compartment of a van with ALL THE PROSTITUTES IN THE BACK! Hello...! What's going on here? She couldn't (or wouldn't) help the prostitute escape, why is she in the van with them? Contrived gratuitous sex scene with Rose and her boyfriend (?). Next scene, the van arrives in a grimy industrial area, unloads the prostitutes at what is apparently a brothel ("The Promised Land" of the title) - and lo and behold, Rose the mystery woman gets out with them and enters the brothel: where's her boyfriend? Dunno... Why is she there with them? Dunno...She and the "heroine" - the prostitute who begged her for help in the nightclub - sit huddled together listening to the driving rain (it wasn't raining when they entered the brothel), talking as if they were old friends. Flashback, to Estonia, the prostitute is a virginal choir girl, singing about the "Peace of Jerusalem" (in English mind you), pure driven snow outside (another "message") and suddenly Rose appears: OK now I'm totally lost. Then the audience is jerked back to the present with a terrorist attack on the brothel - why? There's nobody around, the only people there (apparently) are whores and their johns...upstairs - why a terrorist attack here? Everybody runs outside, the prostitute who asked for help and Rose escape in the confusion and run off into the night. Close. ..and this won a prize at the Venice Film Festival!!!!??? It wouldn't win a passing grade in a student film contest. It's clearly a case of the Emperor's New Clothes: this has to be the most self-indulgent so-called movie ever to grace the screen: even "Plan 9 from Outer Space" had some quirky charm... Sorry Amos - not even an "E" for effort.


This film is a major disappointment by Amos Gitai.One should even call it a blot on his career.Promised land is neither a feature film nor a documentary nor anything which can lie in between.It features two popular stars Anne Parillaud and Hanna Schygulla but even their presence is not helpful enough to sustain viewers' interest.The film is about the plight of some Russian girls which are sold in Israel but its presentation is really bad. It does not make any sense as in order to heighten the importance of the topic Amos Gitai has decided to shoot the most part of the film in darkness. However darkness cannot hide the film's defects.The film maker has surely not done his homework well due to which viewers are forced to watch a crude succession of abominably cruel scenes in which women are traded like cattle.Most of the actors too suffer in this film as their roles have not been defined properly.Recommendation:better watch this film and be bitter about it rather than being sullen without having seen it.


This movie is literally all over the place. Aliens decide to invade earth by employing astro-zombies which run around on a rampage, unconvincingly hacking and slashing people just sitting around, basically waiting to get killed. A woman reporter (Brinke Stevens) is on the scene, as well as her boyfriend who works for the CIA (and looks about half her age), an FBI agent, plus there's some crazy 70+ Joan Collins-looking woman who insists on showing marks on her breast (Aaaak!) whenever she claims she was abducted by aliens, then there's some George Carlin-lookalike doctor who teams up with a psychic or something, plus Tura Satana (from the first Astro-Zombies movie) and her dimwit henchman who looks like Vincent D'Onofrio from MEN IN BLACK who hope to cash in on the invasion. On top of this, there's plenty of random scenes of government officials sitting around a table saying vaguely important things, plus some "doctors" chillin' in an E.R., and John Carradine's head kept alive in a lab.

With so many characters and so much stuff going on, this movie is totally out of control! If I had any clue as to what was going on, I might have enjoyed it in other ways, but as it is this movie is purely for laughs. Mikels certainly has improved his style since the 60's in that his newer films are much more briskly-paced, more entertaining, and action-packed (he has a funny cameo which cleverly incorporates his earlier cameos). The special effects (including some pretty decent CGI) range from laughably terrible to surprisingly good. The acting, on the other hand, is all-round abysmal with the sole exception of the only real actor in the movie, Brinke Stevens (who looks quite good in that short skirt of hers).

The problem with the movie though is that it takes itself too seriously when it's obvious it benefitted the most from the unintentional comedy. The scenes of zombies running around various industrial areas and hacking people are totally hilarious indeed, but sandwiched between too many random scenes of talking heads. The film then seems to randomly cut back and forth between the many subplots, and the same zombie keeps waking up in the alien spaceship a total of about five times. Even sillier is how so much of the actors' screaming is obviously ADR, so much clearer than the regular dialog, which is often either muffled or rendered inaudible due to the constant loud music. Only the scenes involving Satana seem to be intentionally funny.

I don't know how to sum this one down - it felt like I sat through 8 movies at once; bewildering, confusing, laughable, yet somehow very entertaining. It has a great beginning, ending, and some scenes in the middle, which is the best one can really expect for a movie obviously shot with no money but a lot of enthusiasm.

Much better than the first film, which was 88 minutes of characters standing around explaining to each other how the Astro-Zombies work, and 2 minutes of killin'. This one's more like 20 minutes of killing, 20 minutes of aliens, and 30 minutes of characters talking to each other and looking confused, then 15 minutes of cars driving around and various other random stuff.

Too bad MST3K missed out on this one - it's ten times funnier by itself than most of their better episodes.


If this film didn't have some kind of self-conscious humor to it, it would be pretty much worthless. The production values are equivalent to MILF-hunter or a school bus safety video. But there is no exploitation really (not even on a level with the bus video). The only thing that really gave me a laugh was when the zombies were on the loose in the mall. It was nice to see Satana up there on the big screen again after all these years (but then again, I wasn't around for the first time, so why not just rent another classic Satana flick and leave this one behind?).

I have the feeling this one kept everyone busy, but not much else.


I like bad movies. I really do.

But some bad movies at least go through the motions of trying to be good. For instance, Steckler's Incredibly Strange Creatures, where actual sets were constructed and dance numbers were even choreographed - albeit poorly - indicated a genuine attempt to try to make an enjoyable movie. Heck, even Mikel's original Astro-Zombies showed some level of "pre-production" planning. None of it went towards a script rewrite though.

But, Mark of the Astro-Zombies in a contrived mess shot on videotape for crying out loud. And by that I mean a video camera that you could drive down to Circuit City and buy.

The "Making of" featurette (excuse me, I had to chuckle there for a second) is more entertaining than the feature itself, generally because it allows the viewer to see that the movie was a joke to the cast and crew, but the joke was on us.

Steer clear all - find yourself a cold beer and a Troma flick. You'll be glad you did.


There is no word terrible enough to describe this movie. Every single solitary aspect of it was pitiful and completely senseless. The acting was of the worst of I've ever seen, the directing was the official worst I've seen and don't even get me started on the script writers. On the cover of the DVD case I got out I read one review that said "The best straight to video movie of the year" well for the sake of movie lovers everywhere I severely, severely hope this was not the case. I mean you can't tell me NONE of these obviously middle class, decent job occupying, love to talk women have a cell phone. I honestly reckon I could sit here for around 3 hours typing up problems with this movie movie but I won't bother because it wasn't worth it. All I'll say is please, please for future movies sake DO NOT GET THIS FILM OUT!!!


I don't know from where to start: the film is amateurish. The acting is terrible, the plot is poor even the usage of camera is childish. A serial killer using arrows to kill his victims... The making of the film took less than two days, the script took less than three days I think. If it took more then something is wrong with the cast. No I did not like this film at all it's more bad than ''Decoys'' or ''quiet kill''. It is a surprise to me that 61 people voted for it and it has an average rating of 5. I suppose there were some friendly votes. I cannot believe that people actually paid to watch this movie or the ''actors'' got paid to participate.


Lauren (Melanie Lynskey) is house sitting in a quiet, wealthy neighborhood and decides to throw a slumber party for her officemates. Unfortunately, only two show up: her spunky friend, Gina (Sheeri Rappaport), and the quiet new girl, Grace (Mary Lynn Rajskub). Could the lack of party guests be due to the well-known fact that there is a crossbow-wielding rooftop-loitering serial killer on the loose in the area? Unfortunately, they spend too much time discussing this, and they hear footsteps coming from above.

This film has finally received a DVD release in the US. The title change was changed from the appropriate Claustrophobia to the misleading Serial Slayer. The packaging, which features an evil Vin Diesel lookalike with a crossbow standing by a dark and creepy house, is also misleading. This film is actually an attempted subverison of the slasher genre. The terror is mostly psychological and not the type you would see in an ordinary slasher: the film takes place entirely during the day, there are only a few characters in an enclosed space, the perspective of the killer is never shown, and there is little on-screen violence and gore. Unfortunately, this interesting concept is poorly executed. The film obviously was made in a short period time on little-to-no budget, so it is understandable, but it is hardly an effective thriller.

The main problem with Serial Slayer is the unbelievable plot. A rooftop serial killer who draws his victims out of their homes so he can shoot them with a crossbow is a great premise. Having a slasher film set during the day, so that the killer cannot lurk in the darkness, is also a neat idea. Combining these two concepts does not work, at least in the context that is set up in this story. According to a radio announcement at the beginning of the film, this serial killer has already claimed a handful of victims. So it makes sense that the neighborhood is a little empty, as most people would probably go elsewhere until the killer is caught. However, apparently nobody drives through this neighborhood (including cops, who should probably be patroling the area), because nobody notices a guy on the roof in broad daylight.

But more importantly, why the hell would you have a slumber party in an area where everyone knows there is a killer on the loose? Early-on, there are some funny conversations (I'm assuming this is why it is listed as a "comedy" on IMDb--but this is no horror/comedy!) between the girls about serial killer hysteria and the chances of being a victim, which would be acceptable in any other context, but it just sounds ridiculous here. They also discuss how the past victims were all killed outside of their homes, which apparently brings them a sense of safety...even though none of the windows are locked, these women seem 100% convinced that the murderer is not going to break-in and kill them. There are several laughable instances where the characters try to draw the attention of the neighbors that make absolutely no sense. If you can get past some of these ridiculous premises, then some scenes in this movie could probably be really suspenseful.

The acting in Serial Slayer is unfortunate. All three lead women have proved in the past that they are damn fine actresses. Probably due to lack of time, good direction, and horrible dialogue, their performances here are really low-key and their fear is not at all believable. Some of the interactions between the characters are amusing and you wish the film would become the character piece that it is so obviously striving to be.

Another huge problem with the movie is the ending. After watching the film, I skipped around the director's commentary and was shocked that I completely misinterpreted the ending. Sadly, the way I saw the ending was much more exciting and made much more sense than what the ending actually turned out to be. It isn't meant to be ambiguous and open to interpretation, it is just poorly done.

On a side note, the movie also features a small "comeback" performance by Judith O'Dea (Barbara in the original Night of the Living Dead), but it is nothing to write home about. As I said before, this movie is extremely low-budget (made with hand-held digital video) and I'm sure the cast and crew worked extremely hard to get it done in time, so I hate to rag on it. It has a cool concept and a little bit of suspense, if you can get past the non-sensical behavior of the lead characters. But it is really not a well made film. Rent Slumber Party Massacre instead.

My Rating: 2.5/10


Pretty dreary, pretty dull. Sought it out because of a friend of a friend, but wasn't impressed. You could do worse, but you could certainly do better. Neither the acting, nor the writing, nor the cinematography was involving or suspenseful. The premise -- the crossbow guy -- is pretty offbeat, but given what you see in movies nowadays, it's not a bad notion. What it really comes down to is execution. The film just isn't all that engrossing. If you cared more about these characters, it could really be something. But as it is, the movie is really not about people you'd want to know on any level, even as fictional characters. This lack of connection is the most crucial flaw in the movie. Without caring about the people entangled in this situation, the situation itself is largely academic. This could have been made better in the writing phase, or it could have been improved by the right guidance for the cast. Neither is present here.


i don't know whos idea this was, but they should just hang it up and work somewhere else. this was by far the worst pile of crap i have ever had the displeasure of witnessing. in fact, i want that hour and a half of my life back. the thing that got me was the fact that the packaging was 100% misleading. it shows a huge mansion at night and this jacked, menacing killer with a devastating looking crossbow. the movie takes place in the middle of the day in a ranch house in the middle of suburbia, and the crossbow killer is a scrawny dude wielding a dart gun you would find in the children's section of Wal-mart. it was i believe 79 minutes or so long, and roughly 77 minutes were devoid of anything except terrible acting. NOTHING HAPPENED! there were some footsteps, a girl and a delivery boy were "attacked", if you could even call it that, but otherwise nothing happened. when their friend was attacked, they did NOTHING but let her sit in another room. finally when one girl miraculously escapes the Wal-mart killer, she doesn't run to a neighbors house to tell them that this crossbow killer is on her roof, no she runs down the street past dozens of houses and stumbles across a guy and says "um, there's um, been an um, accident". do not waste your time on this worthless pile of garbage. i feel legitimately cheated.


People looking for a HORROR movie should read:

This movie has a great concept. A serial killer who uses a miniature crossbow to shoot suburban civilians from their very own rooftops! This movie could have been so good! But it's not. It's actually pretty terrible, ranking among the worst horror movies that I have ever seen. First of all, the entire movie takes place in the middle of broad daylight. The atmosphere is bright, and sunny, and happy. Couldn't the director have chosen a moodier setting? Yes, he could have. What was the deal? Did this movie really have so small a budget that they couldn't afford to properly light a night scene? That at least would have created a bit of suspense, but no, this movie contains no suspense. The main reason for this is that we, as the audience, don't care about the characters, mainly because we can tell that they are not really afraid about their circumstances. They are not very good actresses. Also, every time a kill takes place, it is extremely uninteresting: nothing more than a tiny, dart-like, arrow piercing through the victim's chest. The unmasking of the killer is played off as if it is some great epiphany. Oh My! The killer is just a kid! Who cares? I sure didn't, and neither would anybody else who has an attention span higher than that of some kid with ADD. The artwork on the front of the box is so pretty, and the description on the back of the box is so intriguing, but don't be fooled like I was. Stay away! The only interesting part of this film was the opening credits in which one of the characters listens to the radio as it spouts information about the serial killer. There is a direct reference to the sniper who terrorized the east coast recently. The director must have seen that story on the news and thought he could play off of it. Sicko. This movie gets a 1/10.

Continued: for the people who have been bashing my comment:

You're right, this wasn't a horror movie, but it was still complete and utter garbage that contained no suspense, terrible acting, a stupid killer, awfully done death scenes, and not one hint of hope that anything good could come out of whoever made this heap of trash. HORROR FANS STAY CLEAR- this isn't horror! It's supposed to be suspense/thriller. However, it should be filed under its own specific genre of BAD. You have to agree with me here though: Lion's Gate made this film look like it was a serial killer slasher/ horror film, and for that they are total jerks! (Sorry lion's gate, I mostly Love you!)And here's the thing about the darkness: We are instinctively afraid of what we cannot see, of what could be waiting for us in the dark silence. If this movie was supposed to be suspenseful, was supposed to have a killer stalking from house to house by means of rooftop, then the movie should not have taken place entirely at the middle of the day! What kind of a stupid killer would go out and jump from rooftop to rooftop killing many people at random in the middle of suburbia during the afternoon??? You can bet he'd be caught before he got too far! Stupid movie. Stupid, STUPID movie. I could go on forever about how horrible it truly is. Maybe I will...

The dialog (some go as far to say that there is some humor in it- nope) is laughable in a 'this is so bad I can't laugh' sort of way. The lead actress say she's taken classes on serial killer behavior, and she spouts off the same clichéd information that has been recited in every serial killer movie ever made. Not to mention, the information she does know serves absolutely no purpose in the progression of the plot. It's just randomly thrown in there because the director though he had to put it in there somewhere. It comes at an unbelievably boring scene in which the girls sit around and waste time doing nothing.

People, I am in love with horror/suspense/thriller films. There are really really good ones out there. See the movies "Halloween" or "Silence of the Lambs" or "Seven" or, if you're looking for low budget, see "Open Water". I especially recommend Dario Argento's "Opera." Those are all a billion times more suspenseful than this. There is a reason that they are or have remained popular over the years. "Serial Slayer" nearly put me to sleep. Avoid it at ALL COSTS! Re-rating: 0/10. And that is the lowest and most absolute zero I can give.


You could just take this advice This is a fast buck movie, so it is to be avoided. But if you want this movie to waste even more of your life, read on.

'The hunt is on' was the tag line from this Artisan direct to video, but the hunt is hardly on in this movie. Far from claustrophobic, the movies horrid sound and camera work make you want to run away. Obviously shot on digital video, with poor performances all around, the premise is three woman house-sitting for the weekend and rudely interrupted by the well publicized 'Serial Stalker'. The plot is paper thin. It is the middle of the day in cali-suburbia, yet, these girls fear leaving the house at slight bumps. Every footstep, killer or prey, rings out like a tap dancer throwing a temper tantrum. The three 'Scares' are vastly predictable, the make up and special effects are non existent, and the dialog is total cheese. Did I mention the novel weapon is a toy crossbow that is vastly less menacing then the hunting crossbow on the promotional packaging? I don't think I could be more descriptive without being insulting, but I will. This is lower than student quality on all aspects of production and I feel bad claiming poor acting knowing that this must have been a one day shoot for Lynskey, Rappaport and Rajskub. Not their finest moment, and you can tell they know it. It also has very high saturation, not to hide the action as other reviews might suggest, but because the lighting guy mows lawns on the weekend. This is a fast buck movie, so it is to be avoided. It is a wasted 79 minutes. The only thing this movie seems to muster is novel ways to make a movie worse.


Jaw droppingly bad. The verbs and adverbs don't exist to describe this utter tripe. I actually feel a little bad reviewing this because I feel I'm only advertising it somewhat...like a lot of people curiosity got the better of me after reading the reviews...I have to say though it's a work of genius from the director to film a LOW low budget film and then come on here and deny he knew what the final cut of the film looked like...that had me on the floor...what great directing that is... The acting is bad to the extent that it simply cannot have been serious. The three girls in it are outgunning each other to see who can play it worse...I give it to the girl with the glasses simply because of the glasses..they just add that bit of unbelievability that clinches it for me...the plot is thinner than Kojack's wig...the script was written by someone clearly drunk...and the score...well...defies belief. The front cover of the DVD bares no resemblance to anything in the movie at all...the killer when revealed looks about as convincing as...well...something not very convincing...all in all a totally ghastly load of rubbish that's worth watching to see how not to make a movie... every single thing that you could do wrong is included in this film. If it is played as a double bluff I might just say well done...if it was filmed as a serious piece I'd be pointing Mr Tapio Kines towards a padded cell, a table, some straps and four electrodes...and even that wouldn't be enough.

Regards.


It probably wouldn't be fair of me to say that this is the singularly worst movie of all time. However, it certainly does rank at the bottom of the pile.

I've read the comments published to date very carefully and seen comparisons made with classic movies such as HALLOWEEN. It would not be fair to compare this movie to such classics, however it is fair to compare it to contemporary movies made with similar budgets and similar premises.

As someone who loves straight-to-DVD movies like CAMP BLOOD and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE, I was expecting another "so-bad-it's-good" movie in a similar vain when I put SERIAL SLAYER into my DVD player. What I saw on the screen was a long way departed from my expectations.

From the opening moments, this movie was obviously going to be very poor as production values go, but this did not mean it would be devoid of all merit. Indeed it could have been an unintentionally funny variation of HALLOWEEN if placed in the right hands.

Unfortunately, this movie just got worse and worse as it moved on. There is more padding than any armchair ever manufactured. In fact, the only movie I can think of with this level of padding is HG Lewis's THE GRUESOME TWOSOME. However, the director of that movie did at least make some of the padding interesting to watch in the "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way. At least 80 percent of SERIAL SLAYER consists of 3 women talking. Nothing happens at all. Hints are dropped that a stalker is creeping up on them but the producers lead this fabulous premise to absolutely nothing. As another commenter has correctly pointed out, the movie keeps stalling like a dysfunctional road vehicle. Just when it appears that something interesting is transpiring, the action comes to a halt and the seemingly never-ending boring conversations between the 3 main characters resume. Only in the last 10 minutes does anything remotely interesting happen but by this time most viewers will have given up on the endurance of watching this movie.

Judith O'Dea of NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD fame must have really needed some money to supplement her retirement pension when she made this because this is the most embarrassing production any actress of her ilk could have appeared in. Her appearance is little more than a cameo so at least she did get out of the movie in time.

Many commenters have resorted to using the daytime conditions during which the movie filming took place as a means to defending its shortcomings. However, CAMP BLOOD was also filmed entirely in daylight and did not even have the benefit of a claustrophobic indoors setting, yet it surpasses SERIAL SLAYER by miles in terms of entertainment value.

Put simply, viewing this movie just once is the very definition of an endurance exercise and most viewers accepting the challenge are going to feel the pain every second.

You have every right to doubt my review of SERIAL SLAYER but if you choose to see it, I think you will find yourself wishing you heeded the warning.

If you want to see a movie with a similar premise, try SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE or SORORITY HOUSE MASSACRE. Both movies are better paced, better acted and genuinely entertaining low-budget exercises in film-making.


Serial Slayer (2003) is a bad movie masquerading as a horror film. This movie is terrible. I have never seen such a blatant attempt to pad out a movie in a while. Scenes stretch out forever and at several points in the film, the pacing stops at a stand still. I don't know why Melanie Lynsky is in this movie, even she looks bored and unmotivated. The cast seems listless and bored. Just like the audience. Maybe this is a concept movie because by the time it was over I was waiting for a serial slayer to come and put me out of my misery.

If you're going to make a low budget movie and shoot it on video, at least make it interesting (i.e. witty dialog, kinetically charged action set pieces, gore, good directing). Lame acting, listless directing and long drawn out scenes will get you nowhere.

Toss another disc into the dust bin.

It's a shame because Melanie Lynsky is a great actress and she deserves better film projects.


Awfuly directed by Mark Tapio Kines, the camera is flickering all the time and it's impossibile to watch by audiences. The plot is a bunch of nonsense... The movie is so boring that you may fall asleep. It's nothing good to see here.

There are only 3 characters here (that doesn't look good, either) , the acting is bad and the movie itself doesn't worth a penny. It's very low on gore.

This is the worst low-budget horror I've ever seen. I don't remember seeing worst. If you want to see this, think about it first: "an imaginary killer on the rooftop". How stupid is this? I mean... what's next? A real killer in the house? You'll never get any worst than this, trust me!

1/10


I've seen some bad movies in my life time, but this movie is one of the worst. What surprises me the the most is that it got distributed outside USA. You can clearly see that this movie is made by amateurs, first of all the lighting is really bad, at one point you can't even see the person being film because the sun whites out the camera. The acting is bad, the dialogs are boring, and scenes are drawn out to make the movie longer (at least so it seems) Another thing is the sound effects. the plot in the movie spins around a serial killer going after three girls in a house. Most of the time the killer is on the roof. This results in footsteps on the roof.. But the footsteps sounds SO wrong. It actually sounds like someone walking on dry snow, only there is no snow. There are some good things about the movie though. Sheeri Rappaport who plays Gina actually plays a credible character, and at the end of the movie they manage to make it a bit scary, and for a minute your not sure how it's gonna end.

It's great that new directors get to make movies, and i understand that these guys have a limited supply of money. But distributing this around the world is ripping people off. Luckily i didn't have to pay to see it.


The script was good, a lot of the photography was good, but the lighting was abysmal. There was no effort to correct the differences in exposure between interior and exterior. The acting was a little mannered. I assume that the movie was shot digitally. The editing was very effective in some sequences and less than good in others. It almost seemed that the editor occasionally got bored and quit trying. If I seem overly critical, let me hasten to add that the movie had more good qualities than bad. However, the bottom line word is "amateurish." It really wasn't worth the hassle of driving to Culver City and shelling out five bucks.


I don't enjoy bad movies that make sad attempts at ripping off the popular genre of the time. Low Ball WISHES it was a Tarantino film ( a good Tarantino film not a bad one) but it's just a bad film filled with clichés, bad sound, bad acting, bad writing and BAD direction. I almost had a stroke during the scene where the Penthouse Pet (seriously) is tied to leather straps while a dominatrix whips her.

It's shocking when junk like this gets made- there have to be one hundred worthy scripts out there that are better then this. I know that nobody sets out to make a bad film but one would think that at some point SOMEBODY would tell the "director" or the producer that they are making a disaster. When one thinks of good first films - Swingers for instance, you just have to realize that there is no excuse for this sort of embarrassment.

Skip this.


'Lowball' is an arduously bad film, terribly (and quite irritatingly) directed by Demian Lichtenstein and with a horrendously poor and ill conceived script (again by Lichtenstein) this is a tough film to sit through and watch for all the wrong reasons.

Just the fact that it's obviously been made with an ultra low budget doesn't excuse the hideously bad editing, the atrocious sound mix (so bad that all the actors sound dubbed despite the fact that it's an American English language film!), shoddy camera work, achingly bad music score...Oh, and did I mention that this was one of the worst directed films in recent memory? Good, I'll keep mentioning it because it really is that bad.

The fact of the matter is that 'Lowball' has no saving graces whatsoever, and quite apart from being ten kinds of bad the script (if you can call it that without being sued for slander) makes no sense whatsoever, it truly is a convoluted piece of junk.

The performances, again if you can call them that, are risible at best, with even the usually dependable Peter Greene (from The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction among others) utterly terrible here. The rest of these so-called actors range from really, really bad to 'Oh my God, who hired these people?' bad, with only Amber Smith giving a (merely) passable performance.

As if to underline just how inept this film is the makers couldn't even manage to get their 'in order of appearance' cast list in the correct order, says it all really. One of those rare films that has no right to even exist in any sort of a sane world, this is truly painfully bad film making at it's worst. If you see this one in the video library run, don't walk away from it, you'll be better off in the long run, trust me.

2/10


i hated hated hated this movie. one of the worst i've ever seen, the acting is horrid, the cinematography is mediocre, and is absolutely wretched. the only thing scary about this movie is that it was ever actualy made... i just cant say enough bad things about movie.


I picked up this movie with the thought that it would be a low-grade campy, poorly written, poorly acted, and poorly shot horror film, but it would at least be entertaining.

I was right about everything but the last bit.

There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The action sequences are awful, looking as though they were choreographed by a drunk homeless man the crew picked up off the streets of Tokyo. The writing is done in similar fashion, though perhaps "drunk homeless man" gives too much credit to the writing team. They may have taken the "100 monkeys at typewriters" metaphor literally, because that is the only remotely feasible explanation I can come up with for this nonsense. The acting is terrible, with the title character looking like constipated cardboard 95% of the time and looking like the East Bunny with Dracula fangs the other 5% (more on that travesty later.).

The movie itself resembles nothing more than a series of poorly edited clips that aren't even cut together in the correct order. There are several moments where something like this will happen: a character will fall over with no bullet wound, there will be a close-up shot of a gun firing, then another view of the dead character (now complete with gunshot wound to the head) in a totally different room than the one that they died in, in a completely different position! Also, the movie looks as though it were assembled of entirely first takes. There looks to be absolutely no effort and even less talent on the part of the camera/directing crew.

The final nail in the coffin has got to be the horrendous "special" effects. Bottle rockets for bullets. These "bullets" actually caused the only laugh for me in this movie as they were ricocheting off of the PAPER WALLS. Plastic skeletons. Rubber monsters. Sword sound effects that sound as though they were ripped straight from the first season of the "Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" TV show. Gallons of fake blood erupting out of the most ridiculous places. While excessive blood is usually funny in a movie of this style, in this case it feels as though they are trying to pass it off as serious. Never a good thing. Lastly, this ridiculous "werewolf" suit that resembles nothing so much as a mange-ridden Easter Bunny with Dracula fangs.

If I could rate this movie lower than a 1, I would.


I just don't know what to say about this movie. It was really bad. It was slow, subdue, uneventful, I literally feel asleep during it, it truly was a chore to watch. I eventually skipped to the "action" parts and this movie still came up empty handed.

Seriously though, I couldn't help but think about how good of a anime movie this would have made. It had all the elements there of a decent action cartoon. Oh and some of the goofy blood squirting effects were pretty funny too. Just try to envision an R rated Power Rangers movie (which still sounds better than this movie) and see what you think of "CRAP", I mean "Kibakihchi".


You read the summary? Yes? Then there is no need to say anything else about this movie.You got to see it yourself to believe how bad it is.

The story is a idiotic piece of sh*t with an absolutely silly message. The acting is wooden as hell. The creatures are as frightening as the Muppet's and the action is lame. The make-up department doesn't even reach work seen in Star Trek: Next Genration. The Crew doesn't seem to be very skilled at all. Uwe Boll is a directing genius in comparison to Tomoo Haraguchi. But I have to admit that the editing work is acceptable.

This picture isn't even worth to be called trash. It's just a big waste of time.


A pretentious eccentricity: a virtually unrecognizable modernization of the Joan Of Arc tale (with the heroine now a drug addict-turned-nurse-turned-whorish miracle maker!) which, of all things, is also an opera sung in Hungarian! I only included it in the “Epic” challenge for this reason and had, in fact, intended to watch Carl Theodor Dreyer’s 1928 masterpiece THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC as part of a marathon to commemorate the 40th anniversary of his death…but had to abandon the whole idea and, in the process, considerably streamline the schedule for the rest of the month following an unexpected death in the family which turned into a national tragedy!

Incidentally, Roberto Rossellini had already made a film out of Arthur Honnegger’s opera JOAN OF ARC AT THE STAKE (1954; which has, thankfully, just been released as a SE DVD in Italy) featuring the director’s then-wife Ingrid Bergman; I haven’t watched this yet but did recently acquire the latter’s earlier 1948 film about the famous inspirational but misunderstood warrior-saint. The film under review, then, is original to be sure and mercifully short – but also rather pointless...to say nothing of dismal-looking, dreary and thoroughly depressing! Having said that, some of the music – particularly the children’s choruses – is quite pleasing, though...


I'm so glad to know that I've already seen the worst movie of my life.. This was a ridiculous movie, both story and acting were so bad, that I could only leave the theater with a smile on my face, knowing no movie would ever beat this one! You should know I watch art-house-movies on a regular basis, but this one went way too far in trying to renew the fine art of movie-making.

I must say I'm not a great fan of opera, so that may have been quite good. For those who do like opera, maybe you should rent this movie, but make sure you turn of your TV-screen and that you don't understand a word of the Hungarian language.. Seriously, those things will ruin your experience.


Kornel Mundruczo's "Johanna" is a cinematic mess, "full of sound and fury,/Signifying nothing." With its garish (green) colours and flared images, a mediocre score and lame libretto, the film is well below par. It would be generous to say this film looks more like a bloated, experimental undergraduate student film from the 1970's. Set aside films such as Ingmar Bergman's acclaimed "The Magic Flute" (1975), Joseph Losey's version of Mozart's "Don Giovanni" (1979)," Carlos Saura's flamenco "Carmen" (1983), and Francesco Rosi's 1984 production of the same material, lead by a cast of international opera stars, as being too mainstream and conventional. Mundruczo's "Johanna", supposedly a retelling of the story of Joan of Arc, is lurid and dimwitted. It is the sort of film to which the jaded cinematic "cognoscenti" ascribe all manner of praise for its director's brave vision and deep meaning, but don't be fooled. I watched the entire film, but I'd suggest that you don't. You'll be checking your watch after ten minutes, thinking an hour has passed, wondering if your time would be better spent doing something else. It would.


It is a terrible bad film, do not waste your time to disturb you with it. It is without any story, very bad music. At the half of the film I left it, which occurred only second time in my life. The film suggests that the medical doctors are not able to treat any patient and that paramedical therapies are much more useful. It is declared for instance that a patient who would need a liver transplantation could be healed by sex therapy given by Johanna. I can not imagine what could be in the brain of the director. The pictures are also depressing, the whole film is very unpleasant and misses any taste and good human feeling. As a medical doctor I am especially upset with the content of this film.


With a name like "Karate Cop", what are you really expecting? This movie is a perfect example of a brainless, bizarre, early 90s action movie. It has terrible acting, has a plot with as many holes as swiss cheese, and stars a third-rate Chuck Norris clone (ouch!) and David Carradine (who is only in one scene and gets killed).

That said, my circle of friends enjoyed this movie because we have a soft spot for god-awful movies. So if you enjoy MST3K, frequent the IMDb's Bottom 100, and love to make fun of Norris, Segal, Van Damme, and Stallone than this movie is worth a look on a Sunday night, possibly after a few too many beers. Otherwise, avoid like the plague.


If you ever want to make a direct-to-video martial-arts movie, just watch 'Karate Cop' and take some notes. You will be well on your way to creating your very own direct-to-video karate video. Awesome.

John Travis (Ron Marchini) is the last cop on Earth. What exactly happened to the rest of the police or what caused this post-apocalyptic vision of Earth is never quite revealed. At all. In fact, it was only viewing 'Karate Cop' and looking it up on IMDb that it was a sequel to something called 'Omega Cop'. Anyway, John's a pretty busy guy, being the last cop on Earth and everything. He saves Rachel (Carrie Chambers) who turns out to be a scientist AND the leader of the 'Freebies', a group of freedom fighters who resemble Peter Pan's lost boys more than fighting rebels. Offered hot food, Travis offers to do some errands for Rachel, including karate-ing the local gang led by Lincoln (D.W. Landingham).

Did I mention that David Carradine makes an appearance? I guess that was just assumed.

'Karate Cop' reeks of being straight-to-video. Most of the dialog is irrelevant, and generally consists of Travis talking to himself. As for acting... Well. Here's what I think happened: Every time one of the actors made an attempt at acting, that actor was beaten until they learned to stand there remembering lines instead of actually acting. That is the most logical explanation I can think of. With the exception of Lincoln and Lincoln's champion (Michael M. Foley), the bad guys strike me as being 'inspired' by '1990: The Bronx Warriors', an obscure Italian movie which was itself 'inspired' by 'Escape From New York'. It may be a stretch to make these comparisons, but hey, I call them as I see them. As for Lincoln, he reminds me of Mojo from 'X-Men' and the Champion is nothing but a Bolo Yeung clone. Awesome.

As an action movie, it is VERY cheap. Ron Marchini spends most of his on-screen time anti-acting, beating people up or hiding from bullets and explosions. 'Karate Cop' is definitely one of those movies that will entertain if you enjoy mindless b-movies. None of the action scenes are of any mentionable quality, but hey, what do you expect?

'Karate Cop' is just a b-grade action movie. If that's your thing, check it out. It is a poor movie, but sure to entertain some - 3/10


OK, hardly anyone can act. They try to put some energy into it though so that helps, but most of the people in here just have little to no acting skills whatsoever. The films has some sort of charm but it drags (I nodded off to sleep a time or two) and there really isn't much going for this film, but amazingly, I have still seen worse. There seems to be some sort of care put into this picture. The small cameo with David Carradine is OK, Carrie Chambers is well endowed, and then there is SNAKER. Snaker is one of the best thing about the film. I liked Snaker. "Snaker gonna make you pay!! Snaker gonna make EVERYBODY PAY!!!" With a little more effort, this film could have been in the category of the Italian post-apocalyptic knock offs like 2019 After The Fall Of New York, Bronx Warriors, etc. The film is worth a dollar and that's what I paid for it. I wouldn't want to have pay much more than that. Maybe two dollars. Maybe.


I will at least give the filmmakers credit for making their intentions (and level of aspiration) known right up front - with a title like "Karate Cop", the viewer knows EXACTLY what he's getting, and also how good it's likely to be. (I.E.,not very good).

I also admit that this Ron Marchini film is far, far better than an earlier film I saw that that he "starred" in ("Death Machines") because he actually has dialog to deliver in this one (in "DM" he was a silent zombie killing machine) and he gets to kick people in the face on a regular basis (where in DM, the actual fights were few and dully staged). Ron's no actor, but he's in good shape, is reasonably photogenic, and doesn't seem to take himself too seriously. There are times in the movie where you can glimpse why a director thought he could be properly framed and featured to make a decent movie. Not a great movie, but a decent one. And since this movie is so much better than "Death Machines", if his acting and roles had continued and kept improving, I estimate he might have eventually been as as Don "The Dragon" Wilson.

"Karate Cop" is also better in two ways than the stream of similar post-apocalyptic themed Italian rip-offs of "Max Max" and "Escape From New York" because it appears to have been made by Americans. That means there isn't the annoying "tin-eared ESL dubbing" problem that always drags the Italian films down a notch. And there's a lot more martial-arts themed fighting and gladiatorial style combat in this one than in the typical Italian genre ripoff,and it's choreographed with admirable energy and zest. Of course, that's probably a given with a title like "Karate Cop". But it is also worse in the score for the soundtrack, which is obviously scored and performed by one guy with a synthesizer. It's like listening to a kazoo for 90 minutes - even when it's skillfully played, there's just too much synth, and it's way too insistent.

And you have to have an actual screenplay, acting, and dialog to hang those fight scenes on; otherwise you might just as well be playing a video game like "Final Fight". And this is where the movie falls way short. Even in a "Z" grade movie, you need to have a compelling plot that makes sense, but someone wrote this one with their frontal lobes in "neutral". And you need a few people who can really act, at least a little. Aside from Ron Marchini, "Snakey" probably has the best lines and gives the best performance of the cast, and the actor who plays the "Drug Lord" at least looks as if he's having a good time. But the rest of the cast, even the extras (especially the kids in the cast) couldn't get on stage in the local community theater.

And as for the the rest of it....sheesh. I don't know why directors working with poverty level budgets think they can get away with incorporating science fiction themes. Good SF requires a lot of time and talent and craft to get decent results. You have to engage in "world building" to make it work; you can't just dress the cast up in Salvation Army handouts and headbands and pretend that rubble strewn back alleys with graffiti on the walls are the shattered remains of a civilization. A fog machine is for dinner theaters - it isn't scene design.

"Death Machines" was an insult to me as a movie consumer. But for $1, I feel I got my money's worth from "Karate Cop". I can always use the DVD as a drinks coaster if I don't want to watch it again.


This was a great martial arts film starring John Travis,(Ronald L. Marchini) who finds himself living in the world as the last cop on earth. John has a hat that reads: "Special Cop" who runs into all kinds of horrible looking men and women who want to kill the last cop on earth. John Travis meets up with a woman named Rachel, (Carrie Chambers) who is badly beaten up, Rachel tries to protect all the children in the various surrounding cities and they call them Free-Bees and she offers them a nice shelter to live in. Rachel is also a scientist who has knowledge of Teleportation which can transport people from one area in the country to another, something like a time machine. However, Rachel has a broken crystal which enables her to transport human beings into other places. Rachel asks John Travis to assist her in obtaining this crystal which she tells John he should have no problems in trying to secure this new crystal, which turns out to be very false statement to John. There is plenty of action in the B film with horrible acting, but lots of fun to just watch and enjoy.


In the future the world has been depleted to an incredibly cheap movie set, where bionic meat-heads live to beat each other up, whether it be in gladiator combat or priceless crystals which look like something you could buy at a garage sale. Oh and are our hero in question (Played not so well by Richard Marchini) must compete in a tournament that the winner gets to have a woman for whatever purposes they wish to fulfill with her. Karate Cop is a title that makes little sense, since while Richard Marchini knows martial arts and is a futuristic law enforcer, being that there is obviously no law in this phony futuristic scenario, can one still be considered a police officer, if you no longer have a public to serve? Such philosophical questions are wasted on useless movies such as this. The main reason we watch this is for the involvement of one said David Carradine, too bad he is barely in it, which of course is a gigantic letdown. Also why do bad Mad Max rip off have to be this putrid? The fight sequences themselves aren't very good but the worst thing about this is just how deadly dull this thing is to watch. Still there is no denying the unintentional laughs that come from the unconvincing sets and special effects which look as if they were filmed on a budget lower than most pornos.

* out of 4-(Bad)


This is a real bad movie. I can live with bad movies, but when it's a bad sequel to a bad original, than apparently the makers choose not to learn. Even when it's your own movie and you're proud of it, you just have to admit that the original was a bad film.

I gave this movie a 3, instead of a 1, but only because they got this movie made and released with practically no budget, which I respect. But this collection of bad acting, bad fighting, no story etc. on tape deserves no better point.

The only enjoyable thing is Michael M. Foley (Lincoln's champion) who seems to enjoy his part (bad as it is) and someone who enjoys his role is fun to watch.

But for fans of sci-fi, there is none. For fans of martial arts, there are no good fights. You may skip this.


John Wayne had been making low budget movies for almost 15 years when he starred with Claire Trevor in the William Seiter directed "Allegheny Uprising". He must have felt his career was going backwards as the production values here are second rate even by the marginal standards of his earlier films. Cast before the release of "Stagecoach", he and Trevor were given a more central role in "Allegheny Uprising" as it is not an ensemble piece like "Stagecoach".

The new popularity of the two B-Movie actors required P. J. Wolfson to alter his adaptation of Neil Swanson's novel "The First Rebel". In place of his straight historical fiction action- adventure tale (based on the Smith's Rebellion and Fort Loudoun in southern Pennsylvania) Wolfson was forced to add a romance and pad Trevor's role. Unfortunately adapting a novel to the screen is difficult enough without having to insert a character utterly irrelevant to a story already too expansive for easy adaptation. Contemporary viewers will find the forced insertion of Trevor into most of the scenes rather puzzling, at least in part because she has little going for herself as an actress or a screen presence. The younger John Wayne was much better when paired with talented leading ladies like Ella Raines and Cecilia Parker.

Set in Pennsylvania's Conococheague Valley in 1759, Wayne plays title character James Smith who returns to the valley with a friend called The Professor (John Frank Hamilton). They find the local British commander (George Sanders) a martinet and a local civilian (Brian Donley) trading contraband goods (whiskey and weapons) with the Indians, in league with some corrupt soldiers.

Trevor plays Janie MacDougall, a loud tomboy who loves Smith and manages to insert herself into his affairs at every turn.

1939 was not a good time for a movie which portrayed our soon to be allies (insert the British here) as stupid and corrupt. And southern California was not a good location for shooting a film about colonial America. There are far too many shots of grassy, almost treeless, California valleys to maintain the necessary geographical illusion. Also jarring is the contemporary dialogue which leaves you expecting Mickey Rooney and Lewis Stone to pull up outside the fort in the family sedan.

When not painful, the inattention to period detail is unintentionally amusing. My favorite scene involves the British soldiers laughing at the idea of the settlers taking over the fort. It will remind you of the "Robin Huck" episode of "Huckleberry Hound" where he exhorts his merry men to "yuk it up a bit" and they respond by going "yuk, yuk, yuk".

All in all, a weak example of the B-movie product.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


The senior Dumas' novel is turned into a knockoff of THE PRISONER OF ZENDA -- although as I have never read this Dumas novel, it may simply be returning the compliment.

Director Karlson is not able to raise much of a performance from anyone except from Anthony Quinn, who plays his slimily villainous role with the appropriate cool aplomb. Still and all, besides the pleasures of Anthony-Quinn-watching, Karlson does manage to shoot the entire procedure with a goodly amount of visual beauty, with an MGM-style sumptuousness well displayed. Aside from these two point, however, this one is pretty much a washout.


Don't know how these good reviews came about. Must have been related to the actors. This is beyond atrocious. Let me count the ways: 1. cringingly over-acted by supposed 'high school' students who look about twenty-five years old. They even ride a little yellow bus to school. Totally absurd. My 5 year old niece has performed "I'm a Little Teapot" with more skill. Hell, she's like Brando next to these people. 2. the killer, once revealed, chases the unsuspected 'teens' through a warehouse whilst slowly meandering around taking her old sweet time to do her 'deeds'. Of course the 'teens' can't get away from her despite her slow knife-wielding saunter through the hallways-- she's like Michael Myers with a D cup. (Although that is an insult to Michael Myers.) 3. the 'teens', whilst running from this hideous frightening killer (who wears a snarl like she's posing for her 'high school' picture on a bad hair day), look like they studied acting with cartoon characters right down to the double takes, the "I want to get away, someones chasing me, but I think I'll stand here and wait for her to come down the hall", and rounding the corners as if wearing clown shoes. I could go on, but suffice it to say, in a few final words: avoid like the plague. Although even the plague would be preferable.


I seriously cannot think of why anyone would give this movie a 10/10. Sure we all have different taste in films, but to call this movie perfect is absurd in my opinion. I have nothing against the fact, that this indeed is a low-budget movie. I like plenty of low-budget movie. Its not the budget that makes the movie good, its the acting and the plot, but sadly this movie lacks in both areas.

Okay, the acting wasn't completely bad - actually it was pretty average and what you would expect from a movie of this sort. This movie could however use an actor who really took the movie to that next level, but I'm sorry to say that no one even came close. The actors seemed to lack of strong reactions which I think the movie could use. Come on, your friends are dead and you are trapped in a storage facility - wouldn't you go nuts? I'm not saying they all should act like lunatics, but they could at least show some emotions.

The story - well. I guess its okay. A bunch of friends playing a killing game and someone starts dying for real. Its acceptable for this kind of movie. Its not trying to win Oscars, its trying to entertain - and scare the crap out of people. The thing is, in this case they just didn't put in enough effort to make it work.

And these twists people talk about - did we see the same movie? This was pretty much straight-forward. Just because you don't figure out the killer, doesn't make it a plot-twist when you find out who it is. If there even was a plot-twist it must have been a pretty dull one, because I missed it completely.

But hey, it wasn't all bad. I did finish it, didn't I? No seriously, its passable. I don't regret spending around 80 minutes seeing it and I've seen worse movies - thats for sure. Having said that, its not a movie I'd catch again or buy on DVD.

For the average movie fan I would not recommend this movie. Devoted fans of the teenage-horror film genre may like it however, I wouldn't know.


This plot seems to be exactly like the one in the danish movie "Mørkeleg" from 1996.

The plot in that one:

"Four high school friends meet up in an abandoned house to play 'Backstabbed', a game of murder with headphones and plastic weapons. Meanwhile, a serial killer is leaving a trail of blood on his way to the house, and soon the game of murder becomes much more than make-believe"

And that also sucked!

How about the writers making their own movie, or at least label it with a "re-make" sticker!

In my opinion, the movie gets even worse when you figure out that you have seen it all before.

And what the hell is up with you guys and the "hot chicks" A movie has never been better because of "hot chicks" Rent a porno flick, at least they have better plots!


This film is complete and utter garbage, I found myself watching it after seeing an above average review on a horror forum.

Every single thing about murder game was bad, I cannot think of one thing that was remotely good about this film. The acting, the effects, the plot(lack of) and the actors(where do they find these people) and the location(whole thing looked like it had been filmed in someones garage). They could have at least upped the gore and thrown in a lot of gratuitous nudity which might have helped but I doubt it. I don't know who's been paid off but there a few above average reviews of this film around and it makes no sense, some even say how in touch the makers are with the real horror fan, a classic homage to traditional slashers, they must have watched a different film.

Budget horror is great but rubbish like this will probably put people of funding it!


I don't usually write comments because most movies have at least one point, or moral, or meaning of something of common interest! So did the actors not show up for production and they had the cast wing it? because if that's the case then I retract my statement. Otherwise for all who rated this with anything above 3 stars (I'm being generous)should be banned from misleading future viewers. Unless of course you enjoyed the acting in the educational films they showed throughout years of school. Thank god I didn't buy it, although when i'm on my death bed and cannot stay awake long enough to say my farewells to my grandchildren, and children so forth I will remember that this was the 87 min of my life i'm never getting back ! ! !


I sat down to watch this show in the hope of some good entertainment. I was very disappointed. The design elements of the show are paper thin. The costumes are all pristine, the boats look like they are just out of the boatyard and these must me the cleanest pirates I have ever seen. Very poor. I was hoping for something from the direction but unfortunately this has been shot like an episode of Dallas. I dread to think how much money was wasted on this when there are fantastic scripts waiting to be made for a fraction of the cost. An obvious attempt to hang onto the coat tails of Pirates of the Caribean and pick up the scraps but it even fails in this attempt.


I don't claim to be an expert on Blackbeard, in fact like many of us I really have just a basic understanding of who he was. Not a passing understanding mind you, that would be basically be knowing that he was a pirate and maybe knowing his real name was Edward Teach. A basic understanding would mean knowing the name of the ship he's associated with the most (Queen Anne's Revenge, which was a French ship he captured and renamed), he's associated with the then English colony of North Carolina among other places, that the governor of the colony of Virginia sent Maynard after him because the governor of NC was to friendly with him. Things of that nature.

Now knowing these things, when I saw ads for this movie I was eagerly anticipating this movie. I knew it wasn't going to stick strictly to the facts, what historical movie does? But I expected them to be much more of a guideline than what was presented. Yet for the most part the facts were thrown out the window to present us with a movie that should have been called "The Hunt for Kidd's Treasure." Because that's really what this movie was about, finding Captain Kidd's treasure.

In that they could have used practically any pirate to be alive at any point after Kidd's death. Not only that, they could have created a pirate or said forget the pirates and just use anyone wishing to find the treasure. For that matter they could have set it at just about any time after his death, even today. But by using Blackbeard they ensured there would be a built in audience.

As a movie by itself, if one heavily ignores the director and screenwriter playing fast and loose with history, it's mildly entertaining. The intrigue coming in two ways, firstly Blackbeard and Maynard's interaction in searching for the treasure together, secondly the corrupt governor of an apparent colony in the Caribbean as he looks to hide his truth from his adopted daughter and his citizens. Maynard apparently is sent to deal with Blackbeard by someone else entirely and essentially ends up shanghaied into the pirate's crew, where he hides his real nature, and rather successfully until the time comes for him to save some folks. Meanwhile, the governor and his essentially second in command have been working with pirates for a while now and are willing to team up with Blackbeard so as to get their share of his prizes. Unfortunately for them his adopted daughter falls for Maynard and becomes suspicious of what they are up too.


Living in Bristol where Blackbeard lived and drank in a pub that still stands today, I thought I would give this a try. I was left disappointed, at what potentially could of been very good. The acting is poor to say the least, and the story line was never something that had you gripped from the start. The story trickled along at a pace that never threatened to speed up, which left me Un-exited throughout.

Although I don't know too many of the historical facts about Blackbeard, I was always led to believe Blackbeard to be the most feared pirate in his day. I never got that impression during the film,which again left me disappointed. If you're going to make a film about Blackbeard, at least give him an edge, make us dislike him. Although I can't say i'm an expert on dental hygiene from the 1700's, I was amazed at how many pirates had white teeth, just something else that didn't make it feel like a true pirate film.


Based on the descriptions appearing on the front and back cover of the movie case, one would expect this movie to chronicle the life and times of Blackbeard. Instead the movie focuses more on a fictional love story than the historical figure for which it is titled.

Blackbeard's more notable conquests and actions are not even eluded to. One would think given 169 minutes they might have squeezed in a little something more. His reputation with no specifics is only referenced.

This film unfortunately is primarily focused on a fictional love story. There are far more elements of fiction than fact in this film.

In short, much like judging a book by it's cover, do not buy/view this movie based on it's box.


Unbelievable. A comic book version of Blackbeard's story. Don't waste your money renting this insipid, historically-inaccurate tripe. The setting, which should have been North Carolina and Virginia, is some mythical Caribbean colony. The actors are wasted on a script filled with stock heroes and villains. Nothing is even faintly true to the facts, except for the historic character names. The whole thing reminded me me of a Classic's Illustrated version of a greater work. The only audience this will appeal to is the kiddies, since it's done on their level anyway. Production values are generally good, but some of the night scenes are murky. Unfortunately, good tech credits can't even begin to redeem this cynical joke. If you are looking for an adult viewing experience I'd advise you to look elsewhere.


Really, Its hard to find words for how bad this was. I lasted half an hour and then I just couldn't stand any more. Its not just that the acting and script were bad, and they were, the setting, costumes and general atmosphere were so wrong that a bad film failed even to transport you to the world it was meant to portray which might at least have made me watch a bit more of it.

I was put off right at the beginning by Edward Teach (Blackbeard) having a Scottish accent when of course he was English. Angus MacFadyen can act English why didn't he? Stacy Keach looked embarrassed as well he should and Richard Chamberlain tried to rise above it but his costume prevented him. Thailand does not look like the West Indies and the Thais don't look like African slaves.

the acting was truly awful and the script sounded like a teenager had written it after watching a few old movies. The costumes were particularly awful. Richard Chamberlain's looked like a High School pantomime costume and the wigs looked as if someone had once seen a picture of an English lawyer and tried to reproduce it from memory with cotton wool. About the only decent thing in it was the ships and the at sea sequences where at least they'd spent a bit of money.

I know it was Hallmark but they can do an reasonable enough job, Moby Dick was OK, this was bad, bad, bad. So bad I felt insulted and bitterly resented the rental fee. If you're thinking about watching it don't, just look out the window for an hour its bound to be more entertaining.


I picked this film up based on the Cover, A Mini-Series for cheap. I got less than what I paid for. The Complete lack of Continuity, or any other production value for that matter, is Appalling. Had I been hired for this cast, I'd have left based on the poor writing alone.

I'll not confuse Larry for Barry Levinson again.

I feel sorry for Poor Stacy Keach having to have his name attached to this Crap. This Film is worse than most High School Plays, let alone your local Community Theater.

I hope Angus Macfadyen got paid well enough for His outstanding Performance. As BlackBeard he alone captures the Attention that his role demands, despite the sad performance of the Writer. HIs performance alone kept me from tearing the disc out and launching it through an open window.


A few nights ago I was flipping through the channels and I came upon a treasure chest full of sh**(Blackbeard), but being the generous soul I am I decided to give this movie a chance: That was my first mistake. I hated this movie from start to finish, because I quickly learned that Blackbeard was a Captain Jack Sparrow wannabe. He dressed like Sparrow; walked, talked and acted like Sparrow and just might be the "next best thing" but not quite Sparrow! Sorry I lied Blackbeard isn't "the next best" at anything, the pirate that was at my third birthday party was more of man then Blackbeard. It doesn't end there, this movie wouldn't be complete without Zoroish Bandits, Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann, Governor Swann, and Bad-Acting Pirates. Note this people I wasn't expecting much when I started watching this "film" and I use the term loosely, I just expected at least a history channel esq documentary at best, but instead I got a Pirates of the Caribbean rip off. I would rather play in a radioactive waste dump then endure another 160 minutes of this piece of trash. So, I hope this film rots at the bottom of Davey Jones' Locker with the rest of the Pirates of the Caribbean rip offs.


This Two Parter, which is meant to be the story of Blackbeard is an absolute stinker.

The plot is paper-thin, the script is awful, the acting densely wooden, it is historically inaccurate, even the ships appear to be from the wrong period.

Richard Chamberlain (God help him) tries to act, but fails miserably, the accents of the Pirate crew veer from comically "English Van Dykian" to New York via Devon and all stops in between.

It was bad it was not even funny, I have never seen a worse piece of "entertainment" - and I've seen a few.

I suspect that the Director has a bright future as a traffic cop.

Avoid like scurvy. Unless forced to walk the plank.


It's a little disgusting how little people actually research a subject before they make a movie on it. It guess that some writers feel that fact just isn't important, and it's a shame the actual history behind Black Beard is far more interesting than this mockery. Very few things in this movie is even close to the actual events. It's a shame that North Carolina doesn't even have a single part in this, but i guess the people who shot the movie was more interested in shooting in different locations. It's not even closely accurate about where Blackbeard was captured... last time i checked Ocrocoke Island didn't have the mountains that were shown in the movie. Even worse that they cut out the Governor of Virginia altogether.


I was so excited about the premiere of Blackbeard. I spent four years on the island where he was killed by Lt. Maynard. While on the island, I researched the life and livelihood of the pirates that frequented the area. Edward Teach, alias Blackbeard, stood out above the rest. A colorful character who could read and write-rare for men in that age-and had considerable social graces, he was quite a hit among the ladies. The movie was almost a complete fabrication, containing little truth and ignoring the fascinating facts about this former servant to the Queen of England's, escapades. For the record, the life of Edward Teach, one of many servants turned vigilante, was far more exciting than the way this hoax depicts him. There were the numerous battles over ships, the ships he won through those battles, the smoking hat when he boarded a ship and the fact that he was caught in a sandbar in the Pamplico Sound while trying to flee from Lt. Maynard. And what of Lt. Maynard? Maynard pursued Teach because of a $1000 bounty (in 1718) offered by the Governor of Virginia to anyone who would capture and/or kill Blackbeard. Maynard overwhelmed Teach's fleet with firepower, and personally defeated him on deck of one of Teach's ships, then paraded through the area with Blackbeard's head dangling from the bow of the ship. Maynard himself bought an island in the Caribbean, supposedly with the $1000 he won for having slain Blackbeard. Most of us know that even then, an island could not be purchased for $1000. I think the movie should have stuck to the facts. They are far more exciting than the movie itself. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction!


I just watched the laugh-fest that is 'Flight 93'.

The most hilarious thing about that BS was the fact that just about all of the relatives receiving phone calls were holding small babies when they took the calls! I was just thinking 'bloody hell, how many more of these people are going to be holding babies?' when the Mark Bingham call was made. The next scene was at the Bingham's residence, and they were all holding babies! Not just one, but about three or four; fμck!ng hell, I lost count there were so many! Still laughing now! But the clincher was when that light aircraft was reporting a visual sighting of flight 93. "Take evasive action" ground control radioed to the GA pilot. Then the light plane flew right around and over flight 93, as it was in a 450kt+ decent! I nearly pi$$ed myself! What a fantastic movie! You do believe me, don't you? lol.


This movie in my opinion was an embarrassment. In every scene there are children playing in their houses and outside even thought school was in session during the time this occurred. Not that I'm siding with the terrorists but the the terrorists in this movie were given no personality or emotion. Every scene was a passenger talking on the phone to a relative and bursting into tears. Whenever they showed the families at their homes on the ground the have a kid in their arm and there would be 20 kids playing basketball and riding bikes outside. When the passengers rise against the terrorists it is very brave but they show the passengers pouring water on the terrorists when the are down. What the heck is water going to do! It was also so stupid that the plane was shown going out of control only a few hundred feet over a farmer and then crashing. After the plane crash the movie keeps going on and on with pointless melodramatic scenes. Just more of Hollywood trying to use way too much melodrama. UNITED 93 WAS SO MUCH BETTER!


Think about this sentence next time you watch it this shitty movie you'll lol forever.

Enough with the god damn babies and unsubtle and shameless appeal to emotion. It's disgusting.

First time it starts off as hatred for the terrorists.

Second time it's disapproval of the direction style.

Third time it's hatred for writers and directors.

Fourth time you end up hating Hollywood.

By the 15th time you've already signed up for al qaeda and your on your way to a flag burning.

I really have nothing more to say but I'm going to type this because IMDb has this weird 10 line minimum so here goes.

Religion {all major ones) have caused the large large majority of wars and hatred thought history.

Christianity, Islam, Judaism are the most destructive organization of people in the history of man kind.


It was proved shortly after 9/11 that flight 93 landed and was evacuated to a NASA base and the supposed crash site had no debris from a commercial jet, no bodies, even the coroner was quoted as saying, "I stopped being coroner after 20 minutes. Til this day I've not seen one drop of blood. Not one." Your government lied about the entire 9/11 tragedy. In the courts of ancient Greece it was asked, "Who Stands To Gain?" or "Who Profits?" Study the facts and see who really stood to gain from 9/11! WWW.INFOWARS.COM WWW.PRISONPLANET.COM The Government needed a crisis to convince the people to willingly give up their liberty in exchange for safety. Now the painful facts are in. The dark forces of global government are funding, training and protecting terrorist networks worldwide. "911: The Road to Tyranny" documents the ruthless history of governments orchestrating terrorist attacks against their own people to scare them into total submission. In this brutal expose you will witness the birth of a global police state that surpasses Orwell's nightmarish vision. It's all here: the history of government-sponsored terrorism, the modern implementation of fear-based control and, most frightening of all, the New World Order's future plans. This is one film you cannot afford to ignore. The future of free people everywhere is at stake.


Note to director Peter Markle: if you're going to create a tribute to nobodies who become somebodies due to an airline tragedy, if you're going to grease the wheels of racism and jingoism with agitprop, if you're hoping to effectively manipulate and exploit the charged emotions of your audience - don't use a toy plane for your exterior shots!

Chronicling the events that might have occurred onboard United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001 (the flight that Al Qaeda probably refer to as "the one that got away"), the television movie *Flight 93*, written by Nevin Schreiner, has all the earmarks of media created for inserting aspirin ads between: television actors vying at Oscar nods for their crying scenes, unnecessarily unsteady hand-held camera-work to compensate for the small-screen lack of verve, all the characters from upper middle class neighborhoods, cherishing their idyllic lives of whimsy  car commercial

*Flight 93* is a far cry from the distanced objectivity and smooth tension of Paul Greengrass' theatrically-released *United 93* (Apr 2006). This movie is less a document on what might have transpired that day as what Americans would *like* to have transpired, to paint their dead relatives as red-white-and-blue as possible.

This jumble of crassness would retain more credibility and tragedy were it not for the insistence of the media and families of the deceased in forcing the mantle of "hero" onto the departed, and disparaging anyone who would challenge their re-wrought aesthetic on heroism.

In a society that defines its heroes by the number of touchdowns or home runs they score, it becomes second nature to endow that appellation on people actually doing something worthwhile, like battling for their lives (despite the fact that that's tangential to heroism).

The current definition of heroism now encapsulates twenty guys rushing one teenager with a box-cutter and a fake bomb, and after discovering the bomb to be fake, still beating the teenager to death  heroically, of course  with no trial. (Whether this happened or not, we will never know, yet the knee-jerk vengeance perpetrated in the film is applauded.) A hero can also be defined as someone remaining in their seat and whimpering, as many of the women did. And in blanketing everyone onboard Flight 93 as a hero, I guess that includes the pilots and passengers who were stabbed to death early, before the action even got underway, whose only contribution to the cause was, "Hey, wait a minute  urk!"

And anyone who doesn't acquiesce to terming these people "heroes" is a terrorist themselves. That's mighty white of America.

Say what you will about the terrorists (I'm sure you do), but they brought a certain unity to families that day  let's face it, any factor that compels that many people to say "I love you" to one another, must be doing something along the lines of Christmas  that's the only other time you'll hear so many insincere sentiments, expressed because "it's the right thing to say" in deference to the circumstances. After the fiftieth love proclamation (ten Chick Flicks back-to-back don't have this many love proclamations), one could assume that tear-jerking device was wearing thin, but Markle and Schreiner are intent on visiting every single passenger's clean home and well-groomed family unit to stress how monstrous this  bank commercial

Insufferably intrusive music, by Velton Ray Bunch, blankets everyone's Long Goodbye and is used solely to manipulate your Weeping Nerve. A strange, repetitive music effect accompanies the Flight Control Center scenes, which made me want to shoot the TV.

Meanwhile, military bases pretend confusion and three 1800 mph F-16s pretend that they can't catch a 500 mph Boeing 757.

Even whilst denouncing it as exploitation, this is exactly the type of biased, redneck media that America thrives on; a culture which takes anything educative, empowering, enlightening, tragic or morbid and turns it into mindless B-grade "entertainment." Whilst the Towers were still upright and smoking, somewhere in Hollywood, a movie exec's amoral mind was ticking over with shot angles and how to pitch this disaster as a theatrical release, while a television exec's mind was simultaneously projecting how much advertising time he could sell during a Movie of the Week based on this calamity. Doubt this? Here's the evidence!

United Airlines Flight 93 was a tragedy, yes. Unnecessary, yes. If you want to think of your lost love as a hero, do so. Don't try to force me to do the same. That's what got us into this mess in the first place.


This movie is total fiction! The big problem is that it has been researched and shown that there were no plane phones on UA 93. Upon research, it has also been shown that it was virtually impossible to use cell phones in 2001 at that height & speed.

Also, no plane parts were found at the supposed impact point. There were parts found up to eight miles away from the impact point. This would mean that UA 93 either exploded in air by a bomb or was shoot down by a fighter jet.

Finally, there were no passengers with Arab names on the flight manifest for UA 93.

Wake up and do some research (911blogger.com)-- we won't be fooled again.