The worst movie I've seen in a very long time, granted I don't deliberately set out to find horrible movies to watch. Banal dialog, callow story telling sense, and (except for Lance Henriksen) tumid acting.. People who make these movies should be throughly castigated. (hey, the movie was terrible. Gotta have fun writing my review..). The first half of the movie is a mess, needlessly jumping around in time 3 days ago, an hour ago. The rest of the movie is filled with drastic over explanation of points the audience throughly comprehends and with 'intelligent dialog' that the majority of viewers actually found intelligent back when they themselves were asking the same questions when they were 9 years old. Pointless, confusing ending (she was the one who was supposed to be able to kill him because she had an abortion?? because..? Abortions are magical, mystical events that empower you to kill the metaphysical metapycho??) The tacky explanation of what happened to everyone after the end of the movie in the This-was-a-true-story manner of simply splashing some text is even more annoying here than in the 'true story' flicks. Production quality was good though ie. the autopsy scene, cinematography in general (cept for the shot-on-video look).


I gave this film 3 out of a possible 10 stars. It would have gotten a 1 rating, but it did hold my interest somewhat, that, and Pavan Grover being such an intense, handsome and hunky actor.

Over all, however, the film is very gory, very unpleasant and disturbing and has a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The mysterious serial killer Jesse Mowatt's unusual "abilities", perhaps supernatural abilities, and just what or who he is, are never adequately explained.

The film is pointless, and darn close to plotless. Some odd things happen but we never know why, what they mean, or how they happened. Many of the scenes are shot with such quick flashes you barely are able to even witness it before it is gone.

The film jumps around quite a bit, especially at the beginning. We start with seeing two people in a van that at first I wasn't even sure whether they were both men or one was a woman. We come to realize they are some kind of border guards between the U.S. and Mexico. The fact they are border guards has nothing really to do with anything else in the film.

Then we jump to a pock-faced Mexican man driving a pick-up truck. He encounters one of the border guards out on the road. Finally I come to realize it is a woman. She has been badly hurt. He stops and picks her up. As they drive along, her brain falls out.

There are some scenes in this film that are definitely not for the squeamish--the first brain scene is just the tip of the iceberg in this kind of imagery, so either brace yourself or click it off now.

We then jump back and forth between the Mexican man who was driving the pick-up, named Cesar and another Mexican man who has been locked in a cage and is being transported somewhere. Eventually we learn the man in the cage is a violent, unbelievably strong, sadistic serial killer named Jesse Mowatt.

Mowatt, played by Pavan Grover who also had a hand in writing the script, is brought to a horrible prison run by a crazy, psychotic, and also sadistic, warden, played beautifully by Dennis Hopper - who has done so many of these kinds of roles he can probably do them in his sleep by now.

Enter a beautiful psychiatrist or whatever the heck she was, Diana, played by Dina Meyer, who has developed a machine that can read brain patterns and show memories.

Diana first uses the machine on Cesar, who, though innocent,has been convicted for the killing of the female border guard.

Next Diana uses the machine on our boy, Jesse, who is so dangerous he's being held in "the hole" at the prison.

To say much more about this film's scenes would be giving too much away --- not that there is really any plot to give away.


This film is packaged as a psychological thriller, yet it has no thrills and the depths of the psychology used in the writing are that of a small child's capacity. The plot comes off very silly, and this film is a waste on so many levels. The film had a good dp, good director, a big name, and a good budget. So where did it go wrong, well the writing was terrible filled with cliches and babble and the plot really doesn't go anywhere. It almost seems like it is merely a ego stroke for the guy who is the writer, star, and executive producer. That is a bad combination, note to aspiring film makers... This is what not to do, filmmaking is an art developed through a team. Not an attempt to glorify one's own false perception of him/herself. It is sad when a film so badly gets so much money and produces such a bad product. Imagine 3-7 quality well thought out "true" indies could have been funded for this and they would have given society something. I was shocked to see name actors doing such poor cinema. Hoppers performance was a bit silly also, but I will chalk that up to poor writing. Like Bob Evans said "if ain't on the page it ain't in the picture." I would give this a strong D-, the only reason why it is not an F is it is destined to be a mystery science theatre film due to some accidental laughs. It is also a good learning tool for young filmmakers of what not to do...


Not the best movie I've ever seen but it's not the ABSOLUTE worst either. If some actual time had been put into developing the plot, working on the foreshadowing instead of dropping obvious things in places they obviously didn't belong in, if some of the ideas had been dropped to develop the better ones, than it could have been so much more. However, doesn't happen. The whole issue of the Governor is really just unnecessary. Sure he is the reason she had an abortion and there is an attempt at saying "she's the one because of it" but that could have been time better spent on the character of Mowatt himself. He's no Hannibal (although they try really hard don't they!) because as horrible as Hannibal Lechter is, you come to care about him a bit. She's no Clarice (again, very uncanny resemblances in the performances) and throwing in some psychic abilities, religious capabilities, doesn't change the fact that it is. I also found myself seeing a bit of Brutal Howell but again, not enough to matter. I didn't even care all that much when the guy dies in the beginning, even though they tell us we should. They don't show us. They don't show us anything except an eclectic mess of ideas and they tell you the important parts. I could see the writer developing his talent and over time doing something great but this one isn't it. That said, I didn't pay to watch it. I caught it late night on a movie channel and it's not so terrible that you wouldn't want to watch it if there wasn't anything else on but it would be a cold day before I'd pay any money to own it. It would insult the real movies in my case...


I don't understand what the point of making this movie was. Every part was drug out until it got annoying and boring. Honestly do not even think about renting because of Dennis Hopper's reputation. I know the man can act and he is very good at it, but this movie almost killed him. Honestly he was horrible at being a mean cop and it was overall just annoying. Not to mention Grover's part in the move. This was his big first acting appearance and it was pathetic. The man made a good plot for the movie but when it came down to actors and doing it....he was way in over his head. So all I'm saying is if that you really want to test it, if you really want to see how Bad Dennie Hoppper can be, then go ahead. I warned you.


I saw this movie this noon, and a few, if not many questions, popped out of me. the tag line of this movie was something like "nothing can ever silence the true evil." So it is implied that Jesse Mowatt was the true evil. Then how about the warden? He was something of a sadist and an evil, wasn't he? In the scene where Jesse controlled the warden with his will power and made him commit suicide, it is like indicating that the warden deserved it. if the warden really do, then Jesse Mowatt was doing something good, and it is not up to a "true evil" to do something good, if the story wanted to make a clear story.

Well, what can I say? It is not a impressive movie, even with all its scenes obviously aiming to create sensations, like a worm in the bloody brain, so on. It is a movie that after seeing it , no one would be thinking about it any more, like plain water, after you drink it, you only remember that you drank it, but with no memory of how.

besides, the characters were left unexplored. how big an influence had Mowatt's father left on him? how did Mowatt change from a human to a demon? we were told but not showed. one credit though, the acting was great.


The title is totally correct.

I'll say up front I am not a horror film fan. This film was not advertised as such; the description said it was about a woman trying to get a guilty man to confess. I'm a fan of Dina Meyer's, plus it had Jeff Fahey and Dennis Hopper.

What a bloody mess. I don't know what passes for blood in movies, but whatever it is, probably 90% of the budget went for it. That and raw liver. Yuck.

The story concerns some sort of brain machine that shows thoughts on a computer, that is used to study this superman, sort of the devil incarnate, who can exert mind control and is also psychic. One wonders why the Meyer character would have anything to do with this guy. Supposedly the woman realizes they are alike. Talk about bad writing. Personally I didn't see it.

Jeff Fahey plays the governor and a former lover of Meyer - actually, he isn't, but that comes out in this story. Back in the '70s, when Jeff Fahey was on One Life to Live, I stepped into an apartment house elevator and there he was. Very sweet, beautiful blue eyes. Twenty years later, I was invited to a reception by the artist Peter Max. As I stepped into the elevator to leave, a laughing, possibly in his cups man and someone else crashed into the elevator. Jeff Fahey. So we must have had some elevator karma.

That wasn't enough to get me through this movie. Trust me.


The beginning promises a lot, but right after the first five minutes, the movie becomes SLOOOWWW! The movie also puts on the table an interesting dilemma: are God and the Devil the same "being"? It questions weather God is really good, and if so, why does he allow so much pain and suffer in the world? (that sounds interesting!). Unfortunately, the movie does not go any further and, as somebody already commented: it is a straight jail-house drama between a BEAUTIFUL Dr.(Dina Meyer) and a dangerous and supernatural-empowered criminal who claims to be both God and the Devil in flesh and bones!(the actor Pavan Groover who funnily has appeared in only TWO movies!!). Dennis Hooper gives some life to this film with his so-of-him and characteristic acting (the one he has been giving us every since "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II") but it makes it seem rather funny than scary or thrilling at some points. As for the edition, acting, effects, etc. they are not the best. Moreover, it looks cheesy sometimes... and finally, the ending turns out to be...


Hollywood today is sort of the democratic party's propaganda machine. While the business world finally realized that serving & pleasing the customer is the idea, the American media still obsesses with messaging us to death, reasoning, where else can we go for visual content?

Thus comes this, trying to feature all the right bases. In fact,we're lucky it was made before gays took over; most films now have to have at least one gay scene, no matter how stupid.

Anyway, you can feel this trying to be a movie. The sexual excitement as the two psychos (on either side of the cell bars) turn each other on with their intense chitchat and his endeavoring to touch her. And his evil strength, tossing guards everywhere, gives us good menace to fear.

Then it fails. Real guards would chain his legs after getting beat up several times. These just keep getting beat. And after the killer shows great mental powers by killing all the men in his path and escaping, he realizes the movie is going to end so he lets the girl shoot him so we don't get the would-be-delicious con-mentally-overpowers-stupid-but-gorgeous-scientist-and screws her as she gasps don't, while stripping.

Add in the innocent (of course) executed con. Vicous warden. Crying mom makes a brief appearance. It's kinda fun that these people seemingly wander in and out during the executions, where real ones take all the fun out and restrict 'em to death (so to speak). The movie throws in a few more cardboard cutouts; the gov, his advisers, a judge the evil guy mentally forces to kill himself. All these get a little screen time, then off for the next CC's. The psycho girl finds her aborted baby's grave, I guess. Why? I dunno. Why not? She already somehow is the only one who knows how to build a mind past-and-future memory film making gizmo that nobody except her seems interested in. How would a psycho know how to build one, anyway? Most psychs become one because there's nothing easier in college. Oh well, throw it in.

Is it soup yet?


It is always nice when a movie has a point. I hook to hang your hat one. But when it doesn't, the director should take a cue from the Italians and move from set piece to set piece with the greatest of speed.

The pluses: Lance Henriksen, Dennis Hopper, blood, gore, violence.

The minuses: lazy story telling, unengaging characters, too much "story" between the violent gory scenes.

If you like Dennis and Lance and gore and violence, it's worth seeing if you can FF to the good parts.

Otherwise you are wasting your time.

One tip to the writer: You don't need "story" if you're not going to have character development. It's like icing with no cake.


Hello, movie lovers... I, StroGirl (Astro fan to the EXTREME) would like to give my unbiased opinion of UNSPEAKABLE... Yes the movie is unspeakable, unspeakable as to how bad it really is. What makes the movie so bad? Well alot of things, however, all that is bad centers around Dr. Pavan Grover... The shocking thing is that Dr. Grover asked for millions to do this film, just as out of touch with reality as DR. EVIL... He should have asked for billions! Maybe then he could have made something that wasn't so bad... I mean with a billion dollars he could have got every big name in Hollywood to surround his lack of talent. The acting was a joke, especially Grover. Take it from a warm blooded American girl anyone who thinks Grover is hot has got real bad taste, he was creepy and that is just how he is that is not acting. And what is up with his lips? He reminded me of a Simpson's character, maybe a young Mr. Burns. The worst part for me was the fight scenes that looked like something out of a 1970's movie. The writing was absolutely the worst... This is not a horror because it is not scary, not a pyschological thriller because it has no real psychology or thrills, it is bad just bad that is it. I know why I have never seen Grover in a film before he is bad... Furthermore Hopper was terrible too! Maybe Grover rubbed off on him. This is not a spoiler but, some interesting moments to look out for: 1.) During the Mexican carivan scene first the guy drops his gun then a black man in a animal wrangle outfit walks into the shot, real bad editing... kinda funny though... 2.) Grover in the office fight scene is a riot 3.) Any execution scene in the chair is pretty funny too, in one the guys in the background crack up, also I don't think the writer (the Grover-inator)did much research on the electric chair. None of the electri-cuties (NOT!) had their head shaved? I guess Grover was too attached to his big hair to respect realism. There was no sponges... and no hood. Oh and there were like 50 people in the room, I guess the flesh burning smell is good? OH I love it when a writer says "the heck with realism, research, and writing a good script; all I care about are Zoolander-ish shots of me in the lead role." I could go on forever, but some dumb souls will see it, somewhere, sadly...


For those of you considering the rental (or god forbid, purchase) of this movie, I have strong advice - DON'T DO IT. This movie should be on the all-time worst list. Where should I start . . . First, the actors in this movie are guilty of phoning-it-in and accepting a paycheck. If you're a Dennis Hopper fan and considering this flick, don't do it. It was determined a long time ago he would appear in ANY movie for cash and this movie is further proof. I suppose the actors shouldn't be condemned completely for their performance, as the writer, director and producers bear the weight of blame.

The dialogue - more often than not, makes no sense. And please don't try to tell me this movie is delivering some sort of powerful message of good vs. evil and the grey area in between. It simply doesn't. It completely relies on clichés, inaccuracies (the death chamber/electric chair is one example) and stereotypes. The gross mistakes and overly clever dialogue (which is in fact, borrowed completely and incorrectly from other, more successful movies) completely distracts from the attempted emotional examination of abortion, death penalty, etc.

Any talk of the "hunk-quality" of the writer/star of this movie should be immediately dismissed. If I were to note the "beauty" of some model in "Beach Bimbos III" I'd be considered a sexist. This person should not be able to make another movie again.

Honestly, what recourse do we have when we buy/rent a product of such inferior quality? With the exception of this site and others we have none. Movies like this piss me off. They promote/promise something they simply don't deliver. And if it were anything else, we could file a complaint with the BBB or return for a refund.

Don't get me wrong, my wife and I enjoy this genre. But this movie just plain sucks. Don't waste your time or money. Don't fall victim like we did. Don't watch this thinking it's an 'indie film' or some sort of psychological thriller. Don't be tempted by the cast. Just don't watch this movie. It's crap and everyone involved in this mess/deception should provide an apology for stealing our time/money.


This movie is so utterly terrible I can barely bring myself to comment on it.

It is poorly written, ill conceived, badly acted! Agh. It is a poor imitation of silence of the lambs and even has the "beautiful" caring psychiatrist trying to understand the celebrity serial killer. Spare me such cinematic clichés! The killer is so utterly unconvincing. He looks like some cheesy 80s pop star and exudes nothing but blandness; where is the menace in this guy? And Dennis Hopper?! Wow! What were you thinking man?! Apocalypse Now! Easy Rider! Blue Velvet! Come on! I have seen many many films, but this must rate as the worst ever. If there had been a zero score possible on the voting scale, I would have awarded it. But I had to make do with a "1" - doesn't even come close to a "1"


I was requested to screen a part of this movie (roughly 4/5), and to give my honest review of it. When initially questioning about the film I was interested to see why a film made in 2001 took so long to be purchased, considering it was starring Dennis Hopper and was about serial killers, two appealing qualities? Who was this new actor Pavan Grover who starred in the film. After watching it I had no more questions.

TECHNICALLY: the film was sub par. It appeared like a B movie. The sound was terrible and one of my biggest annoyances was the continuity was unbelievably bad. I thought I was watching dailies, not a finished product. At one point you can see an actor drop his gun, and then the animal wrangler an camera leads a horse of camera.

DIRECTING: uh... I am not one to give directors too much credit, therefore I won't rip him. I don't think he had much to work with.

WRITING: I would be hard pressed to determine what was worse the corny dialogue or the pointless idiotic plot. The script was "unspeakably" drowning in psuedo intellectual psycho babble... And it gets old real quick to anyone with half a brain.

ACTING: Well the acting wasn't bad. Fahey was Fahey and Hopper was Hopper... Although I will give it to Hopper for keeping a straight face while reading terrible lines. Meyer impressed me, I really liked her. It appeared as if there was no thought or time put into casting anyone else and it made the production look amateurish. Pavan Grover the star of the film was laughable, and the character didn't do to much to help. This was this persons first film and I really don't know how he got cast, until I read the credits and I noticed he was the writer and executive producer also. Acting tip 1 yelling real loud doesn't make you a good actor.

CONCLUSION: If this stinker gets released somehow... Don't waste your money... And if someone wants you to go to a free screening, go see GIGLI at the dollar theatre. This is what happens when a void of talent meets a megalomaniac personality.


Cracking C list cast - Hopper, Hendrickson, Fahey - but it's all squandered for the simple fact that nothing makes any sense. You really couldn't care less what happens. It's a shame really - you wonder why production was started on such a weak script. 2/10


I was disappointed when I saw this movie in 1954, probably because I was expecting more "ancient Egypt stuff." What we got was a pretty slow-moving, completely predictable romance. I just watched it again and it hasn't improved. Originally, the location shots were probably interesting; I would still like to see the actual places. However, by now, the sites are very familiar. It's really a '50s potboiler with a big budget. But I was right the first time. Robert Taylor was wooden; Eleanor Parker, pretty; Victor Jory's face was covered but we were treated to his wonderful voice. Taylor was much better in "Camille" when he but a sprig of a lad, but very sincere. Of course, the Egyptians were stereotyped according to the Hollywood vision of the time. Making Parker's husband the villain-fortune hunter was a bit much.


A bunch of criminals kill a couple of cops. The police goes after them. The police have a progressive female boss who wants to put it all in media.

This is supposed to say something about modern times and especially media times. If you thought "Natural Born Killers" was pathetic, don't watch "Breaking News". This criticism is not for real, it's obviously only a way of trying to be on Western level also than it comes to society satire. This script doesn't even reach comic book level. The directing and acting are even worse. There even isn't a descent amount of blood.

Keep away!


Rather dreary Korean War drama where everybody appears to be performing "by the numbers". There's none of the intensity expected of those life-and-death situations that distinguish the era's better war films (Bridges of Toko-Ri; Pork Chop Hill; Retreat, Hell!). The action never really gels, which I suppose is the fault of director Garnett who appears disengaged from what's on screen. It doesn't help that the screenplay also appears stitched together from a host of war movie clichés, few of which stick around long enough to establish themselvesthe wives, the ethnic grunts, the lonely orphan. It's like a runner in baseball thinking he has to touch all 100 bases before he can score.

Of course, the film does contain one dramatic highlight that caused considerable controversy at the time, but has since proved revealingthe intentional shelling of civilian refugees by American forces. The screenplay tries to soften the impact with North Korean infiltrators holding refugees at gunpoint, but the destruction occurs anyway. Now, that was really a pretty gutsy move on somebody's part since the war was still going on when the movie was released in 1952.

Though not publicized at the time, we now know from proved incidents such as No Gun-Ri (There was more than one eye-witness, and the only dispute is over the number killed) that such atrocities did occur on our side as well as the enemy's. And though not included in highschool history texts, there was considerable sympathy for the North from the peasantry of the South because of the landlord-dominated government of the South, many of which had collaborated with hated Japanese occupiers during WWII. As a result, considerable guerilla activity occurred in the South both before and during the war itself. Details such as these cast light on the basic accuracy of the movie's depiction. Ironically, the problem for GI's was the same here as in Vietnamhow to distinguish friendly civilians from the enemy, while too often the solution was to kill them all. But when your own life is on the line, what do you do? That's why Mitchum's Col. Janowski is so torn.

Apparently studio honcho Howard Hughes had high hopes for the production since his name appears above the title. And even though the seams from stock footage are pretty obvious, the film is well produced with locations at Fort Carson, Colorado, where the terrain was said to resemble that of Korea. But background and special effects can hardly compensate for the general listlessness of the results or the ill-conceived Ann Blyth role. Nonetheless, the movie does remain memorable for its one revealing episode.


How someone as workmanlike as director Tay Garnett could take talents the like of Robert Mitchum and Charles McGraw and crank out this piece of sausage is pretty hard to fathom. It's not that the story is so bad for its time (early 1950s), but that the execution is so poor. Mitchum manages to be good insofar as the worst dialog of his career allows him, and McGraw is loaded down with even worse talk. The chemistry between Mitchum and love interest Ann Blyth is nil, the story veers from sickeningly sweet to nauseatingly real (courtesy of some actual combat footage of various people during or just after being roasted alive, etc.), and the majority of the supporting performances are amazingly amateurish for a studio picture of its time. Mitchum plays an infantry officer in Korea at the beginning of the war there. He has a bit of a queasy stomach after slaughtering a bunch of civilian refugees because a few Communist infiltrators were hiding among them, but even his initially outraged girlfriend comes to see that "even a doctor amputating a leg has to cut off some good flesh with the bad," and pretty soon, this mini-My Lai is forgotten (without anyone apparently considering whether a wiser choice than massacre might have existed). But it's the amateurishness of the direction, the high-school-play sort of staging and dialog that make "One Minute to Zero" (a title without meaning or explanation in the film) an anomaly: how could these people, whose talent is undeniable, have made such a silly and childish little home movie. The philosophy of war, the details of combat and life in a war zone in general, even the romance, all are done with the sophistication and expertise of the average seven-year-old boy. This is the kind of movie Robert Mitchum was often accused of sleepwalking through, but in reality, were it not for him, it would be utterly unbearable.


Or possibly We Were Soldiers? Surely this must be one of the movies that made a deep impression on Randall Wallace when he was a kid. An early 50's war movie from the slobbering right. The UN didn't fare any better in their minds in 1952 than it does now. Mitchum takes on The North Koreans with two pumped up right arms, demonstrating one minute to zero patience for the dovish views of UN worker, Ann Blyth, but falling in love with her and converting her all the same. In fact, all it takes for her to see the light in mitchum's soul is to see him shell civilian refugees into kibble then justify it because 'half' of them were communist infiltrators anyway.

what a ridiculous piece of propaganda. Sure, wars need to be fought, that is indisputable, but not in every case, and war movies should never be so blindingly simpleminded and stupid, pandering on behalf of the Pentagon to the lowest brow audience for support. This is strictly the kind of post WW2 arrogance movie that made right wing war lovers what they are today. Let's just kick ass and shut up the pansy eggheads with a kiss, because we're the real men and war is necessary everywhere all the time. Kicking ass is what God made America for, talk is for lovers, and a machine gun and a box of ammo is the ONLY solution always.

Interesting that it was a war entered into by a left wing President. The Right Wing no doubt loved him for it, taking on those commie gook cousins of Uncle Joe.

Until he canned MacArthur.

Brash American machismo doesn't begin to sum up this film. Fetish porn for freeps and muscleheads. It stars three of my favorite actors too. Robert Mitchum, Charles McGraw and Richard Egan I would watch in anything. This just proved not everything they made is worth a damn.


This wartime drama falls a little flat in spite of a very talented cast. The rugged Robert Mitchum is in charge of evacuating American civilians in Korea, but ends up bombing refugees. War action is paced with heavy romance between Mitchum and Ann Blyth. This couple all but ignites the screen. Pretty hot for the early 50s. Also in the cast are Richard Egan, William Talman, Eduard Franz and Margaret Sheridan.

Note:This movie is directed by Tay Garnett, whose work is better shown in THE CROSS OF LORRAINE(1943).


Review contains SPOILERS !!!

Well, first of all, the videostore ripped me off on this one. I rented a cool looking movie called Pumpkinhead and Lance Henriksen stood on the cover. I had read some praising reviews on it so I took it with me. When I put it in the VCR, the first thing it said was : PUMPKINHEAD 2: BLOOD WINGS. Hmmmm...not correct. Normally, I never watch sequels before I saw the originals but since I had already paid for it I continued watching. From what I've learned in the sequel, the myth behind this little fella called Pumpkinhead is pretty cool. Even the intro of this film makes you suspect you're about to see a great horror story. ( A good old-fashioned black and white sequence shows how a horrible deformed boy get killed by angry young men ). Impressive demon as well, I've sure seen worse. But unfortunately...that about does it for the positive elements on Blood Wings.

I was glad to see Andrew Robinson again ! This guy became immortal in my eyes since he played the leading character in my all time favorite movie Hellraiser. Too bad this is actually the only one on his list worth mentioning. His daughter in this movie is played by Ami Dolenz. She's a very attractive girl but that doesn't mean she can act, I'm afraid. The whole group of "tough" teenagers remind of Beavis and Butt-head to be honest.

"Hey Beavis, you wanna go raise a demon ?"

" huh, huh...yeah Cool...euh...why, Butt-head?"

"euh...huh huh...euh...I dunno! "

" huh huh...yeah cool...let's raise a demon ! "

Well, maybe a bit exaggerated but it's pretty much the idea behind it. A group of modern teenagers raise a demon and they go away. The hideous creature is loose and starts a killing spree. Not random victims, though. There seems to a connection between the murdered people. It's up to the new sheriff to find out what that is. The viewer know it after about 5 minutes but Andrew ( the Sheriff ) needs a whole 85 minutes for it.

Pure talking horror, I also have a positive note concerning this film. I've already said the demon looks impressive and above that, it knows how to kill, indeed. If you like your horror gory, you'll appreciate several scenes of Pumpkinhead 2. He has a cool walk and vision as well. In fact, I have the same vision-style when I'm drunk...


This movie starts out with an obvious and long standing premise that bad boys (and girls) are the only ones who can start occult trouble. I guess I can forgive this film for using that tired old premise, if it only stopped there. Unfortunately it doesn't, Roger Clinton as "Mayor Bubba?" Who's idea was that? He didn't look like a Mayor of a dusty old town, let alone that dusty old town. He neither acted like a mayor, nor added anything to the film. At best he could be called a stupid, trivial and distracting interlude.

Jumping back to the black and white beginning (rip off of the technique first used by the Wizard of Oz), I know we watch these movies for blood and gore, but the opening scene when the deformed Tommy is chased down hanged, sliced and diced, then dumped down the old iron mine was truly shocking, I found my mouth hanging open and I am no pansy when it comes to violence, blood and guts. It was gratuitously violent, left nothing to the imagination and never even satisfied with a good explanation for why it occurred. Yes, we know in real life that there is gratuitous violence, some even unexplained as to its origin, but in the movies I think I'm entitled to an explanation why a group of teenagers in a dusty old town suddenly maim and lynch a deformed outcast.

I won't go into the acting--can't expect much in the way of great acting in a slice and dice horror flick. That hair style of Caran Kaye! Whew that broom on her head that passes for bangs--I actually found them distracting, staring to figure out how they got the hair to stand out like that.

I put this one right down there with Mom & Dad Save the Universe. Pass it up. The better movie is the original Pumpkinhead, holds together much better.


This is a rather late straight-to-video sequel to the Stan Winston movie "Pumpkinhead" from 1988, that wasn't even a big commercial success in the first place. The first movie already wasn't too great but this movie also adds very little and can hardly be called an improvement.

It's really not an exciting or interesting movie to watch. The movie doesn't know to build up well and it doesn't seem to be able to handle its horror. Of course it also isn't being helped much by its story that provides very little originality. It's a movie that got made without too much imagination and true creativity. Even the good looking monster comes across as often being ridicules, mainly because he too often gets featured too prominently.

The story fills the movie with some uninteresting characters and the movie is perhaps also missing a true, good main character. Also none of the actors really impress within their roles, which can be expected of course from a straight-to-video horror-flick. But its main-story remains really the main reason though that the movie never truly works out the way it's supposed to. It's formulaic, uninteresting and just dragging too much in parts because it doesn't seem to be able to make choices.

It's still a rather good looking movie. It at least doesn't have a cheap B-movie look over it and the movie does feature some gore, however not really enough to please the average genre fan.

It's easily a sequel and genre movie that you can do without.

4/10


Yes, the monster is most definitely from the original Pumpkinhead movie. There is even an old lady that resembles the old lady from the first movie as well. Of course, our old friend revenge is also along for the ride, however the parts where one gets revenge by unburying Pumpkinhead and such is gone. It is a new world with new rules and such for our monster to abide by. It also features lots of obvious stuff as there are no startling revelations to be had here, just all the stuff one expects from this type of movie. So yes, the plot here is pretty basic, some wrong has been committed and the Pumpkinhead monster is going to kill those directly and indirectly responsible for said wrong. I would go into more details, but I would not want to spoil the movie for you. However, if you hated Punky Brewster as a child or even if you were an adult there is a scene in this movie that is sure to delight you! So all in all not a boring movie, it is watchable, just do not expect to much. Basically, anything that was good about the first Pumpkinhead movie is now taken out so you can be amazed out how simple the plot is and how uninspired.


Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings starts in the isolated 'Ferren Woods 1958' where a deformed boy named Tommy (J.P. Manoux) is happily eating his slop that his guardian Miss Osie (Lilyan Chauvin) has left for him when a group of six teenagers come along, capture him, beat him & eventually murder him... Jump forward to the present day & New York City cop Sean Braddock (Andrew Robinson) is returning to his childhood town to become the local Sheriff together with his wife Beth (Caren Kaye) & teenage daughter Jenny (Ami Dolenz), at first things seem perfect but while trying to make friends Jenny becomes involved with Danny (J. Trevor Edmond) & his gang. While out driving around & messing about Danny hits an old woman known locally as the 'Witch', they go back to check to see if she's OK but she's not there so they all decide to go to the log cabin where she lives to check on her. Once there they steal some magic potion & Danny hits her which causes a fire to start, as she lays there about to be burnt alive she swears vengeance against them all & calls upon the legend of Pumpkinhead to dish it out...

Directed by Jeff Burr I have little fondness for Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings either as a sequel to the rather good original Pumpkinhead (1989) or a stand alone horror film in it's own right. The script by Constantine & Ivan Chachornia along with 'additional material' by an uncredited Will Huston is rubbish, it starts out as it means to go on as for no reason whatsoever a group of kids murder Tommy who despite taking ugly pills didn't seem like such a bad kid, did he? Why murder him? Why so openly in front of other people & in the middle of the daytime? I must admit those questions kept bothering me right throughout the rest of the film & annoyingly they were never answered... The rest of this silly film isn't much better as why would a group of friends suddenly decide it would be 'fun' to dig a dead body up & perform a magical ritual intended to bring it back to life? Why? Does that sound like fun to you? When was the last time you said to yourself 'I'm bored so I'm going to dig a dead body up & try to bring it back to life'? People just don't behave like this & yes I accept the 'it's only a film' argument but this was meant to be a serious credible horror film set in reality with 'real' people, don't make me laugh because Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings is anything but. The film has an OK pace, there are one or two half decent scenes but the character's & dialogue are poor & overall it's very predictable.

Director Burr ruins what could have been a decent sequel, the special effects are a step down from the original. Pumpkinhead himself looks worse than the original, he doesn't seem to have any colour or texture almost as if he was unfinished & the guy in the rubber monster suit doesn't help. I though Pumpkinhead was poorly shot & didn't work. It tries to create some atmosphere but it's all so silly & whats with the constant flashing lights when Pumpkinhead appears? There is one hilarious bit when a dead woman comes back to life & she sits up in bed & all these lights suddenly shine on her & she starts speaking in a daft voice to the local Sheriff who begins to interrogate her! Not a good creative decision, one amongst many I might add. The gore is OK, there are some severed limbs, someone has their head torn off, two lovers are impaled on a fence railing (Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981) anyone?), someone has their face pecked by chickens & there are some gory gunshot wounds.

Technically the film is OK but nothing stands out, it's well made apart from some lacklustre unfinished looking creature effects. The cast don't distinguish themselves, did you know that Roger Clinton who played Mayor Bubba is in actual fact ex US president Bill Clinton's brother? Well, now you do.

Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings is a poor film, it follows a great film & does nothing but turn in a teenagers on the run from a monsters type film. Watch the far superior original again instead, definitely not recommended. For some bizarre reason this inspired a video game called Bloodwings: Pumpkinhead's Revenge (1995) while two more film sequels have been made recently Pumpkinhead: Ashes to Ashes (2006) & Pumpkinhead: Blood Feud (2007).


After sitting through a TV viewing of Pumpkinhead II, I was never so glad to *not* have spent $3 on a rental in all my life. I am usually a fan of low-budget, low-talent horror flicks, but this was just awful! The fact that Roger Clinton was in it should've been a tipoff, but I was in it to see Andrew Robinson ... An actor is only as good as his script, and even he couldn't save this thing. Now my question is this: what sort of hallucinogenic drug were those writers taking? I'd just like to know so I can stay away from it.


You would think that a sequel to a half-decent horror flick starring Punky Brewster and Bill Clinton's little brother would be at least bearable, but this proves just how awful a movie can really be. The creature looks more fake than he did in the original, Lance Henriksen isn't in the cast this time and there isn't even any decent breast shots of Soleil Moon-Frye. A waste of time and (dare I say) talent.


This horror flick not only is violent, but horridly lame...and has nothing to do with the original PUMPKINHEAD(1989). A group of predictably stupid teenagers resurrect a fabled demon and the creature goes on a bloodthirsty rampage. The messy killing is not enough; the avenging monster leaves a calling card in the form of painted wings at each murder scene. Sheriff Braddock(Andrew Robinson)shares his childhood memories that relate to the origins of the Pumpkinhead legend. Viewing the promotion trailer may just be better than enduring this nerve wrecker. The cast is full of familiar faces: Ami Dolenz, Soleil Moon Frye, Steve Kanaly and Caren Kaye. And yes, Mayor Bubba is THAT Roger Clinton.


Ami Dolenz is unbelievable as Jennifer in this gross horror farce. The following cast is pathetic. The costumes are lame. One of the poor movies in the genre, Pumpkinhead 2: Blood Wings reveals few haunts. 3 out of 10.


It's well known in horror circles that the sequel to Pumpkinhead is one of the all time worst sequels ever made. I rented it with this in mind and braced myself for something horrible. I was surprised that the movie DID! have some entertaining value.

I guess if you thought the first Pumpkinhead was awesome, this movie would be a let down. The original does have a following, but I always thought it was just sort of standard, and the sequel is the same. Not horrible, just so-so.

Pumpkinhead is a cool monster, the scariest thing about him are those giant hands that can wrap around your head and crush your skull. Since this movie shows that happen, I wasn't disappointed. Low standards, sure, but what makes a Pumpkinhead movie for me is giant hands crushing heads, I got that, I was happy.

Plus, this is apart of the Ami Dolenz horror movie library that includes Witchboard 2 and Ticks. So if your a fan of that subgenre like I'm not, you should check this out just for completionist purposes.

All and all, pretty darn bad, but some fun and retarded things to keep you entertained. Loved the wires moving Pumpkinhead's arms around during the climax. Them wire's cool!


This movie seemed a lot more like an episode of the x-files than anything that would compare to the first film. This film lacks the emotional conflicts of the first and the direction, lighting, and special effects are lacking in comparison and in general. Pumkinhead II is a mediocre movie whose flaws are accentuated by comparing it to the original.


This is probably one of the worst horror movies of the 90's.The story is dumb,the cast is mostly annoying and if you want scares...check better somewhere else.Even not enough blood to satisfy gore-hounds.Only one good thing about this horrible picture:quite well-made creature effects.In my opinion,due to such ridiculous films horror genre is slowly dying.So my advice to you is simple:avoid this dreadful piece of crap.


Totally pointless and exceedingly boring low-budget sequel to the surprisingly popular and yet, disappointing first film that starts off promisingly enough as it shows in black and white a young deformed boy being tortured by a group of teenage thugs that call themselves "The Blood Wings"...or something similar to that. However, after that opening sequence the film takes a drastic nose-dive into the land of really cheap horror flicks as it becomes very hokey (cringe-worthy even) and nonsensical ultimately causing the viewer to heave a huge sigh of relief once the film has ended! Overall, the only true highlights in this sorry excuse for a film are the few short scenes of a rather luscious-looking Solei Moon-Frye (from "Punky Brewster" fame) in a small supporting role as an occult obsessed teen, and an admittedly creepy atmosphere which seems to mysteriously dissipate altogether after the first half-hour passes. (Turkey-Zero Stars)


The original "Pumpkinhead" was nothing great, but at least it had some semblance of intelligent writing. Unfortunately, this sorry sequel seemed more like your average dumb horror flick. The setup for the story wasn't too bad, but the rest of the film ranged from routine, to boring, to just plain stupid. Surprisingly, there were a number of familiar faces in the movie, but every last one of them was wasted. But then again, I didn't exactly have high hopes for this film...after all, how good can a film be when Roger Clinton plays a guy called Mayor Bubba?


First off, I'd like to say that I was forced to watch this movie and by no means volunteered my time, energy and mind into this piece of trash. This movie has very few positives. I liked the intro with the black and white film...and that's about all I can really say. The one liners are downright hideous and the acting is straight gutwrenching. The riddle about Pumpkinhead is so bad, I swear I've never laughed so hard. There is an unending list of wrong turns that this movie makes and so many unexplained events. For example, why are the detectives and police always at Sean Braddock's place? Don't they have a station or facility for those things? And since when can a sheriff and detective reveal evidence about a case to their families? This film just must have not been thought out well before it was made. This movie was just not a good decision. EASILY!!! 2/10


Well, the dark and eerie atmosphere of Stan Winston's monster/revenge horror blast is long gone. Director Jeff Burr (Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III) takes a once intimidating Alien-esquire looking demon and tosses him under some really bad lighting in outdoor nighttime settings, giving him away way too much; making him look so damn rubbery and corny that The Gil-less Man from The Creature Walks Among Us would laugh his a** off ... for days. The bleakness is gone. The feeling of Unstoppable carnage and revenge that emenates in the first film is made into a hokey crapfest (almost Unworthy of having a drinking game created for it, where every time you see the actor playing Pumpkinhead's f***ing Nikes, you take a swig).

The acting is as plastic as it gets to begin with, and the story does no justice for character development either. The writers had previously done work strictly for television, I'm guessing Public Access. This comes off as a bad TV movie, which would explain why Sci-fi seemed to enjoy playing it frequently in the past. A new girl in town clinging to the local badboy (who is responsible for hospitalizing an elderly lady, and burning down her house. Oh, and stealing a page from her copy of The Book of Shadows, along with a vial of blood needed for a vengeful resurrection) and putting all of her trust in him within a day is highly unlikely; no matter what kind of connection she feels she has with the geek. I was also put off by the attempt at making said local badboy's (J. Trevor Edmund- Return of the Living Dead 3) persona distinctly familiar to the jerk character in the first film. It didn't work here to the same effect, due to the whole film being such a joke.

Perhaps the worst addition here is trying to display Pumpkinhead as a sympathetic character, beneath the surface. This is right away experimented with flash back sequences from a deformed, backwoods kid's past. And the struggle to pull this off is butchered, due to a horrendous finale, in which Pumpkinhead is hinted to be doing friendly deeds; such as returning a toy fire truck that fell in a well to its rightful owner. f***ing ridiculous. Oh, to make things worse, this Pumpkinhead is actually the son of another Pumpkinhead. Yeah, that's right. Thankfully, not much detail is given to this part of the plot. Last thing I need is to see a back story of Pumpkinhead getting his f*** on, taking his girlfriend to Lamaze class, having a baby freak or whatever other s*** they could throw into that whole mess of a story. Though, it could make for a highly viewable sequel, for the worst reasons imaginable.

The sad thing is, the film does contain some moments that could've been parts of a good (or at least passable) sequel. Actually, if you just take out all the sequences that involve the story, you'd be good to go. There are some really elaborate shots (the POV camera work of a shovel digging up Tommy's grave is honestly quite refreshing to uncover through the lot of this mess) and kill scenes here, to be truthful. They are aimed more for a horror romp effect than the deaths in the first film; but from that point-of-view, they are pretty entertaining.

Although I am more than disappointed with Pumpkinhead's appearance here, I am pleased with K.N.B.'s bloodletting. The movie isn't cream filled with nastiness, but there are some fun moments. Seeing the demon rip one victim's head clean off and toss it through the woods is worthy of at least a few hits of the rewind button, I promise.

Andrew Robinson (Hellraiser) could be noted as the film's only saving grace in the acting department; he could've been sleepwalking and gave a better performance than the rest of the cast. But even he's not in top form. His greatest moment would be when he rehearses the famously bad rhyme from the first film, and this is a pretty embarrassing moment, to say the least.

Ami Dolenz is no stranger to the genre. Having previously played in Children of the Night, Witchboard II and Ticks (aka Infested, a Clint Howard guilty pleasure), she has all the right ingredients to be a B-Movie Scream Queen. However, her appearance as Jenny strongly conflicts with the vaguely talked about character's troublesome past. I mean c'mon, she looks goody two shoes as all hell.

There's quite a few familiar faces to take note of, other than the few I've already mentioned. For one, Punky Brewster herself, Soleil Moon Frye. She plays Marcie, part of the town bad-a** crew, and she knows a great deal about witchcraft; because one of these dim wits really NEEDS to be smart enough in the field of witchery to resurrect a dead person; the movie calls for it. She was said to have been instructed to gain 20 pounds for her role in this film. Why this was a necessity or how it has any significance to the film, I'll never know. Kane Hodder plays an incestuous redneck that hosts chicken wars with his brother in their backyard for all the local rednecks. Linea Quigley also shows up for a cameo sex scene, of course. And we are blessed with Roger Clinton, as the town mayor; whom really has no significance what so ever.


These actors belong in a B movie.

Not one of them rises above this dung. You almost feel bad for them-ALMOST. You almost pray one of them would have the talent or the moxie to just try to make something of their latest failure.

It isn't like some Hollywood producer staying up late watching the SCI-FI channel suddenly said hmm, that Soliel Moon Frye really is riveting in this.

Starts off kind of goofy and fun but once the bad special effects kick in you'll feel like YOU'RE in a bad school play about..I don't know what it is about. The actors (that is being very generous) seem to act like it all makes a lot of sense.

All the blame shouldn't be pointed at the actors who are clearly not ready for their next pilot that doesn't get picked up on the CW. The direction is pedestrian and the editing just silly.

Did this win any razzies? How about worst ensemble.

Funny, none of these actors BROKE OUT since this made a splash in 1994.


The only words I can gather for this movie are "the worst sequel ever made period." I can't find any positives about this movie. Quite seriously, I wish I could because I loved the first Pumpkinhead so much. What happened?! I know sequels normally suck, but they're not supposed to suck THIS much. I'm actually at a loss right now because I don't know if this or Boogeyman is worse. The movie kicks off with a hideously deformed boy being brutally murdered and then hung down a mine shaft. Now he's buried in front of what appears to be a witch's house. 20 mins into the movie and Pumpkinhead is created not this time by the witch but rather by some "thrill seeking teenagers" and I actually believe the group labels themselves as "thrill seekers" before they resurrect Mr. Angry. After Pumpkinhead is resurrected you might as well turn off your DVD player (or if you're old school, VHS player) and turn the movie into a novelty flying disc because then at least you can say that it's a GOOD movie (trust me, it glides real nice and cuts air like a hot knife through butter). The acting is beyond terrible. Remember Saw? Remember how the acting sucked in the beginning but got better as the movie progressed? The acting gets worse and worse as this one goes on. And the ending... oh buddy. If you remember how the first Pumpkinhead ended your gonna be on angry mofo because there's a very special something taken out that made the Pumpkinhead villain so unique. Overall, don't watch this. Rather use it as a clay pigeon, use it as a frisbee golf disc, or use it for self mutilation because you're gonna be wondering why you let this movie finish. Watch the first, but ignore this disgraceful sequel.


A curiosity of a film, 'Storm Warning' is both a typical and unusual Ronald Reagan vehicle during the latter part of his film career. Typical in that the Reagan character, in this case District Attorney Burt Rainey, is a bland straight-arrow; unusual in its subject matter, the Ku Klux Klan. What perhaps started out as an expose' of that organization ends up portraying it as a sort of corrupt men's club whose chief vice is stealing the members' dues. Rainey investigates the murder of a news reporter and finds no one will admit to witnessing it, intimidated as they are by the KKK (one of whom killed the man). A woman from out of town, Marsha Mitchell (Ginger Rogers), did see it and is unaware of the situation in the small community, where locals kowtow to the Klan. At first she offers to testify, then withdraws after learning her sister (Doris Day) is married to one of the Klansmen (Steve Cochran, in a wonderfully loutish performance as the murderer). Finally, justice prevails, and the Klan is discredited. Viewers with even a passing knowledge of the KKK will find it almost unrecognizable in 'Storm Warning.' There is no mention of the group's hatred and persecution of blacks, Catholics, Jews, foreigners, etc. In fact, there's not a single black character in the entire film. The heavyset head Klansman might as well be the corrupt head of a labor union or a crooked politician. The very things which distinguish the KKK from other groups are not glossed over, they simply don't exist in this film. And what criticism is leveled against the Klan is of the 'one size fits all' variety; again, they may as well be talking about a poorly run hunting lodge. It's not until the final scene that we see a real Ku Klux Klan gathering that approximates, at least visually, what we might expect. Members wearing white robes, a big cross burning, and Marsha Mitchell being whipped for threatening to go to the DA with what she knows. I daresay this is the only film in history where you can see Ginger Rogers being treated in such a manner. It's tamer than it sounds though and some of the dialogue is laughable. The head Klansman sits on high as the whip comes down, taunting Mitchell with 'epithets' such as "Outsider! Busybody!" Hey buddy, watch your language. Then District Attorney Rainey shows up, showing all the indignation and righteous anger he might display when breaking up a back-alley poker game. (He goes up to one Klanswoman who has her daughter with her and says, "She should be home in bed.") There is panic in the Klan's ranks and Cochran's character is shot and killed just before the ensuing mêlée. Reagan's final speech to the crowd is not exactly ringing or riveting- "You're a bunch of mean-spirited little people... here desecrating the cross." But it's enough to send them all home, ashamed. Kind of like we feel for sitting through this mess.


In "976-EVIL," Satan's on the line and if you value your soul, you better not pick up. Or so it goes in this lame-brained horror flick directed by Mr. Freddy Krueger himself, Robert Englund, which includes a script written by Brian Helgeland and Rhet Topham. With Englund's first time behind the camera, you would expect something truly unique or at least something close to being even remotely frightening like "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984), but when things get interesting "976-EVIL" devolves into typical slasher/possession stuff and thus joins the ranks of so many other "B" horror movies from the 1980s.

The movie at least has an inventive premise: dialing the title phone number puts you on a hot line with the Devil himself. A creepy voice (Englund) on the other end gives you some advice (your "horror-scope") and it pays off, but usually at a price: your soul.

Teenage biker-punk Spike (Patrick O'Neal), an indebted gambler, is able to use the words of wisdom bestowed upon him and break free of his poker habit before the hot line's influence has a chance to truly take hold of him. His cousin, shy and repressed Hoax ("Evil Ed" Stephen Geoffreys), isn't so lucky. Bullied and unlucky with the ladies, he dials 976-EVIL and before you know it, the otherwise good boy with good morals goes from fundamentalist Christian to practicing Satanist in the time it takes for you to dial that evil number. Now a full-fledged psychopath possessed by the Devil, he soon starts growing jet-black fingernails and scales and speaking in an ever-creepy Satanic voice who has a tendency of dropping painfully unfunny one-liners that mostly fall flat on their face.

Of course with a title like "976-EVIL," you could only expect the worst from this horror movie. The film starts off good, with one unlucky caller meeting their demise, and then the main characters are introduced but once the scares start coming, it all falls apart. But even then, it takes almost forever for that to even start.

Geoffreys, a regular in '80s horror movies like 1985's "Fright Night," seems almost pitch-perfect as the shy kid who stood to gain some confidence with Satanic powers, but comes off instead as another rejected nerd-turned-braindead screen slasher who goes on a murderous rampage against his tormentors. There is one particularly creepy sequence where he's able to manifest a spider TV dinner upon one unfortunate victim. We should have expected better from Mr. Englund and as expected, we got less. And Joe Dante regular Robert Picardo also appears as Mark Dark, the manager of a sleazy phone-sex operation.

"976-EVIL" - Hang up, fast!

3/10


This odd, incoherent, cheesy and ridicule late-80's horror feature represents the directorial debut of Robert 'Freddy Krueger' Englund. And let's be honest, if it wouldn't be for his name on the credits, the film would have been righteously forgotten a long time ago already. "976-Evil" has an absurdly implausible plot and it takes far too long before the (tepid) gore & action kicks in. During the first hour of the film only really weird things  that largely remain unexplained - are going on, like a totally random biblical omen that exists of a shower of fish-rain. Yes, dead fish falling down the sky like normal rain! I'm not quite sure about the significance, but presumably it's God's sign to warn the lead characters that they will soon face an unholy type of evil. With reason, because rebellious teenager Spike and his nerdy cousin Hoax frequently call the titular phone number to get their daily "horrorscope". But the toll-free number is possessed with diabolical forces and turns its customers into homicidal monsters. Spike is strong enough to resist, but the miserable Hoax is an easy victim and he soon begins to mutate. He doesn't mind, though, because now he can finally fight back against his domineering mother, the school bullies and all the girls that rejected and laughed at him. You guessed it, "976-Evil" is just another lowbrow horror version of "Revenge of the Nerds" and the only good thing about it is the choice to cast Stephen Geoffreys. He's ideal to play a character that is simultaneously pathetic and creepy. In the second half of the film, there's a bit of gore and witty one-liners, but it's too late to improve the overall quality. The plot is unimaginably incoherent. Cousin Spike suddenly disappears at one point but randomly appears again for the finale, the amateur-reporter out of the blue hooks up with the school's headmistress and Robert Picardo's potentially terrifying character is never properly introduced. From time to time, you get the impression that Englund is a gifted director but on other occasions you damn him and his film to hell for being just another disappointing and time-wasting 80's turd.


The scant few teenagers who went to see "976-EVIL" in 1989 probably had no idea who Sandy Dennis was (just as the kids who first saw "Carrie" didn't know who Piper Laurie was), but the veteran actress manages to bring a few minutes of class to an otherwise lousy, fifth-rate screamer about a nerdy high school kid acquiring demonic powers from a satanic phone number. Amateurish mishmash, derivative and grimy, marked the directorial debut of Freddy Krueger himself, Robert Englund. Englund offers precious little originality, but he does let Dennis strut her stuff in an amusing, fanatical supporting bit heavily reminiscent of Piper Laurie's religious mama from "Carrie". * from ****


People will rent this movie because it is directed by freddy krueger himself..... They will expect something as good as nightmare on elm st, and they will be very disappointed! This film is a bomb of gigantic proportions! The whole phone line to hell deal is never really explained, and the film is so boring, we don't really want it explained, we just want it to end! This truly will have you in tears! It is so boring! There is not one scary moment in the whole film, and it is a wonder why it ever got made! After reading this review, ypou will probably still rent it, thinking it can't be that bad, but I thought the same thing! After seeing it, warn others not to see it!


What do we have here. A nerd who gains supernatural powers. A buncha punk wannabes that act like they're the in-crowd. A bunch of stupid bimbos. And a dumber Religious fanatic mother. This movie is not worth anyone's time. This is one of those movies about nerds get back that's been done several times. Maybe it's the better of the bunch but that doesn't say much. The acting ranges from pitiful-decent. The hero jumps in after most of the movie is over and then finally does something heroic instead of notifying the police! Otherwise throughout the whole movie we don't know who's the hero or who's the villian because everyone is so stupid that no one even cares. There is only one scene in this movie that's good, where the nerd is trying to impress a girl and gets onto his motor powered trashy bike and crashed into a wall! The nerd does try to be funny at times (in a Freddy Krueger type of way) but notice I say "try". The music is tasteless, and so is the script. I think you would be more interested if you called another 9 number ; )


Oh!...I am in awe of how terrible this movie is. I am a huge horror movie fanatic. And i finally got a chance to see this. It is one of the worst i have ever seen, next to "Troll 2" (that might even be better). I could barely make it through. The directing was awful, the storyline is SO awful, characters are 2d, special effects are worthless. It was so bad, i wanted to laugh and cry at the same time. The story is about a Nerdy boy who lives with his Christian "mommy", who gets picked on at school by bullies in the bathroom. They spend a lot of time in that bathroom it seems. The cousin of this infamous nerd is a bad ass motor cycle riding 80's boy toy who's reckless with the "babes". They all seem to tamper with this phone-line 976-evil, that tempts them into doing naughty things, via "satan". After some time, the main character (nerd), gets obsessed and the evil takes him over. Wow. Then the tension builds!...He goes on a minor rampage taking foes out. I wouldn't want to spoil the terrific ending in case your tempted to see this (note the sarcasm). If i could rate this below a 1, i would.

It is a waste of anyone's time. You will actually kill brain cells by watching it.


This has to be one of the most badly acted and boring horror films around. The atmosphere is dull and boring and the acting aside from Geoffrey's is abysmal. It has a story, but it seems to be more fitted to a short film then a feature length movie. It is fairly slow moving, which wouldn't be a bad thing, if it didn't take the most obvious plot line imaginable. I was hoping the film would have a sense of humour, with one or two classic oneliners, but no...it's just plain bad. The special effects are cheap and nasty, just like the film...Avoid at all costs!


This film is absolutely awful and a good example of what dire straits the horror genre was in around this time. It's got the stock characters of the bullied nerd and the cruel gang of'punks' that pick on him and an abysmal storyline about a horoscope phone line that kills people; and that the recorded message talks directly to the characters doesn't phase them at all.I had the misfortune to sit through this some time ago so cant remember too much about it, but I suppose that's my point. You may think this is a 'funny' bad film , but in fact its just plain boring. It was dragging on and on at snails pace punctuated by a series non shocking/exciting moments and when I looked at the clock I couldn't believe it had only been on for 45 minutes. I'm always one for sitting out a bad film but decided to cut my losses and go to bed. OK, I know this isn't much of a review as I haven't actually watched it all, but this isn't much of a film either and unless its got the biggest midway change since 'The Jazz Singer' then I can safely say don't watch this film.


Sheesh--what a STUPID movie! Two cousins played by hunky Patrick O'Bryan and nerd Stephen Geoffreys get involved with a satanic phone line (the title). O'Bryan ignores it but Geoffreys loves it. Naturally it possesses him and he starts to kill anybody who ever picked on him.

This is Robert Englund's sole directorial movie--it's easy to see why! The basic story line is ridiculous (a satanic phone line--come on!), the dialogue is horrible and this moves at a snails pace (even at only 92 minutes). The makeup at the end is laughable and the "special" effects are truly dismal. At times the story doesn't even make sense!

As for the acting--not good. O'Bryan is very handsome and has got a great body--too bad he can't act. Geoffreys plays his role WAY too nerdy and is even lousy when he's killing--and he was so good in "Fright Night" four years earlier! What happened? Small wonder that he now does gay porn. Jim Metzler appears drugged as someone investigating the strange goings on. But worst of all is the late Sandy Dennis in her second to last role. I THINK she's trying to be funny but she's not. She's loud, abrasive and incredibly annoying. But she has a great introduction--she comes on screen wearing a Bride of Frankenstein hair do!

I'm a huge horror fan and really wanted to like this (because of Robert Englund) but I couldn't. I actually dozed off halfway through the film! Boring and silly--a complete waste of time. I give this a 1.


Wow. I didn't have high expectation, but thought I'd at least enjoy Babylon AD. I like just about anything science fiction and most B movies. Babylon AD seriously got the Homer Simpson treatment which I explain later in my review.

The setting is the world in ruins after nuclear war. Vin Diesel comes in as the anti-hero, terrorist hired to deliver a "package" to the US. Enter Michelle Yeoh as the protector and chaperone to the package. She's excellent in her role as a nun in a seemingly peaceful cult spouting lines such as, "just because we are peaceful, doesn't mean we are weak." There are some nifty special effects and enough mystery at the beginning to make me believe the film is going to get 7 stars.

Except for some futuristic technology, that's about it for the good parts of the film.

As for the bad parts, have you ever seen The Simpsons episode with Mel Gibson? The last half hour of Babylon AD is treated like Homer Simpson's version of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. I'm not kidding. It was shockingly bad and truly follows Homer's vision.

I'm still not quite sure what point the movie was trying to make. The story becomes so muddled and the acting is so bad at times that I had no idea what was going on. About 3/4 through the movie, one of the most awkward sexual tension scenes is thrown in for the hell of it. There's no build to it and it makes absolutely no sense, which unfortunately becomes the recurring theme until the end.


Wow, i don't even know where to start. I'd first like to say that,im usually generous and optimistic when i see movies, and usually films my friends say suck, i say they are okay, or when my friends say they are okay, i say it was great...This one failed in 2 very important aspects of storytelling. One, they were confused as to what the climax really was and two, there's no resolution or their pathetic excuse for one was terrible. I don't know whether they are setting up for a sequel or what but the ending was laughable(literally people laughed at the ending). Its all disappointing because the movie looked liked it had potential. the acting was average, but i didn't expect much from vin diesel and Michelle Yeoh did a decent job, other then that wait to this hits USA or TBS, don't even rent it from blockbuster, its not worth it.


The failure of this film can not be lain at the feet of the actors. They did the best they could with what they were given... this movie was just so horribly cobbled together by the writers no actor could have saved it.

The best word I can find to describe this film is "unstable" - it starts out simple enough. A girl with special abilities needs to be transported from point A to point B and protected from people trying to kidnap her. Okay, so we make our way across a vaguely realized quasi post-apocalyptic Eurasia... along the way we catch glimpses of the girls abilities... she's clairvoyant... she's telepathic... she's empathic... (but apparently has no amazing healing powers so there goes the second-coming premise) good stuff. So, sure we can see why many organizations might want to get their hands on her.

So they're at one stop off and the girl takes off with one of the groups. Exciting so Vin and Michelle will be chasing them across the world to get her back and... oh no wait... they catch up and stop them. Uh..okay, never mind.

So then they toss in "maybe she's carrying a viral weapon"... ooh! I don't see why that would give her psychic powers but okay that would be a cool plot! Not sure why we're changing plots a quarter the way in to the film but whatever.

So we fight out way to the border with a few weak plot devices to make sure there's only the 3 of them when they cross. So we're at the border and Aurora (how old is she supposed to be again?) starts to make a lusty move on Vin... okay let's toss in a romance... oh but they're interrupted.. and... that's it? It's never brought up again?

So the cross the border and fly to New York... well so much for transporting. So they get to New York and the religious sect shows up and it turns out she's pregnant and not just that a virgin pregnancy! Ohhhhkay.... so we can just toss the whole viral weapon plot... And it turns out the religious sect want to use her to legitimize themselves. Never mind they already seem to be one of the most powerful organizations in the world somehow. So lets get this straight... Aurora was a virgin birth.. her twins are a virgin conception.. and Aurora has psychic powers. But for some reason the sect will be killing her. Right. That makes no real sense at all... but so now the sect are the bad guys, right.

So they take her downstairs to deliver her when Vin has a change of heart and starts fighting them... with an army or Russian bikers and an army of sect goons standing around making sure he doesn't. So they fight their way through and for some reason the Russians and the sect are shooting at each other? Whatever I guess... and somehow all this gunfire and launching of missiles doesn't attract the cops.

So we kill Michelle and kill Vin and we discover Aurora not only knows martial arts but also has telekinetic powers. Why the hell does she need protecting again?

The movie could have ended there... say maybe use the premise she was just coming into her powers and when Vin dies it's because she doesn't need his protection any more. Ah - but that would be too easy.

No, lets resurrect Vin with Bionic parts, reveal that the girl was manufactured (okay) and has a super computer for a brain (oh come on! give me a break!) and that her powers are coming from the twins (sigh). So he needs to find her and keep protecting her. What is this? A TV show pilot where they spend the first two seasons running from town to town evading the religious nuts?

So he goes and gets her in the most obvious place the plot devices could have sent her and they defeat some more religious guys.

Then flash forward and she dies in child birth (so much for super advanced medicine of the future when a healthy 17-18 year old woman dies in child birth) and makes Vin promise to take care of the kids.

And we close with a scene of two racially different twins (oh sure... at this point whatever, right?) being cared for several years later by bionic Vin with a cryptic "let's go inside, there's a storm coming"... you SURE this wasn't meant as a TV pilot?


Let's start at the end. Direct discussion of the point of the whole story could hardly be a spoiler, since the final success or failure f this point is left for readers to discover, if they are still interested. If fact, if the film makers had made the point explicit at th very beginning, they would have made a much better movie. But to demonstrate how they have subverted the best interests of the film, here are three comments from three recent reviewers expressing confusion as to the identity of the woman at the core of the story: "The virus they thought the girl might have was never explained. Beyond that it made her some kinda bomb, maybe... But wouldn't they be afraid of catching it?" - dkpedigo.

"What he does not know, but soon learns is the knowledge the girl may be a sleeper threat to him, his boss and to those who don't want the girl to live after she arrives in America." - thinker1691.

"According to the film, the Neolites needed Aurora intact so they could establish their religion by showing that one of their own had twin virgin births." - bnvrohm.

I actually ran through the end of this film three times before I finally got it: A virus is devastating North America and Aurora is a test-tube baby genetically designed to produce a race of superhumans who can survive the virus (by healing very rapidly) and reproduce without sex (which has left Aurora a side-effect of intense empathy). Consequently, the battle between the two scientists who effectively designed her is one of control, neither of them wants her dead, no matter what else they feel for her or what other use they may have for her. The former point needs explaining which never occurs in the film, and the latter point is senselessly obscured by the intense violence of the last major gun battle. And the decision to make both points mysterious has led to a conclusion that is confusing and unsatisfying, both intellectually and emotionally. I won't tell you exactly what happens, that would spoil it; but I suggest that after you've seen it you'll wonder if you care.

That said, the film is not a total loss as cynical sci-fi action film. Diesal actually gives a good performance here. There are some exciting action set-pieces, the dramatic and satiric set-pieces are occasionally intriguing, and the world of Babylon AD may be unpleasant but it is fully realized, which is the first demand for any sci-fi film.

But there's no doubt the story needed much more thought and better control than we see here. This journey should be leading somewhere, but when we get there, we wonder why we bothered.


I read the reviews of this movie before watching, and honestly I was confident that I would like the movie despite the overwhelming bad reviews. After all, folks were very hard on the Riddick series of which I am a big fan. I also really enjoy watching Vin Diesel. In my opinion, he has the kind of screen presence to make great movies. He also fits well with the sci-fi genre because he plays mysterious characters so well.

However, the bad reviews for this movie are really true. The movie makes almost no sense. I appreciate when some movies wait to fully explain things in the end, but this movie makes one feel like an explanation is coming at some point -- yet it never comes. At the end of this movie I was truly dumbfounded. It was like reading a book that had pages ripped out of it. I feel so cinematically violated. Better luck next time Vin. You're a great actor in my opinion, and I hope to see you in more great sci-fi.


I have given this movie a four out of ten.. it probably deserves a two. but it does have a few saving graces. I am a big fan of this genre, so it is difficult to make a movie that i think is so bad. However the plot is so diluted that it barely exists at all. I hear that it has been extensively cut.. which could explain why so many things are unexplained. The action just pops from one chase or fight to the next.. It's like a video game where you have no control. If you don't laugh out loud a few times in this movie then you have no sense of humor, and the end is a total shocker. Maybe they ran out of film. It had a lot of potential, but didn't deliver at all. What a shame ! Read all the other reviews and it's the same story so I won't go on anymore.


The movie had good cinematography, some interesting back-story hints and what might have become an interesting plot competing with Children of Man.

Sadly it was completely bungled and at the end of it you have a heartless action flick that makes no sense whatsoever because the back-story it was meant to be bolted on is not narrated at all. It is a great indicator if it takes you half an hour to recognize that this is meant to play somewhere in the near future and contains SF elements and is not just wacky James Bond stuff.

You have some confusing hints at a Neochristian church trying to gain credibility by publishing an artificial Jesus figure they grew in a lab, you have indications of third world war scenarios where the use of all kinds of weapons has left most of the world in dire straits in which New York city has turned into an obscene city of decadence detached from the rest of the world and various groups vying to take control of things through messianic means.

If any of this would have been touched on at all this might have become a decent action flick with some thought food given for free. Sadly it seems to me like someone wrote a script with a vast back-story, a director shot said script to best of his abilities (as said some of the cinematography is kind a cool) and then it was given to some cutter with the demand to cut everything but the action scenes.

From the looks of those the movie was not meant to be about the action scenes because they are actually far and in between.

Sad things as I kind of expected more of it but to me it looks like it got hammered by someone not getting the initial concept and just wanting a nice action romp ignoring the complex(and thus nonsensical if not explained properly) subtext going on all around.


Big disappointing waste of time.Very weird. Starts off great introducing Vin Diesel and the setting and setting up the action and basic plot (lots of money spent on sets, too) so it looks like it is going to be a great epic action movie but gets boring about halfway through because the action becomes pointless because you don't know why people are chasing them and killing each other and then the movie simply ends without explaining. Basically it is hinted that the girl being smuggled in has a super killer virus and/or a computerized brain and/or immaculately conceived super twin fetuses inside her. By the end you still don't know if any of that was true and what were the people after her going to do with her once they caught her. It looked like to me that somebody pulled the plug on the movie when it was only half done and so they just edited unfinished scenes together. But there is a rumor is that the European version is 160 minutes long and this American version was cut to only 90 minutes so that is why it is so confusing. I would have added in maybe 5 minutes of somebody simply talking and explaining what was going on instead of having that last chase scene and then she gives birth to twins and then Vin adopts them and then the end???!!!! I mean so what, were they immaculately conceived? do they have super powers? super computer brains? super killer virus in them too?


Disappointing Days

Babylon A.D. read exactly like the studio knew it would: short, not-so-sweet and entirely forgettable. It's incredibly unfortunate that a movie which started out as the daring, futuristic novel Babylon Babies got chopped up into an overtly uninspiring and subsequently shallow PG-13 disaster.

Babylon A.D., the story of Toorop, a veteran-turned-mercenary who takes the job of escorting a woman named Aurora from Central Asia to New York, stays fresh and witty in its first hour. What Toorop (Vin Diesel) thinks is an ordinarily dangerous mission soon becomes much more when he discovers that his guest is carrying twin babies, thought to be the next Messiahs. The movie begins quickly and the first hour is brilliantly average  one can only help but admit there is little chance of a blockbuster after hearing zero publicity. All preconceived notions aside, there are actually quite a few great turns at its opening, including a border-crossing scene equaling intensity with any action film. Needless to say, after the 40 minutes my hopes were high.

The movie could have got one of two ways, really. Either it stayed true to its first hour  gritty, surprising evil marked by mysterious characters or get lazy and forever be lost to theatrical mediocrity. Unfortunately (again), it was the latter. What started out great in this production plunder (over budget, cutting room hell, fist fights, tears, etc) ultimately pandered its way boredom. I had justifiable misconceptions walking in because I have seen too many movies like it. I was hoping to be surprised and hoping that the Studio made the right decision by cutting one MPAA rating and 70 minutes from this potentially epic story, however, the Hollywood equation rings sad but true: one star + below average script + cute girl = guaranteed to at least get your money back. It's nothing short of box-office fraud I know, but I maintain that this movie had at least a chance to be above average, before coming up far short. And my oh my, did it come up short.

The movie ended in the direct opposite way it began. We were met with intrigue and let out with boredom. We were ushered in with mystery and exited with apathy. Nothing kept me thinking, nothing kept me caring. The movie ended in a lump of lazy, backward thinking  as if we cared what happened to the babies? The last scene of the film (which could have been filmed in my backyard for all I know) was about as entertaining as a Colonoscopy. Standing outside some building (his house?), Toorop held the hands of two very different looking children (the babies?) in an act of true love (Someone was in love? Who was in love?) and a commitment to raise the children on his own (Aurora's dead? How? We just saw her at the hospital). All this coming from a man whom we'd grown to love by seeing him throw innocent people from a vessel he was trying to board out of self preservation. Apparently Toorop turned nice in three seconds; who would've guessed?

If I could be blunter, I would. There were many, many things wrong with this movie outside of the fact that it was created on the floor of a cutting room. The fight sequences had to be ambiguously edited in order to show the least amount of production error and lack of footage. The characters, although almost brimming with development possibility, were left to hang like a basketball mid-flight, as if we were watching a trilogy without the courtesy of seeing part one and having no hope for part three. It was nearly torturous.

However, it's hard for me to sit here and comment solely on the end of the movie. As I said before, the opening was quite brilliant. The rigidness of Toorop was a lovably fallen character and Aurora, played by the beautiful (and teeny) Mélanie Thierry, brought a terrific, silent balance to the harsh world around her. The characters were there. The story was in place. The stage had been set, if only for an above average picture, if only for those willing to see the two-plus-hour epic, if only given the chance.

We weren't.

So Babylon A.D. is lost. At least until the next one. --Bryce VanKooten


Whatever happened to Vin Diesel's career? Around the time of Pitch Black (2000), The Fast And The Furious (2001) and xXx (2002), he seemed certain to become a major movie star. But then he made a succession of stinkers, in the form of A Man Apart (2002), Pitch Black 2 (2004) and The Pacifier (2005).

Now he's reduced to appearing in this dull, derivative European co-production, which feels like a lazily cobbled-together rip-off of Children Of Men and Blade Runner.

Diesel plays a mercenary who's hired by a criminal Mr Enorme (Gerard Depardieu) to transport a young woman with mysterious powers (Melanie Thierry) and her guardian (Michelle Yeoh) from Russia to New York. Why? We don't really know. They are chased by people who seem to be religious (led by Charlotte Rampling) and who want the girl, for reasons which remain obscure.

We can't even be sure that they're the bad guys until near the end. The whole thing is clichéd, tedious and absurdly underwritten. Plot and characterization are negligible, and it's set in a world whose politics, economic state and culture are frustratingly unclear. Director Mathieu Kassovitz burst on the scene in 1995 with the acclaimed urban thriller La Haine, but failed to conquer Hollywood with the shockingly inept thriller for Halle Berry, Gothika (2003).

This is, in some respects, even worse. He has little flair for action, and the staleness of the script is reflected only too accurately in the kind of action sequences that most of us have seen dozens of times before. Not even Diesel can power this one.


Most bad movies can eke out some dignity by at least looking like ambitious failures. Then there are some movies like "Babylon A.D." that are just too much of a mess and destined to be failures.

This movie did not have much hope from the get go, what with its director Mathieu Kassovitz publicly distancing and disowning the film, saying the studio interfered too much and made too many changes in the final cut.

It would not be foolhardy to expect at least a somewhat entertaining movie if it stars Vin Diesel. Add to that his co-stars the Asian actress Michelle Yeoh, French actor Gerard Depardieu and the veteran British actress Charlotte Rampling, the director actually has some very fine actors to work with. But they are all wasted here and almost nothing seems to be going right for this movie.

The script is weak and not clear in explaining the mystery of the all important young woman. The actors don't have enough of a background story or a decent script or some characterisation to work with. The movie starts off strong but towards the conclusion just peters out into a muddle. The ending is one of the most disappointing of any action movie in recent memory and very clearly seems tacked on.

Diesel is Toorop, a mercenary who is hired by a Russian mobster Gorsky (Depardieu) to smuggle the young woman Aurura (Melanie Thierry) accompanied by her caretaker Sister Rebecca (Yeoh).

The trio is chased by some army guys who seem to be hired by the girl's father. But her mother also wants her and has some people hunting for her too. The movie never clearly explains what makes the girl so special and a bit after the halfway point you don't really care.

The role of Gorsky is one of the most wasted and humiliating for an actor of Depardieu's stature. Rampling, who has starred in some classic movies like "The Verdict", plays nothing more than just a caricature here. Yeoh, with her radiance, has the power to light up any drab role given, but here the weight of the inanity seems almost too bleak for even her to shine through.

The director, although having made his displeasure with the studios clear, doesn't seem to give us anything to cheer for him in the parts where he might have been given control. This movie suffers from much more than studio interference. It does at places try to take on some grander themes like global warming or the downside of globalisation in the future. But it doesn't dig deeper and uses them only as background detail.

The action sequences indicate quite a bit of money spent but they are too few and coupled with the lack of empathy we feel for the characters, they sadly fall short. The movie has supposedly been shortened considerably by the studio. So for those looking for a light, brisk action movie which doesn't make too many demands on the brain, "Babylon A.D" just might be satisfactory.


This could have been a good movie , not a brilliant one mind you.Sadly the cutting of this movie makes you go ...Hang on a minute why is he ..or how is that ...oh i give up. A Vin Diesel movie always show great action at least you say ,well....Not this time who ever filmed most of the fights must have been on some form of medication since the cuts are so fast it made for painful watching, At times i felt motion sickness set in.To bad that this movie that could have gotten a solid 8 instead of a 4 was not better put together. I for one cant recommend it to anyone,I will how ever try to get my hands on the longer version that is supposed to exist and see if they manage to salvage the promise this movie almost showed.


It is amazing how such an action packed movie can be oh so boring. I have never before felt so restless during a movie, shifting in my chair, looking at my watch, wishing I could fast forward. It felt like three hours. I could not believe the movie was not over when the main character died, he came back to life again to bore us even more.

The whole movie didn't make any sense. Who was the bad guy? Why could the girl stop bullets? What was with the father? How is it that her mother was a computer?

Just a huge mess of unfinished ideas, characters that no one cares about and badly shot action.


You probably wouldn't go if you didn't already like Vin Diesel's style and deep voice. This one you can skip, though. The first half of the movie plays out OK-- nothing special, but an OK action film. As the movie progresses, though, you realize that all the interesting action scenes were already contained in the preview. The longer it goes, the damsel in distress character gets old and flat (and wasn't great to start with). Then in the final half the plot goes to hell, interweaving a bizarre pseudo-religion without any prior explanation or interesting foreshadowing, with the film turning truly incomprehensible. It felt like a movie trying to be based on a much more complex book, but with the book non-existent in this case. I was reminded of the last 20 minutes of the strange Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull, but without any cool special effects. Strongly avoid, even if you generally like Vin Diesel or B-grade action flicks.


Struggled to stay awake during the picture...typical VanDisel, but he's done much better in the past.

Had to many unanswered questions on why things happened the way they did in this picture. Also ended with a question whether or not there will be a continuation --- hopefully not.

Wondered why the picture started with such a hard line and a tough guy but ended entirely opposite which spoiled the VanDisel image in my opinion.

For futuristic, it didn't look much like it, scenery was second class and nothing spectacular about it.

Hopefully the next VanDisel picture will be a lot better and more like his XXX pictures which is what he's known for.


Babylon AD is a mess of a film. I liked other Vin Diesel films like Chronicles of Riddick (silly but fun). Unfortunately this film just doesn't work with the story just all over the place. The film starts off pretty normally but as it goes on the plot begins to crack and by the end is falls apart. What makes this worse is that nothing is explained and I just wonder why half the stuff that happened did happen.

The acting is OK but no-one stands out, Vin Diesel just sounds bored throughout the film. The action scenes are run of the mill, nothing stands out and a lot are just silly and boring.

I think somewhere in the film there might have been an interesting story, unfortunately somewhere along the way the makers of the film have forgotten that. Overall a woeful effort.


I find it interesting that Chaplin himself considered this to be his most clever and witty film, because I thought it was desultory and downright boring.

It's supposed to be a black comedy about a cad (Chaplin) who plays women like violins and then murders them, but there's little to no humour to be found here. I suppose it could be one of those films you have to see more than once to appreciate--that's happened to me before and could happen to me again; and since I like Chaplin usually, I would be more than willing to give this another shot. But until I do, my negative review stands.

Grade: C-


Johnny Depp is superb! He portray's his character, a somewhat eccentric, isolated writer, in his typically quirky manner. I enjoyed watching the movie just to see what he'd say or do next. I got the impression he was ad-libbing his monologues and it brought a smile to my face. The movie itself did little for me, however. It was pretty straight-forward through most of it, nothing terrific, nothing unexpected. Man shows up at door claiming Mort (Depp's character) plagiarized him. The man turns out to be a psycho, or so we think. By the way, why does the family pet always get killed? I mean, ALWAYS! In this one, it's the dog. Things get a little more interesting when Mort starts thinking that maybe his estranged wife's new boyfriend might be behind everything, that he might have sent this psycho after Mort in the hopes of speeding up the divorce but things have gotten out of control. Mort even confronts the boyfriend about it. Their conversation does not fit into the twist near the end of the movie, however. In fact, nothing fits in to the twist. It turns out that this psycho doesn't exist, it's Mort himself that has been doing everything to himself. He's mad. He killed his own dog. He killed his own neighbor, though he thought the stalker had killed him because he had seen the two of them together. Turns out the neighbor only saw Mort arguing with himself. Mort killed the detective he hired to intimidate the stalker. Okay, the twist was a good idea but it happened so abruptly that you were tempted to hit rewind to see if you missed something. And it really contradicted the conversation Mort had with the boyfriend who had admitted that things were out of his control. Or, who knows, maybe that conversation never took place either. Maybe Mort was standing at the gas station talking to himself. Okay, an interesting movie with an interesting twist if the twist had been integrated better, if clues had been given that you could later say, oh I should have seen that coming, I should have caught that. But there was no indication and so it seemed fabricated. I don't think the move will hurt Depp's reputation, however. He did a terrific acting job and, okay, I'm tempted to play a couple of parts again just to hear his quirky little jibes at himself and his wife and the boyfriend.. Glad I sat through it but I've seen better.


Johnny Depp is pretty nice, as one might expect, in fact all the cast is pretty nice. The script could have been made into something really interesting, but wasn't. The director did a really worthless job. Or the producer, I can't tell. There's some scenes and some music in some scenes that'll really going to make you laugh.. Crying "OMG IT'S SO BAD" Don't pay to see this B-movie. We, my friend and I basically figured out the whole movie out after 15-20 minutes.. But we said to ourselves "no this cant be it, it cant be that cheesy" .. Guess what .. it is .. Do yourself a favour and avoid the most predictable movie this year.


I just didn't like this one, not a lot to be entertained by. It centers around a main character that is holding his balance between having bad luck and just being stupid. Most of the events are difficult to believe because there's no possible way this guy can't figure out the situation. But there you have it, he can't. The atmosphere tries to be grim, but it really steers more towards boring. Then we have the psychological approach, because our hero is usually alone. You usually get to know a movie character best when he's alone. Either way, all these scenes just seem really art-house, let's just film him doing some everyday thing and hopefully it will look smart. It's not about the plot, but the plot is so weak. And if you really want to make the viewer think he's intelligent you should just get rid of the story all together and randomly edit in shots of a wheelbarrow or whatever. Either way, this was pretty disappointing, whatever point it was trying to make. Worst thing probably is that I didn't care about the main character. I just didn't care, that made it difficult to watch.