When The Spirits Within was released, all you heard from Final Fantasy fans was how awful the movie was because it didn't seem like Final Fantasy. This is a different story, for better or worse. The familiar settings, characters, music, story, and over the top action scenes should thrill fans of the original game. The problem is that it just isn't a good movie in its own right.

The direction during the fight scenes is often sloppy, switching camera angles ridiculously fast in an attempt to make the action seem more frenetic, but only serving to make the scenes look jumbled and confusing.

The CG itself is exceptional, but I can't say it's the best I've ever seen since Spirits Within had much more detail on the characters, although I must admit that Advent Children's characters moved much more naturally.

The plot is virtually a black hole. It's a giant deus ex machina designed solely to bring Sephiroth back for one last fight. Old characters reappear, but serve no real purpose other than to please fans. Character development is nonexistent and the film does nothing at all to resolve any of the plot threads left hanging after the game's end. But it's packed with neat-looking fight scenes with magic, summons, and limit breaks, which is probably what fans wanted anyway.

In the end, Advent Children is a very flashy, but totally brainless action flick that serves more as a side story for Final Fantasy VII than a real sequel.

By the way, don't think you're hurting my feelings by voting Not Useful. It just makes me feel superior knowing that fanboys/fangirls resent my objectivity so greatly.


First i will say that i am going to be as subjective as I can.

There will be some potential spoilers ahead so beware.

I hardly ever review movies, but this one in particular i felt i had to review. This movie Final Fantasy 7 Advent Children, based off the ultra popular rpg (Final Fantasy VII) for the ps1 has been in the works for quite some time. After the years of hype and the dozens of trailers (none of which i ever saw, i had only seen stills) this movie got the legions of fans really excited about seeing their favorite characters on the big screen. I myself had played and completed the game a few times like any good fan, and being such a movie freak i was pretty excited myself. So i had thought to myself, "WHAT COULD GO WRONG?".

Well, the movie started out OK in the first 20 minutes, but then things get out of hand as the movie progressed. Without a doubt, this is the best looking CGI animation around, but that won't help a weak plot, undeveloped characters,and over indulgent action scenes.

Here is the story basically. These three silver haired nancy boys in leather who have nothing to do with the game, are supposedly clones of Sephiroth (he's the villain of the game who had supposedly murdered all his supposed clones)are trying to kidnap all the children for some reason that was not really explained all that well, probably to make an army (of kids?) They also center some of the story on some kid named Denzel, i don't know who this kid is, or what his point is, he just seems depressed all the time. So the sephiroth clones also are involved in some kind of scheme involving some disease called geostigma, that only affects the children, this disease seems to cause boredom and small amounts of skin discoloration.

So now Cloud must save the day from these guys. Apparently Cloud and his fellow team mates have learned the ability of flight, i felt a little insulted that these characters where flying around a city fighting a dragon and landing on there feet all the time. Maybe if the movie wasn't so over the top, then the view relax into it and then they can be amazed by something incredible. The real problem of this movie is logic. Now i know what you are gonna say, "But it's called Final FANTASY! it should have those ideas in it!" well that is a foolish way to think, the game based itself in some kind of reality and the movie should follow through in that CONTEXT. Context and logic in this movie is inconsistent, i could explain it all, but if i did, i would end up writing the screenplay.

Also some scenes in this movie were extremely contrived and trite. like when all of the characters from the game show up just in the nick of time for their obligatory screen time so as not to upset the fans. They show up, do there bit and pretty much have no point in the story.

If this is too long here is the simpler review-

the pros- the first 20 minutes top-notch cgi animation decent action scenes visually stunning

the cons- illogical over indulgent action/ unbalanced action (leaves the viewer jaded at the climax) weak plot super human characters=no suspense the j-rock soundtrack/score (what happened to the orchestra?) Horrible ending

BIG TIME SPOILER-

Now the ending of this movie really disappointed me. they could have had gone the really cool and sweet ending where cloud dies and meets up with aeris in the after life but after the great battle at the end cloud gets shot in the back, the kinda wound where the bullet blast out through the chest. then cloud has his 100th flashback in the movie and then wakes up in a pool of lifestream. (now i remember the lifestream in the game, but it did not have resurrecting properties, if it did, they could have brought aeris back to life, thus making a completely different story) so cloud is brought back to life and everyone has a party and dives into the pool and we have a ultra cheezy hallmark/ lifetime type moment.

not that the movie doesn't have it's moments. its is worth seeing for its visuals. but thats all.

other than that it's not really a good movie. it is strictly for blinded fans of the game. not for people who care about plot and character and story telling.


I was giddy with girlish-glee when I found out about this movie shortly after seeing Spirits Within.

After years of anticipation, they gave November 2005 release date. Well, November came. And went. Followed by December. Oh, look, today's January 31, 2006. No US release as of yet.

Oh well, I'm so glad I had a friend with a bootlegged subtitled copy. ;D

Well, the cg was great. Not as good as expected, but near perfect. I cringed, however, at the unnatural movements made by the children throughout the movie. I had thought that we were passed this by now. Also, I didn't really care for the anime look given to their faces. I was under the impression that they were shooting for a realistic look to the film, and yet most of the characters have larger-than-norm eyes, especially the girl characters. They had personality, though, I'll give them that.

Even though I'm not a big fan of anime, I do have to say I was impressed with the wild fight scenes. They were animated beautifully and had me hanging onto the edge of my seat.

For about the first two.

And there-in lies Advent Children's biggest flaw. It's mostly just a bunch of hyper-stylized fight scenes.

A FF7 sequel of epic proportions had been promised for years. Instead, they gave us a pretty piece of cg with barely a plot to excuse it's just-under-two-hours running time.

Where Final Fantasy is famous for its intricate stories, this movie falls short. You don't really get to know the characters. The only way you'd have any understanding of most of what occurred in the film would have been if you had played the game. We barely got to see them before they were battling it out with whatever current threat.

What hurts the fans even more is the awful cameos that the majority of FF7 characters were given. They were nothing more than Cloud's "I'll call if I need you, but I probably won't" back up singers. And, to add to the hurt, they had each character individually throw Cloud higher and higher. This little part here was so cheesy I almost turned it off. I would have been much more impressed if he had just simply jumped up all on his own, ricocheting off of walls to get himself up higher.

It hurt even more when they reduced the Turks to less-than-just comic relief. That was fine for the game, but this is cinema. People do not act like cartoon characters in a harsh battle. They took away their dignity :/

And, spoiler (yeah right, most of you probably already know, anyhow). Who remembers Darth Maul being hyped up in SW: Episode 1? Yeah, now, picture that, but with Sephiroth. That's right. He had maybe 5 minutes of screen time. Maybe that. End Spoiler :P

If this movie was made for the fans, then way to go Square. If this is any indication of the direction you're taking the FF series, I doubt you're going to be seeing much of my money. I played your games for the wonderful story and the excellent characters.

You had a chance to make something epic. Something truly beautiful, a masterpiece that flies in the face of all of the Disney CG films.

Instead you gave us a pretty piece of flesh with hardly anything underneath to hold it together. Way to go.

And I'm sure if the rest of the fans paused for a moment and tried to just pay attention to everything but the CG they'd know what I'm talking about. Well, I was gonna rate this a 5/10, but after thinking about it while righting this, I'm giving it a 3/10 because they could have done better. They have done better. And this is just sad.

If they're gonna remake anything FFVII, they need to do this one first.


Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said "incomprehensible." Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.

Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.

Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.

Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.

NOTE: The one point I give this "film" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head.


Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.

First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.

In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.

The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.

The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.

And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.

Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.

Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.

The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.

And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).

Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10.


I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool

now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)

the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie

the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west)

all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that

wtf's with the chilly chally???

summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)


So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.


Normally, I'm a Studio Ghibli fan. Despite being predisposed towards liking this movie (I stubbornly held out hope until the end credits, despite all rationale,) I consider the time I spent watching it as waste, and here's why: The story wanders around aimlessly, with zero surprises (you can't twist what's not there, I guess) and reaches a conclusion that the viewer basically makes during the first 5-10 minutes of the film.

While the movie is supposed to be a "slice of life" type of film, it's too bad the life being sliced is a boring one. There are many missed opportunities where something exciting could have happened, or something could have been revealed to add depth to the main characters (and thus increase the chances of the viewer developing some hint of empathy with them.)

Open your window at home, and spend 70 minutes watching passersby instead of this film. You'll be glad you did.


I've been a fan of Crash since I was 7 and when I was 13 and saw this game I thought it was going to be a breath of fresh air ever since Naughty Dog no longer was in production of this game. When I started playing this game I (at first) liked it but as I continued onward I realized I was wrong. The game-play is common sense like, not challenging but can be at times aggravating because it can get hard and repetitive. The music was catchy the first two or three times you listen to it but can also be repetitive and annoying after a while. The plot is stupid, I learned that Corty and bandiman should NEVER work together. This game is really not for kids due to the adult references it make sometimes but most of the dialogue is stupid tedious retarded bathroom and cheesy pop culture references which you sometimes HAVE to sit watch since they won't let you click off it. Another thing that annoyed me was the fact that Aku Aku SUX at protecting you he's says he will but when you walk into those TNT/Nitro boxes (even if you have three masks) you will DIE!!! Which is stupid, I don't ever recall any Crash game doing that. In other words you can EASILY die in this game!!!! The Characters suck!! Crash-Nothing more than a silent retarded unaware idiot Cortex-He really convinced me that he was some scary cross-dressing gay idiot! The Niece-They seriously jumped the shark when they introduced her to the game!! I hate her that stupid creepy emo brat!!! That's as far as I want to go into these characters I don't want to talk about the rest!! The only thing I like about the game is the graphics. That's IT!!!

People if you come across this game avoid it and walk away.... R.I.P. Crash Bandicoot 1996-?2001/2004(by the way the crash series may be dead again once they release Crash of the Titans!)


A prison/boxing movie that has to be seen to be believed. It's almost impossible to explain. Too Sweet ends up in prison again because he violently pummels a boxer to death during a boxing match after his drink was spiked with some sort of drug that made him crazy and more violent. The prison has a dungeon(!!!) where a midget is kept like an animal and who is routinely left out of by the prison wardens whenever they want to get rid of a prisoner. The prison is basically controlled by a blond man who's prison cell is decorated with tacky red curtains and paintings. And he's got a "girlfriend," a man in complete drag. At one time, the killer midget is sent into Too Sweet's cell and the two fight a *really* long fight that's a real head scratcher. BTW, during this long fight Too Sweet is only in his underwear! This scene is the "highlight" of the movie.

There are more fights during the rest of the movie but I lost track of everything afterwards. The whole thing is just too weird. Everyone involved must have been on drugs or something. PENITENTIARY 3 exists in its own alternative Cannon universe.


I just watched this movie, and it took me 10 minutes to realize that I already saw it before (but never made it to the end). It's that forgettable. For starters, its interminable, almost 3 hours. It's a huge production, with a cast of a thousand, all famous French actors and with James Caan thrown in for good measure. There is an unending cast of poorly portrayed characters, new characters small and large popping up all the time. It's like watching a French telephone book made into a movie. Trying to keep it straight? Take a load of this, they all play two generations of themselves, sometimes at the same time (OK, the James Caan with the graying hair is the dad, and the one who looks not a year younger, with the red hair is the son. Why not give them all name tags?). If you want to see Fellini meets Busbee Berklee, if you like a comic book history lesson of WWII with nicely tanned and brightly colored scenes of Auschwitz for instance (I'm not kidding, and it's not a spoof either), and if a director who can't tell a story and covers up with gratuitous special effects and lavish song and dance numbers is your kind of guy, by all means watch this movie.


Overlong (2 hours), minimal character development, no scenario, no nothings. I have never yet fallen asleep in the cinema, but this time it was a close-run thing, and judging by the lack of animation from my fellow cinema-goers I wasn't alone in this.

2-dimensional characters, inane dialogue (except in the first half, where Mitterrand's acid tongue is occasionally allowed out for a run).

Boring, boring, boring. It doesn't even cut it as a rather flat documentary, since the director freely admits taking liberties with what Mitterrand really said and did.

Avoid this film, unless of course you're an insomniac.


Me goodness!! That was by far the crappiest piece of junk I have ever tortured my senses with. Here's the plot: ----------

Here's the story: ---------

A careless "the-devil-may-care" french street bum keeps running around aimlessly through mostly train stations or airports, constantly being asked for his passport... then running again... and so on...

There's the occasional blurred flurry of faces bothering the viewer's every nerve fiber... and again, the running...

Just multiply the above for an hour or so and voilà! French crap (suzette) at its best!

PS: If a certain sheep-look-a-like (goes by the name of Catinca) tries to convince you to watch this flick, just slowly walk away...


I decided to watch this film because I love Cary Grant and eventually I want to see every film he made. Unfortunately, this one isn't even nearly one of his best. Far too much of the humor relies on the audience buying into those wonderful 1950's female stereotypes. I mean, we have female army officers, nurses, acting like silly little girls. It's quite revolting. In other words, far from being a classic, the film feels like an unintelligent, unenlightened piece of pop trash. Compare this to another Cary Grant film that came out the same year, North by Northwest; or Tony Curtis's Some Like it Hot which also came out in 1959. On an intellectual and artistic level, Operation Petticoat doesn't begin to come close.


This movie was disappointing. All of the emotions and values seemed rather predictable. The situations the people got into were not realistic. For example the mother in law refused to look after the children when the main character (Owen) had a business trip to make. Just wouldn't happen the way it was portrayed. A bunch of teenagers arrived for a party and wrecked the house, but although there was a teenage son, he was of a different age group than these people who came from nowhere. This was fabricated to create a situation of tension while the main character (Owen) was away on his business trip. Totally unbelievable. The girlfriend refused him when he asked her to look after the kids for a few days. Wouldn't happen. The son couldn't look after his younger brother yet could get himself from Australia to England alone.

This was an attempt to make a weepie with a very unbelievable story. Acting was good, story and script not so.


After The Wild Bunch had pushed back a few boundaries in terms of violence, especially within the western genre, there followed a spate of similar westerns. Billy Two Hats, Chato's Land, The Hunting Party, The Revengers and The Last Hard Men were among the front-runners. Also on any list of brutal '70s revenge-westerns would be The Deadly Trackers, originally planned as a Samuel Fuller movie but completed by Barry Shear after Fuller quit the project. This violent, bloodthirsty film is, alas, somewhat disappointing.

Irish sheriff Sean Kilpatrick (Richard Harris) looks after the Texas town of Santa Rosa and has made a point of solving crimes and capturing criminals without resorting to violence. In fact, he has never in his life fired a gun in anger, yet has somehow fostered total law, order and respect among the townsfolk. His methods are tested to the limit when outlaw Frank Brand (Rod Taylor in a surprisingly sadistic performance) and his gang rob the local bank. During their escape attempt, the outlaws inadvertently kill Kilpatrick's own wife and child. Devastated, Kilpatrick ditches his anti-gun, anti-violence attitude and pursues Brand and his cronies. The chase leads to Mexico, where Kilpatrick has no official authority and is viewed as little more than an outlaw himself. The Irish sheriff tracks down and kills Brand's gang one-by-one, until just he and Brand remain.

Just a year earlier, Barry Shear had made the film Across 110th Street, regarded as the most violent movie ever made up to that point, so it's perhaps no surprise that this film emphasises the gore and brutality to the extent it does. Harris is quite memorable as the Irish sheriff, giving another of his energetic performances, and Taylor's villainous turn reveals an ugly side rarely portrayed by the actor in his other films. However, in most aspects The Deadly Trackers fails to make the grade as a good, worthwhile film. It is far too simplistic for its own good, with no resonance beyond the immediate plot (and the plot itself is pretty basic, being nothing more than a straightforward chase narrative). The supporting performances are generally rather lacklustre, possibly because none of the characters beyond the two principal players carry much depth or interest. Also, the story is dismayingly familiar, with precious little that it fresh or original; just lots of tired and predictable scenes that have been begged, borrowed and stolen from many other sources (even the music is lifted directly from The Wild Bunch.... perhaps to keep the budget down?) On the whole, The Deadly Trackers is a dismal misfire in which the detail to violence and the intriguing lead performances are the sole points of interest.


Although this western feature has much big name talent, it however fails in quality. The plot is thin.There is too much unnecessary violence. Direction is poor.


The first Turbulence movie really reeked (ie. it stunk out the whole cabin), mostly because there were large portions of the movie where nothing much exciting happened. They fixed this problem for Turbulence 2 with wall-to-wall non-stop heart-pounding action. OK, the action isn't heart-pounding but it's certainly wall-to-wall. There's always somebody fighting, running away, chasing, blowing something up, shooting, dying, trying to escape or, of course, flying the plane in turbulent conditions. Oh yeah, and falling...

The wall-to-wall action is flanked closely on both sides with wall-to-wall stupidity, but to its credit the movie does not take itself too seriously. How could it? A fear of flying group takes a ride in a plane with a bunch of terrorists with a bomb on board which then heads towards a storm. Ha ha, yeah right. Now, it's up to the fear of flying passengers & crew to save the day which they do with varying degrees of success. When ANOTHER crew member gets shot attempting to overthrow the bad guy the bad guy says something along the lines of "Aargh! what's wrong with you people?". It's delivered beautifully.

Actually, the acting in general is really very, err, well capable. I was going to say good, but in the context of this movie it wouldn't quite fit. I'm only giving this movie 4/10, but it's a fun 4/10. Chill that beer, microwave that popcorn, hand over your $2 to the video shop, switch off brain, press play, enjoy.


This movie is total rubbish. The only decent part of this movie is when the bloke gets chucked out of the plane. The lawyer gets chucked out! there you go i told you, in case you havent seen it. Now that you know the best part of the movie for god sake whatever you do dont go and rent this, it is woeful. O.1/10


Now and then one of those wonderful films comes along that is so terrible it's good. It's no small feat to maintain such disregard for reality, such outrageous inconsistencies, so many factual clangers and to tell the story with so many awful lines. I especially enjoyed "We're all gonna die." Not to mention the bonking in the lavatory. Hell I find it hard to brush my teeth in one of those things let alone commit adultery.It would be easier in a Volkswagen. This film is so unrelently ghastly that I enjoyed it immensely. Not just bad. Ghastly! It's not a likely candidate for an in flight movie but it should be. Nobody on board any aircraft anywhere would ever believe anything in it.


** review may contain mild spoilers **

I saw this film on television recently. Because its subject matter is evocative of the 9/11 attacks (despite being filmed two years prior) and our current terrorism fears, it held my interest longer than I expected it would. But to be sure, in the genre of thrillers this is a "C" movie--definitely not in the "must-see" category. If you are looking for action and suspense, this movie has a little bit of both, but you will have to accept a lot of unrealistic plot details along the way. Indeed, by the end of the movie the cumulative effect of the scarcely believable plot and the uninspired dialogue had me chuckling inside. If you like to laugh at mediocrity, then this movie might do the trick for you.

The performances are decent at times, but mostly forgettable. Flashdance's Jennifer Beals, who plays the heroine, and Jody Thompson, a young female passenger in a minor role, are not bad to look at. Unfortunately, for most of the film they are just shrinking in horror as helpless hostages. Tom Berenger, who plays the villain, does a passable job of Cain-raising as an off-his-rocker terrorist, but his character more often strikes the viewer as silly and stupid rather than scary. Craig Sheffer delivers a bland performance as the hero, a former airplane pilot who became a technician/engineer after a flying accident and now has a chance to redeem himself. Plain-looking techies don't usually make good leading men, and Sheffer's Martin Messerman is no exception.

There are few chances for the actors to shine, as the dialogue that they must recite vacillates between the trite and the ridiculous. And the character development is thin, so there's not much depth or motivation underlying the actions of the major players. There is too little chemistry between the lead actors to provide much fulfillment at the end of their shared experience. The film's few attempts at humor are pathetically unfunny, although many other lines that were not intended to be funny may elicit laughs for their absurdity.

Some of the unbelievable moments in the film have been already mentioned. I will add a few more. As in many films, the villain never can bring himself to kill the person who poses the greatest threat to his mission, despite the inherent logic of that act. Also, the plane is supposed to be flying amid severe atmospheric turbulence throughout (consistent with the title), but for long stretches in the middle of the movie, all rocky movement seems to cease as far as the passengers are concerned. And the toxic agent is alternately described as nerve gas and then anthrax.

The movie includes lots of technical details related to 747's that seem to slow down the story without adding much useful realism. Some airline industry consultants are named in the credits at the end, so apparently the script was vetted by knowledgeable people, but that fact makes the scientifically doubtful moments even less excusable.

If you must see an airplane thriller, see Air Force One. If you've already seen Air Force One, the Airport, Airplane!, and Die Hard series are all superior to this clunker.


A group of freighted passengers, some superficial individual dramatic situations, terrorists, pilot and cabin crew killed or sick, an alert and smart passenger that has never piloted a plane (but knows a lot about planes), a helpful lady, a doctor, some torture and murders, plane with very few fuel, enough just for one trial of landing the aircraft, happy end for the survivals, a beginning of a love (sealed by a kiss) between the smart passenger that saved the survivals and the helpful lady How many times have we, simple viewers, faced this screenplay? Turbulence 2 is exactly the same. Craig Sheffer has a horrible acting and Tom Berenger, who is a good actor, performs a secondary role in a very forgettable movie. Spending your time watching this flick is pure waste of time. My vote is four.


All airplane flicks tend to throw in the kitchen sink to fill the time but this may have surpassed even the spoofs in having a "and then what happened" motif. How many times can the passengers rise up against the villains and then back down like sheep can you handle? How many shots can you fire in an airplane and not lose pressure? Do you believe you can throw a passenger from a plane at 10,000 feet and have the body crash through the control tower landing in front of the "good guys"? Kidnapping, toxins, fights, missiles but they won't toss the luggage until they find the exact baggage. Gosh that's better than most airlines on a normal day. And so it goes. Acting level? Well, find any one who wasn't a caricature.

Its bad but it starts to turn the corner and just be laughable and that is about all that can make you sit through this movie. Now the real question is what was Turbulence 1 like that they made another one?


I plan to ask my shrink why - why? - I watched this entire film (on HBO). I truly think I could've written a better script. I could have directed, edited, acted, rewritten the whole thing.

What interests me is how movies like this even make it to HBO or cable? Tom Beringer, arguably the most known actor in the "film" walks (sleeps, really) through his part as the air traffic controller. The other characters are so wooden - they would have been better to have used blow-up dollies - the ones with their mouths totally open as the frightened first-time passengers.

Well, enough. I'll never fly again. Or, watch doomed flight movies. This was no "Air Force One" and that at least had Harrison Ford and secret pod escape modules. Bill Clinton himself explained the AF1 was not equipped with such.

I still need an answer as to why I watched this entire film. Perhaps I am mentally ill?


'Turbulence' is a daft movie, but a daft movie with good special effects, Ray Liotta/Lauren Holly (which is better than it seems) and - above all - is fun to watch.

'Fear of Flying' (frankly, I reckon they added the 'Turbulence 2' to avoid litigation) is a ludicrous movie, with re-used footage from 'Turbluence', Craig Sheffer - my least favorite actor who has been in TWO other air disaster movies, 'Flying Virus' and 'Cabin Pressure' - and is absolutely humdrum.

This film is not "So bad it's good!", it's "So bad its awful!". For one, Craig Sheffer is not a likable hero. He's a bumbling little weenie! I think I connected better with the bloody hijacker than anyone else! The supporting cast is not even worth a mention, and it sickens me to think that they reused one scene of this movie in Jodie Foster's 'Flightplan' (who keeps writing these bloody clichéd scripts, anyway? Is it the same one guy?!?!). Heck, even 'Turbulence 3' was better than this! Yes, you heard me - 'TURBULENCE 3' is BETTER than this. Craig Sheffer should be BANNED from making movies. Locked up somewhere. He's such an AWFUL actor! And yes, I realize I'm having a whinge - but it's true! The worst part of this movie is HIM, in all his cocky, scaredy-cat 'save the world and my family' glory! I hate this movie!!!


Although Fear of Flying introduces a better plot than the first, the acting is very bad and some parts are outrageously unrealistic. Who would fire a gun in a plane? One amusing part was when the terrorist threatens to blow up the anthrax bomb in the plane. This would not only destroy the plane and the humans, but the anthrax will disperse. Two passengers acquire the detonator,push the bomb out the door of the plane, and it detonate it so the terrorist does not attempt to dispose of the passengers. In other words, what appeared to be a good deed, subsequently enabled the anthrax to disperse. Another amusing part was when a passenger attempts to talk to a Czechoslovakian terrorist. She says she only knows a little of the language, but then suddenly starts speaking as if she speaks it fluently! The main terrorist had these cool claws which he used to dispose of his victims. Fear of Flying was somewhat more entertaining than the first Turbulence, in good and bad ways.


The plot of this film is just so preposterous it makes "Airplane!" look like a slice of gritty realism. Nervous flyers on a plane in a terrible storm with evil European terrorists (no clue as to what their cause was, other than "being evil"), deadly nerve gases, dead cabin crew, drugged ice cubes, gun fights, a missile attack, and an ordinary Joe who has to land the plane (he has a dead wife, and an impossibly cute little son, of course).

As the action lurched from this implausible random plot twist to that piece of clunky, cliche-ridden dialogue, I found myself being charmed by the sheer awfulness of it all.

My favourite part is when a terrorist starts babbling in Czech, and Jennifer Beals offers to try and interpret since she learned a few words of Polish from her Grandmother as a child. Seconds later she is in full swing: "He says that there is a deadly nerve gas in the hold, and he will press the detonator killing everyone within a 5 mile radius"....Whatever did her grandmother talk about all the time that she picked up that vocabulary?


I usually do not make comments on movies but this one is so bad that I felt I had to. This movie's plot was poor and very unbelievable. There is no way that anything like this could happen in the "real world" which is what makes it such a poor movie. To add insult to injury, the writing was horrible and the lines poorly written. The only reason I watched this movie to its conclusion was to see just how bad it could get. This one is definitely a turkey so don't waste your time with it.


There are so many flaws in this pathetic attempt at an action/airline movie I can't even begin to describe as I would be here all day! What is Tom Berenger doing in absolute crap like this??? I hope this was a huge loss for the film makers because it was a waste of 2 hours in my life I can never have back! ABSOLUTE RUBBISH! The script must of been written by a pre-schooler.


I don't have much to say about this turkey except to watch for one incredible sequence with the terrorist contacting the control tower. The Tower gives the terrorist the usual talk about no negotiations. The terrorist decides he has to show that he means business. But how? His solution? Start tossing people out of the plane. An effective plan right? But that is not enough for this terrorist. He also wants to send a message to the control tower, to express his outrage at their non-cooperation.

So, the terrorist opens the hatch and holds his selected victim inches away from doom. Then, as the plane flies over the airport, he carefully and judiciously calculates wind speed, vector problems, and trajectory so that when he drops the poor sap, the body will rip into the Control Tower like a missile. What a math wizard, he does this all on the fly without aid of a calculator.


...absolutely, bar none.

At best corny and clichéd, at worst insulting to my intelligence.

For example; when the baddie throws a passenger out of a 747 door whilst flying above the airport, on a stormy night, just to prove a point, the body just happens to fall through the glass roof of the control tower where the team are negotiating with the hijacker. 'nuff said.

I feel sorry for the original audiences that will never regain those wasted couple of hours and bemused by anyone who would actually go out and spend money on the DVD. I see in the voting that some people actually gave this a 10? Presumably the director, crew and assorted family.


TURBULENCE 2: FEAR OF FLYING / (2000) *1/2 (out of four)

By Blake French:

	"Turbulence 2: Fear of Flying" is an unusually stupid movie-but what can we expect from a straight-to-video action picture with few known actors and even fewer similarities with the original 1997 thriller "Turbulence." It's a shallow, incompetent movie with no brains and no thrills. The production contains many characters and a legion of plot twists, but they are meaningless to the actual story. None of those twists or characters contributes to the interest factor, and we are stuck watching utter insanity for almost two hours. This is not a smooth ride.

	The story centers on a group of ordinary pedestrians who recently completed a therapy program to overcome their fear of flying. They celebrate by taking a flight to L.A. Unfortunately a clan of terrorists hijack the plane. They carry with them a load of extremely dangerous chemical weapons. After killing the pilot, they threaten to kill the rest of the passengers if given any trouble. One of the passengers isn't going to go down without a fight, however, and he's ready to save the day.

	I watched "Turbulence 2: Fear of Flying" with great interest in how a movie so centered on an airplane could have no clue about the technical aspects of airplanes. Would any airline employee fire a gun inside a flying jet? Would it be possible for a young boy to run outside on the tarmac at a major airport with being stopped by someone? Is it possible to stand feet away from an open door on a jet going so fast? Can someone control the flaps from within the cargo hold? Are there really elevators aboard a 747? Can a handgun fire twenty-two rounds without reloading? This movie answers yes to all of those questions. I am no expert, but I beg to differ.

Most of the characters are one-dimensional and thoughtless plot puppets who do nothing but utter howlingly bad dialogue. Although many of the characters have a great fear of flying, their fear somehow disappears once the terrorists take over the flight. Some of the twists are kind of fun and surprising, but many exist only to provide a split second shock. The action lacks aim. The direction lacks impulse. The movie lacks a point, and just about everything else.

The actors in "Turbulence 2: Fear of Flying" don't really know what to do with their stereotypical characters because there isn't much for them to do. We can sense an inclination of talent involved with this production since the performances are fair and the set designs believable. But the script's stupidity is too distracting for any informed moviegoer to redeem satisfaction from this cluttered mess of an action picture. This is just another addition into the stupid hijack movie of the month series-but this one is more ridiculous than most.


I can't say I liked nothing about all three episodes, but there was a lot not to like.

The main drag here is that I spent most of ep2 and all of ep3 being constantly reminded I was watching a show here and how clever it all was. To answer the above comment: No. Not for a minute did I believe they were actually killing off the star. She was lying dead but they still used her for the voice-over. Dozens of times in previous episodes over the three years they 'called it' on some dead person, and everybody walked away in grief, and that was that. Here they went three heroic efforts too many and you knew it was going to work anyway. I want at least SOME try at disbelief suspension when I watch TV, SOME chance to get into the story. Not this.

According to all the char dev up to now, McD should have punched McS's hand off his shoulder. Nope. Up to now, Addy would have looked McS off in disgust, not challenged him to a duel or believed that would make any difference or thought she might get back with him. Nope. (Spinoff? Ugh.) M's ongoing tension with her mother, thrown away for some cheap thrill at the edge of the river styx. You are led to believe M is saving herself with her unconscious or whatever, but you are also led to believe heroic measures from the living are doing it. Which is it, and don't say both cause it's just too unbelievable they worked at the same time. Even the Drew Carrey dead episodes were more realistic than this.


Given that all the other reviews on this film are from people who live outside the UK i thought i would give a review from the UK.In my view this is the phoniest film about the war in 1940 that was ever perpetrated by Hollywood.Virtually everything about it was wrong.The characters always seem to be going to restaurants and travelling in cars as if there was no rationing.They go down to what is clearly supposed to be a restricted area on the coast without ID.They go to a pub where a Hollywood idea of cockney is spoken other than the "Mumerset" accent of Nigel Bruce. Now there were conscientious objectors but these were normally people with a conscience about taking part in war.James Mason is one example.However the ideas and views put forward by Powers character would not have been current in the later part of 1940.By that time this country was fighting on its own in a life and death struggle.Chamberlain had resigned and Churchill was now PM.There was an all party coalition government not a National Conservative government.Hitlers peace feelers had been rebuffed and with the blitz there was now no go back.So the anti war sentiments put forward in the film are totally unbelievable as is Powers character.This film may have been a big success in its day but now looks very dated.


I enjoy the kind of outlandish stories like the one found in FEDORA. The whole story is so much larger than life that seeing the sorta mediocre result is disappointing because this story needed grandeur, big budget, big cast, big everything, to elevate the over-the-top story to its sublime glory. Oddly enough (and unfortunately for us) Billy Wilder's movie mimics the film's story to a tee. The story is about a famous but reclusive film star (obviously patterned after Greta Garbo) who lives on an isolated Greek island. A producer/writer (played by a too old William Holden) wants to meet with Fedora and have her come out of retirement so she can star in his new film. Fedora had already retired before but experienced a comeback a few years ago before disappearing from the silver screen, this time for good. When Holden meets Fedora, the woman seems totally crazy. The story that unfolds afterwards is preposterous, soapy, twisted, quasi-operatic and yet fitting, for a story about Hollywood.

The funny thing about FEDORA is how Wilder critiques old Hollywood and the then current Hollywood of the 1970s and proceeds to shoot himself in the foot. The convoluted story of a Hollywood legend unable to live up to her famous past is exactly what happened to Wilder when he decided to direct this film: Wilder was too old to direct this film. FEDORA, the film itself, is a pale example of what the director could do when compared to his films of the past, like SUNSET BOULEVARD and SOME LIKE IT HOT. Not only that, but Wilder also samples his older films' glory to drive his point in FEDORA, which, in turns renders the whole thing even more pathetic than it needed to be.

FEDORA, the film, is not really about the fictional story about a legendary actress but more about Billy Wilder, the director, a bitter old man trying to prove a point by showing to the world how over-the-hill he was.

The casting in FEDORA can only be described as disastrous. Hiring Holden was a very bad idea. His presence kept reminding me of SUNSET BOULEVARD, which even if that film was made in the good old days of the 1950s, was more sharp, more ironic, more iconic, more modern in its understanding of how image can distort reality than anything seen in FEDORA, which was made in 1978. Showing Marthe's breasts does not equate to anything than a pathetic attempt to be with the times. Casting Marthe Keller and Hildegard Knef was also a very bad idea. The voices for both actresses were dubbed throughout the entire film, which was needlessly distracting and watered down whatever attempt at acting those two tried to achieve. And Jose Ferrer looks bored out of his mind. In fact, the whole film looks bored, sounds bored, moves boringly. THE LEGEND OF LYLAH CLARE, which share the same kind of improbable storyline, is, even as bad as it is, more fun and enjoyable to watch than this dreary thing.

The film's bite would have been more convincing if FEDORA had more punch to it, more life, more style, more irony. As it is, FEDORA is just sad and pathetic. It's a shame because like I said, I love these kind of stories and it annoys the heck out of me that Wilder was more concern in trying to voice a (tired) opinion than actually trying to create a great film first. A proper remake, with grand production values and a bit more class (the film creates a sorta repellent image of Garbo), and hopefully without Michael York, should be done one of these days. The improbable, over-the-top, almost operatic story definitely deserves it.


It is embarrassing to watch a former master of the medium (Billy Wilder) create a shallow, bitter little piece like this. His lead character, a filmmaker desperate to work again, chases an aging movie star for his movie. He rails against the new kids taking over the movie industry with their hand-held cameras, dismissing in a stroke a whole new generation of filmmakers. The story is based on the thinnest of ideas, Holden looks like he has a hangover in every scene, and there is the stench of desperation hanging over the whole enterprise. We have all seen played out far too many times the sad tale of the former great this- or-that attempting a comeback and flopping because the juice is gone. That sums this movie up in spades. All in all it's a sad piece of work, and a reminder to bow out gracefully.


Well, for 99p I could have made a better film than this. Cut a square out of the side of a cardboard box, place a small child inside the box, sit back and watch for an hour and a half. There will be more drama, excitement, satisfaction and better acting watching that child in the box than ever watching "Champion Killer." I saw it in the 99p shop once when I was looking for wrapping paper and on a whim I purchased it. Nothing could prepare you for such a dull experience. Made on what looks like the worst/cheapest camera available in the shop, with actors the director seemingly chose because they live next door/didn't demand payment, "Champion Killer" fails to deliver on any meaningful level. It's difficult just to recall how bleak an experience this was. I could waffle on about plot, setting, cast, camera work, lighting, sound and a whole host of other production values but there really is no point. They were all lost on this "film."


This movie is so horrendous its funny! The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the plot is amazingly plain, and the action is terrible, this is officially the ONLY film to be worse than "Flesh Eating Mothers"! OK, so here's the plot, a crack dealer in a ski mask and gloves gets annoyed at an under-cover cop, who's having an affair with another cop, so he kills her, then goes on to kill the other cops family for no apparent reason at all, then he takes off the ski mask (again, I don't know why)and decides to start killing teenage girls until the city pay him $1,000,000. they do pay him, but he gets angry again and wants $2,000,000 instead, then he tries killing the other cop, only to get shot in the leg, I turned the DVD player off at this point.


I recently watched an interview of an "A-list" actress, who's main concern is the believability of her projects - an element which is distractingly absent from CHAMPION KILLER. It is so unrealistic, in fact, that, as the action proceeded, my primary focus became noticing things which just weren't depicted as they would happen in everyday life. Utterly laughable. Also, the actors often try too hard, or, they're simply incompetent, although it's probable that NOBODY could convincingly deliver what's written here. And a few times, the dialogue is difficult to hear. The plot contains so many extreme events as to be too far-fetched: A cop cheats on his wife, but she and their son are murdered. Next, his partner is wounded and the successor is a female, with whom our main character falls in love. Then, a bullet finds HER shoulder. And HE is suspended from the force for brutalizing a drug-using homicide suspect who he shot in the leg once before. After the perp kills more victims, and repeated payoffs to him fail, the mean mistreater is reactivated to pursue the culprit. My impression is that it is just not well done.


As incredible as it seems, the only one of the "Beverly Hills Cop" trilogy I'd seen before the other night was the second one which I've seen more times than I'd care to admit. The original has completely passed me by but if it's as bad as this one then I think I'll give it a miss. If ever a film typified the Eighties and the flash-bang appeal of producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer then, for me anyway, "Beverly Hills Cop 2" is it but this tired addition to the series has none of the charm or style of the early films. Only Eddie Murphy and Judge "Will Work For Food" Reinhold were daft enough to sell their souls for the sake of this disappointing drudgery.

Murphy returns as Detroit maverick Axel Foley, who is on the trail on the man who gunned his boss down. After a raid on a chop shop ends in the death of Inspector Todd (Gil Hill), a distraught Foley chases the perps to Beverly Hills following his only lead to the distinctly Disney-ish Wonder World theme park. Teaming up once again with his old buddy Rosewood (Reinhold) and his new partner (Hector Elizondo), they track down a group of security guards at the park led by the popular Ellis De Wald (Timothy Carhart). De Wald secretly leads a complex money printing scheme within the park and Foley, still seeking revenge for Tood's death, defies the wishes of the FBI and goes after him in his own, unique way.

Depending on how much you like Eddie Murphy's wide-mouthed shouting and screaming, there isn't a great deal to like about "Beverly Hills Cop 3". Murphy feels out-of-sorts while Reinhold still has the wide-eyed look of someone who is surprised that they're acting in a film at all. The comedy, when it comes, is forced and weak - the bizarre reappearance of the hideously annoying Serge (Bronson Pinchot) signals the sheer desperation of the writers. The plot is so weak that it's difficult to imagine how they sustained it for as long as they did. Remember how Foley tackled heavily armed and highly professional bank robbers in the second film? Here, he faces disgruntled security guards at a theme park. The life and joy of the earlier films is replaced with a lethargic laziness in all areas - acting, story, action, even the predictable romance with the park attendant (Theresa Randle) feels tacked on at the last minute. Throw in some pointless cameos - the most noticeable and enjoyable by George Lucas - and the whole thing feels as fake and tasteless as plastic fruit.

Murphy has displayed an erratic choice of movies throughout his career but this is one of the worst. All it does is make you wish you were watching the earlier films or maybe something like "Bad Boys". Whereas "Bad Boys" is the true successor to the earlier "Beverly Hills Cop" films due to its heavily stylish look and comedic approach to the cop genre, this is tired and rehashed filler. Even the classic synthesiser theme music has been mangled, which shouldn't be surprising but it is disappointing. It feels as if it wants to be a restart for the series but it proves to be the death-knell. It badly misses the attention of producers Simpson & Bruckheimer and even Murphy looks like he's not that bothered. Basically, don't even think about watching this unless you wish to watch the whole series in one sitting. But quite frankly, why would you?


How could they make one more than two films in this series? The Beverly Hills Cop movies is a sign to moviegoers everywhere that putting a big star in whatever familiar thing he has done to death already, and way better by the way, is a total lack of originality. If they had only made the darn thing funny at least but John Landis, who is usually pretty dependable as a comedy director, seems more interested in putting cameos by directors in every scene, so it will at least be something that you can kill the time spotting.

Every character is dull, and the reprise of Rosewood and Serge's characters only generate mild interest because we have seen them before.

The villain, played by Timothy Carhart, is totally expendable and it's a wonder why they couldn't at least have brought in a stereotype police captain like in the first two parts. That would have generated some mild chuckles at least.

Murphy would go on playing cops in two more movies to date, but here the general idea of having the outsider cop solve everything has completely lost it's warranty and try making sense of the rather trite closing showdown between the cop and the villain in the amusement park. It's amazing that rival Warner Bros. could make a movie series where the sequels where ten times more entertaining than the two sequels of BHC but maybe it was because they were all made by the same team of Donner and Silver. Three directors have been assigned to a Beverly Hills Cop movie and I think if there is a fourth on the way a new director is hemline that one too.


This is a terrible, terrible film.

The first two in the series were fairly simple, fun films, relying mainly on Eddie Murphy's performances but nevertheless with strong backup from the rest of the cast (particularly in the first one), and a certain eighties 'cool' factor that, while obviously dated, still charms.

In this one though, it Eddie Murphy wears a bit thin, and the plot reads like a McBain (of Simpsons fame) film, with its horrific cliches and awful script. Even the music was redone so that only once in the films do we here it in its classic version.

And what was going on with Judge Reinhold?

I guess Axel Foley just doesn't belong in the 90's.


The third installment in the Beverley Hills Cop trilogy is by far the weakest of the three. The first problem is that there isn't even s starting theme tune. The whole feel of the movie is much more slapstick than the first two and ads a result it feels very superficial. With the first there was a feeling that this could possibly happen in real life, but this film is just too silly. Practically none of the regulars are there: Todd's there but he is killed in the first five minutes, there is no sign of Bogomil, Taggart is briefly mentioned as having retired and Jeffrey's not there either. There is much more killing here, which is another unbelievable element. Have said all that it does have a few funny moments, especially from Serge. It's not the worst film ever made, but it's nowhere near as good as the first two in the series and indeed doesn't even feel like a Beverley Hill Cop movie.


This movie is definitely a let down from the previous two. Both I and II were serious cops and robbers action movies into which Eddie Murphy added his style of comedy. The comedy added to the action but the movie was still about the good guys vs. bad guys. This movie tries to be all comedy and as a result falls flat, looking for the knockout joke with every scene. The cops look like idiots, the bad guys are caricatures. As a whole the movie is a let down.


You know what? Standing alone as a comedy, it had some really good moments, but as an action movie, this was beyond unbelievable and incredibly clichéd. I'm going to start with the good parts, see, Eddie Murphy is still great as Axel and is always very funny. He has some really great moments, but for me in this sequel, it was Judge Reinhold that stole the show as Billy. He was just such a lovable goof, which was semi-sad since he was a cop in the film, but I got past that part pretty much since he has been a goof from the first Beverly Hills Cop movie.

Axel is back in business, in Detroit he gets into a once in a lifetime for a cop normally, type of shoot out with dirty business men, one who is an extremely super duper bad dude, who just won't stop killing people or stealing, why do you ask? Because he's a super duper bad dude! Well, he leads Axel to Wonderworld in Beverly Hills, California, where he finds out that that's where they do business. He gets his favorite buddy Billy back in the game and together they try to find a way to reveal the super duper bad dude's true identity to the crowd.

Now the complaints, there are a huge list of them: first off, for security guards, most of them had pretty crappy shooting techniques and couldn't hit a barn. Secondly, Axel saved these children from a ride in Wonderworld, with one arm?! Third, a shootout like they had in this film in reality is a one in a million chance for a real life, but somehow Axel just seems to keep getting them like their a dime in a dozen. And fourth, the super duper bad dude, did the badness a little too much, to the point where it was just obnoxious. But who am I to judge, you try it.

4/10


I have only been on this website for a few short days, and this is only the second review I have done. So why did I choose this movie to review and not more natural choices? Because this movie sticks out as one of, if not the worst film, I have ever seen.

I loved the first movie - Eddie Murphy was outstanding. The second film was more entertaining than funny - but it was still good and the characters were strong.

That's what made this movie so disappointing. The pieces were in place. John Landis was back.

What they made was a movie so horribly unfunny that five years after seeing it, I still use it as a measuring stick for movie futility.

I may have seen worse movies in my life. But after Beverly Hills Cop III, I can't remember them.


It's amazing how the BHC franchise is seen as something of an emergency button marked "career resuscitate". Sure, there was an obvious sense of inevitability about a first sequel, and it pretty much followed straight afterwards, just restoring Murphy's stock after one less than stellar box office feature (The Golden Child).

After that there'd been the classic Murphy of Coming To America, another huge hit, followed by a string of adequate - and probably better than their reputation - movies in Harlem Nights, Another 48 Hrs. and Boomerang. This then saw Murphy's stock drop again with the underrated but underachieving The Distinguished Gentleman... which is where Beverley Hills Cop III comes in.

Though two or three years in the planning, it was the one designed to bring him back. Deservedly it was his biggest flop to that date, as it was, perhaps non coincidentally, also his worst movie at that point. A fat, bloated string of nonsensical set pieces that sees such indulgent turns as acting roles for all of Landis's director friends, it lurches from one meaningless sequence to the next. The behind the scenes documentary alledges that the writer didn't even know what the criminals would be using an amusement park for until very near the end of the project's genesis. That pretty much says it all... what WOULD a criminal gang be using a Disney-style amusement park for? The fact that the film was location first, plot second points at everything that's wrong with Beverley Hills Cop III.

It's surprising that the movie misfires as much as it does, considering that Landis was behind two of Murphy's best pictures - Trading Places and the aforementioned Coming To America. That said, the absence of previous stars - Hector Elizondo stuck playing an obvious John Ashton clone in Ashton's scheduling absence - does hurt the picture, along with Murphy's phoned-in performance. That said, the move away from comedy and into action also doesn't help, Murphy getting his final "huh huh huh huh" after seeing himself and his friends shot and bleeding to death. Yet to compensate for the lack of a Ronny Cox or a Paul Reiser, they bring back Serge from the first film. While it's always amusing to see Bronson Pinchot attempting to make Eddie Murphy corpse on camera, the fact that a homosexual coffee house owner has now become an arms dealer shows how events frequently serve the plot rather than any form of logistical sense.

All this said, Beverley Hills Cop III isn't a BAD film as such, and it's always watchable, if not terribly good. All of the edge that was there previously has gone, and the ludicrousness of the situations fail to engage the viewer. After this it was a flop vampire movie (made for less than Murphy's entire fee for Beverley Hills Cop III) before Nutty Professor was the one to bring him back. After that, Murphy went into a spate of successful child movies and a series of decreasing returns playing multiple characters using fat suits, culminating in reputedly his biggest-ever flop, Meet Dave. Cue Beverley Hills Cop IV....


This movie is totally out of tune with the first and second ones, which respectively were fantastic and good. From the brutal approach to movie action of the former ones (thanks to Bruckheimer), this one has scratched most of this off (no more social realism of the first and no more really bad guys of the second) and replaced it with superficial layer of humor and Murphy's funny faces, which really aren't funny when you've seen them before in his stand up comedy shows or The Nutty Professor.

The old actors (Rosewood and Serge) are embarrassing parodies of their earlier roles, and I do mean embarrassing. The rest of the cast acts in the way I've come to describe as "polished but poor".

This movie tries to be a family movie, and it doesn't work at all. Plus, it gives the series a bad legacy in the process.

I'm sorry i watched it. Avoid.


Eddie Murphy goes back to Beverly Hills for another below par adventure, this time to investigate corruption at a popular theme park called Wonderworld. This third installment has many things that just don't work, including the annoying Wonderworld theme song and the absence of John Ashton. The filmmakers even went as far as providing a love interest for Murphy, but that falls flat as well. Even with John Landis behind the camera, the humor isn't there. The only thing that makes the film worth watching is the return of Bronson Pinchot from the original COP movie.

1 out of 5


I rented this movie from my public library along with Beverly Hills cop 1 and 2.The first two were really great and when I was about to put it in I had a thought of 'how bad could it be'.Well the first 10 minutes were good but then all the comedy and good acting got taken away.I only became excited once when they had George Lucas has a cameo so thats not really saying much. My suggestion is see the first two movies and dont ruin them by renting this god awful one. The bottom line is that it had a very bad plot,very bad acting,not enough comedy my rating 2/10.


It is a shame that after a brilliant first two films, full of cameraderie and a great comedy element as well as a plausible plot, this one just ruins it all. There will not be a sequal to this botch up, which sees a greying Eddie Murphy running around a theme park with little support from 'Taggart' or 'Rosewood'. I don't think Eddie will put this on his C.V.


When I was younger I only watched a couple of episodes of this crime solving guy. He was basically an idiot with gadgets. A little girl named Penny (with a dog) has an uncle called John Brown. In the show he solves crimes for the police with help of his egos, which is why they call him Inspector Gadget. Inside his body are many big and small mechanical materials to help him with his job. He could turn himself into an airbag, he had a helicopter propeller, he could extend his arms, legs and neck, and many other weird and wonderful devices. The only problem was he was an idiot when he used them. I mainly liked this show for the theme tune. Personally, this a lot better than the poor movie, don't bother seeing the movie, just see this! It was number 46 on The 100 Greatest Cartoons. Okay!


I started watching this movie with some hope it might be somewhat decent. I am no expert reviewer at all, but I could tell from the very first scene that this was a spectacularly low budget film. Somehow, I slogged my way through the film. Our hero, Ronson, is a big ex-Green Beret O-3, who is down on his luck in Mongolia. THe film certainly looks shot on location, with Ronson competing in a UFC style fighting situation.

With the cheesy voice-overs at the beginning and end of the film explaining what was going on and the search for an ancient buried relic, I can say this movie is uninspiring at best. Some random fighting scenes, driving around in the Mongolian outback with some of the worst acting ever. Even some of the camera shots were awful, I could tell the cameraman was just walking backward as the camera jiggled with each step. I felt I could have done a better film in that respect (as well as the script and acting by most of the characters) back in high school.

I wouldn't bother watching this movie, its not even a watchable flick, IMO. I don't know how I sat through it.


A low budget, badly acted film............ everything about this film is poorly staged, wooden acting by C list actors and unbelievable settings, I'm still watching this as I write........... OMG so awful.

What more can I say, the scenes do not fit together....

The 'escape' scenes well, simply not believable.

Best line ... He's dead (immediately pull sheet over head LOL)

I'm still cringing as I write this, if second graders presented this as a home movie I would expect better acting (and sets :) )

Please, let me write this comment without having to make up ten lines about a film that doesn't even deserve one!!!!!

Even if you are desperate to watch a film, don't bother with this - paint a wall and watch it dry or sit in the garden and watch grass grow, so much more entertaining :))


Sure the plot in general is kind of like an Indiana Jones film but that is where the similarities end. Dolph does a good enough job acting, but the other actors are just plain awful. William Shriver who plays Mr. Chambers may be one of the worst actors I have ever seen, just plain awkward. The story is very simple and there is lots of down time between any semblance of action which is pretty obviously there just to waste time.

The action sequences were very poorly done and quite unoriginal. Luckily I did not pay for it or I would be very disappointed so this is not even worth your time for a rental. I really don't think anybody who isn't a die-hard Dolph fan would even have any chance of enjoying this movie. If this is the best movie parts Dolph can get, then even his straight to video career is going to be over very soon. The production value is much worse than any other straight to video movies starring himself or Wesley Snipes or Seagal or Van Damme and so is the entertainment value. Just stay away and watch one of the 50,000 movies that are better than this drivel.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Down and out fighter and ex special forces guy Xander Ronson (Dolph Lundgren) is propositioned by eccentric businessman Chambers (William Shriver) to lead a quest for an ancient relic in the hills of China. However, there is some competition in the shape of some Russian mercenaries and something to worry about in the shape of deadly curses that guard the tombs.

Dolph takes a break from directorial duties with this one, which is just as well as the poor chap needed one after the varitable trio of The Defender, The Russian Specialist and Missionary Man, although according to the trivia page he took over for most of the time from director Samuel Dolhasca. It sounds like a troubled production, shot officially between China and Canada, and although there are moments of flair, it's usually quite obvious to see. It's mostly pretty dull, with a tasty showdown at the end between Dolph and the utterly cardboard lead villain but little else of any interest. Dolph's rather wooden, and we also have Shriver's annoying voice to contend with. Not quite Dire-mond Dogs but not far off it to be honest. **


They don't make them like these anymore - and I'm really glad they don't. I was truly shocked at how bad this is. I expected at least a mind-numbing time-waster - this wastes time but it doesn't numb the mind; throughout I was reminded how foolish I was for renting this. The composition and editing and design are pure '70s chop-socky, except without any real kung fu. Very amateurish production; plot that promises much and goes nowhere. An attempted Chinese-Canandian production that doesn't really know what it wants to accomplish. Stereotypical performances of stereotypical characters. There are some hints at something finer in the script but the poor direction and impoverished production subvert it. Big disappointment even for Lundgren fans.


This is probably one of Alfred Hitchcock's worst films. He would certainly redeem himself the following year with the classic "North by Northwest."

Other than breathtaking cinematography of the French Riviera, this film really has little to offer.

It is said that Cary Grant came out of retirement to make this. Thank the lord that he didn't resume retirement after it.

It's basically the story of someone copying the cat burglar techniques of former cat burglar John Robie (Grant.) There are chase scenes throughout the Riviera but the film is dull. We really reach the point where we don't care who the guilty party is.

As in the fabulous "North by Northwest," there is an exciting climatic scene but even that fails to realize the emotions needed.

Grant gives a fairly good performance but is hampered by the written material. Grace Kelly was still probably with a swell-head for her undeserved Oscar win, the year before, for "The Country Girl." The part of a rich, snobby, girl in the fast lane was good for her but she fails to capitalize on it. Her mother, Jesse Royce Landis, has some scene stealing scenes. Note that Landis appeared the following year in "North by Northwest" as Grant's mom.


- In the final Hercules made-for-television movie, Hercules is called upon to save a village from a Minotaur. But things are not as simple as they seem. The Minotaur has a secret that Hercules must overcome if he is to save himself and the village.

- This is easily the weakest of the five movies that preceded the television series. Half of the running time is filled with flashbacks from the four previous movies. It gets old real quick. The actual battle with the Minotaur is a disappointment as well. The costume worn by the actor playing the Minotaur makes it all but impossible for him to move with any grace during the fight scenes. The relationship between Hercules and Iolaus, which would become one of the highlights of the television series, seems very unnatural. Almost all of the dialogue is designed to set up the next flashback.

- Too bad, because this one has a lot of potential. The plot concerning the Minotaur's secret is one of the best in the five movies. Although the way it is handled makes it very obvious for anyone to guess.


This movie is another sub-realist creation of Henry Paris. The stetic aspect is more elaborated than The Opening of Misty Bethofen, but the movie is plot less.

The good: Very good looking actress, perfect photography in some scenes, and that subreal world.

The Bad: Most scenes are just a waste of time, and even not erotic or exiting at all.

If you want to see this movie just FastForward to the Disco sequence. Is like a short movie inside the movie, and maybe the only cool thing to see.


I strongly don't recommend this movie unless your a fan of the 70's porno genre.It is quite tame by today's standard,but the plot is just as incoherent as the modern porn plot.Barbara Broadcast is a author who takes tricks on the side because its so much fun!She is not that bad looking of a lady,kind of like a Julieann Moore type.Only thing is she is not nearly as attractive.Attractiveness is not found at all in this movie,plastic surgery wasn't as relevant as it is now.A guy could probably see better looking girls at his local watering hole.There is a dude who has a cool porno mustache that was amusing.If going to the XXX movie theater's remind you of the gold old days than see this movie.Than seek help.


It's mid 19th century Italy and Anthony Quinn pulls something of a palace coup by framing provincial governor Wilton Graff of the very treason that Quinn is perpetrating. He kills Graff in the process and sets up shop in his palace.

And for some very weak plot reasons when Quinn has a chance to let the mob dispose of the 'traitor's' son John Derek he chooses to save him and keep him in the palace. Derek pretends to be more seriously wounded than he is and soon learns of Quinn's double dealing. At that point Derek dons the Mask Of The Avenger and starts to right some wrongs in the style of that other Dumas hero Edmund Dantes whose statue is in the town square.

Phil Karlson who was two years from directing one of the great noir films of all time, Kansas City Confidential, seemed to lose his muse doing this one. Though the film is based on a Dumas novel and mentions his famous hero The Count Of Monte Cristo, it bares more resemblance to a weak remake of The Mark Of Zorro.

Somehow I'm willing to bet that some obvious plot flaws that are in this film aren't present in the Dumas novel. Derek looks good with sword in hand, Anthony Quinn hams it up good as the villain. Jody Laurence is fetching as the dueling countess who Derek and Quinn both want to make some time with.

Still Mask Of The Avenger is ultimately unsatisfying, Dumas has been better served cinematically speaking elsewhere.


Mid-twentieth-century historical dramas are worth a look for the sumptuous sets and costumes Hollywood studios might provide, plus their big casts might draw in accomplished character actors. Columbia Pictures' low-budget style unfortunately leaves Mask of the Avenger wanting in both areas. The best sets are brief backdrops of Austrian sailing ships approaching the Italian coastal towns, but most of the action takes place on familiar California riding trails or in formulaic European-looking interiors.

The cast is disappointingly small and stereotypical, with one grand exception: Anthony Quinn as the corrupt military governor LaRocca. He makes a stock villain painfully comprehensible and overshadows the film's wan protagonist, Captain Dimorna played by John Derek. Their final sword fight looks like a total mismatch in LaRocca / Quinn's favor until he obligingly steps into Dimorna's blade. (In partial defense of Derek, I appreciated poster William Giesen's sympathetic review of Derek as a miscast character actor.)

The only other attraction derives from the story's origin in a Dumas novel I haven't read. The town has a statue of "The Count of Monte Cristo" with the late Count's sword in a glass case in the statue's plinth, which DiMorna brandishes in an effort to convince the townspeople that he has resumed the Count's battle on their behalf. Beyond that, the film may be interesting as a late specimen of the swashbuckling genre, threatened with extinction by the rise of television and the decay of the studio system.


*** SPOILERS (I think) ***

So not since Vampire Assassin have I come across something so....Vampire Assassin-ish.

Much like the aforementioned movie, I came across it when different friends of mine attempted to discard a movie that they said they could not stand through the opening credits.

Intrigued, if not morbidly curious, I popped the movie in to be taken to depths of the human soul I was not cognizant to.

It was almost like watching something on YouTube, or one of those freak instances where people have a camera rolling and leave it on, whilst doing things in front of it. That in itself is probably the most accurate description I have on this movie.

Sure, I could talk about the chiq-on-chiq faux-action, the wolvez barking at passing cars, the scenes taking place in furniture-less model homes (and then trying to explain it), the monosyllabic vocabulary, an interesting scene involving a guy popping a squat and so forth and so on, but it'd never really prep anyone about anything about this movie.

BUT, because I enjoy movies like these to no end, I highly encourage those with a morbid and masochistic view on flicks to seek this out and indulge. It's beyond awesomely bad and it's just....there. Rarely do you ever walk away from a DVD questioning the meaning of your existence.

This one was really a toss up between a 1 and a 10. Both hold a special place in my heart.

Now I need to find Vampiyaz.


Who gave this a score of "10"? It's hard to believe anyone involved in this production was savvy enough to register here.

The main conflict in this movie is not the well-established cinematic trope of enmity between vampires and werewolves, but...gentrification? The werewolves are street people, and the vampires are buying up property and gentrifying it. That's the high-concept at work here.

Hey, I saw this at an Earth Day party this year, 2007--I see someone else made a comment on April 29. Maybe we saw it together!

The make-up, if I remember correctly, was surprisingly subtle--not in a good way--but, like, in a they-weren't-really-prepared-to-make-a-monster movie way. I mean, werewolves are hairy, they rip their clothes, and they have fangs. I think we all get that. They aren't just slovenly and crude.

Watchable only as a curiosity--stay away.


Well, to say the least of film; I'd say it is horrible. Some actor's were amateur-ish at best. As if they were hire from the street in order to get into the movie. Let us see... well we have the Bloodz which are the Vampire's and the Wolvez which are the Werewolves, that's simple enough, right?

I was surprised to see this movie; my friend rented it and hey, the title looked "cool". So, we sat down and 30 minutes into the movie, I couldn't take it and ejected it out of the DVD player. It looked like a film that was done by a hand-held camera and was window media'd.

I remember a part into the movie where the Wolves attacked innocent people or rivals? I'm not sure, once the killing stopped, the wolves were resting on the floor, their features were covered and masked with "blood", and traces of the masscere was left by bones. Chicken bones. Yes, Chicken bones.

If you wish to rent or own this movie; stay away!

On the bright side, it'd make one of hell of a present for someone you hate.


I am a great fan of vampire movies. When I saw the cover of this VHS, I immediately bought it without reading the reviews of IMDB. The storyline of `Dead of Night' is not bad: about a hundred years ago, a man loses the great love of his life. He becomes a vampire, expecting to find her reincarnation in future lives. Along the years, he stays with his sire looking for his former passion, and they feed every fifteen days with the blood of a lonely woman. In the present days, a detective is investigating their crimes, assuming the existence of a serial killer, and he meets a nurse, who is the reincarnation of the vampire's love. There are some good dialogs along the story. The problem is that the objective of this Playboy's production is not to be a vampire movie, but only an argument to show nude women. Therefore, there is no blood, no fangs, but lots of naked women. Fortunately there is no silicone also, and the naked bodies are indeed very beautiful. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): `Sangue nas Trevas' (`Blood in the Darkness')


In 1889 London, Christian (Robert Knepper) mourns the loss of his wife and takes up an offer from vampire Nina (Diana Frank) to live another 1000 years as her slave so he can search for the reincarnation of his lost love. Over 100 years later in L.A., he finds his wife in the form of a compassionate nurse named Katherine (Kathleen Kinmont). Christian is relieved, as he's having a miserable time stalking seedy nightclubs with Nina for (mostly female) victims to take home for kinky sex and a quick meal. Police investigate as the bodies pile up, one officer also getting the hots for Katherine.

Knepper and Kinmont do what they can in their roles and if Karen Kelly's script piles on way too much mumbo jumbo, at least it attempts to be mature and romantic, which means it will appeal to a certain kind of audience who don't want to watch another vampire gorefest. That said this Playboy production is dull and dreary much of the time. Not exactly a good time at the movies unless you're looking for a plethora of naked chicks.


***** MILD SPOILERS *****

Catherine Oxenberg plays Sarah McKinney , an abused spouse whose husband is shot dead by their infant son and is sent to jail for the killing where she is forced to become a stripper at a sleazy club .

What`s that you`re shouting at me ? Oh you`re calling me a liar and saying I`ve just made up the plot for this film . No , I`m not , that`s the plot of TIME SERVED . I know it makes absolutely no sense and leads to a very poor movie but things like common sense have been ignored in order to bring us a lot of T&A . Do you like T&A ? Do you like bloody stupid films with lots of plot holes ? Do you like to see once respected actors like Bo Hopkins and Louise Fletcher make fools of themselves ? Do you like cliches ? Then you will love TIME SERVED

I hated this movie


I couldn't stop laughing, this could easily become a cult classic for it's over the top writing, acting, music, everything. There were some hotter erotic scenes that were probably the only reason anyone ever watched the entire film. So predictable and ridiculous that it's one chuckle after another, so I guess I enjoyed it a little, but most likely not for the same reasons the film was made.

Apparently I need to write 10 lines of text to be considered a full review, I thought I summed it up in 2 sentences. This movie has no direction, it wants to be too many things and ends up nowhere. My only comment on De Mornay is that although she had her moments, on stage and being sultry, it seems to me she has about as much talent as most strippers.

This film is basically a failed attempt at anything, and a disgrace to the original.


Probably one of the worst movies of the 1980's, 'And God Created Woman' stars Rebecca De Mornay as Robin, a prison inmate who convinces the prison handyman (Spano) to marry her for a large sum of money so she can get released on parole. When she's out, they move in together and don't get along. Robin starts a rock-band, hoping to fulfill her life long dreams of becoming famous. Soon Robin catches the eye of local senator James Tiernan, and they eventually have an affair. As Robin's new found freedom is put in jeopardy, she must do whatever she can to remain free, while not hurting the man she really loves.

If there was ever a movie looking for a point, this is it. The movie has no direction, it wants to be too many things and ends up nowhere. There are prison breaks, gratuitous sex, family squabbles, political banquets, and rock bands. The writing in this is so over the top I had a hard time figuring out if this movie was intended as a drama or a comedy.

Hack director Roger Vadim, remaking his own 1956 film of the same name, had hoped this might do for De Morney what the original film did for famous sex symbol Brigitte Bardot, but the film turned out to be a box-office dud, and she'd have to wait a few more years before her chilling performance in 'The Hand That Rocks the Cradle' finally saw her deservedly hit the big time.


Just when you thought this film series couldn't make LESS sense, here comes "The Prodigal Planet" to show us how very wrong we are.

The great awfulness starts in the beginning, where preacher man from the last movie has SOMEHOW gone back in time and is now not on the guillotine where he ended movie #3 but is walking down a passageway to the guillotine. A blonde woman saves him as she's dressed up in a fake military outfit with a fake mark. So....they bust out of the base (preacher man doesn't really find it odd that she was able to smuggle herself onto a military base presided over by a GLOBAL force but....anywho). No mention is ever really made of the preacher man's dead friends from the last film...he kinda just forgets them and moves on to our next bunch of misfits.

Other than blonde woman, preacher man starts a road trip with some women and her bratty teenage daughter who they run into in a nuclear disaster zone brimming with zombie mutants. Apparently our main characters are immune to radiation as they just walk around in the contaminated air. One of the zombies ISN'T evil and he's a teenage boy so he hooks up with the girl. By 'hooks up' I mean they hold hands or something, this being a Christian movie, so we never figure out if his parts still work.

Lots of driving and stuff happens as they're going to some caves where all the Christians live now waiting for Jesus. Oh, evil hippie man whose wife got killed by a giant bee last movie is hunting them too. It's kind of like "Wild at Heart" without the sex. La dee da....zombie boy takes a bullet for the girl or something (I'm still pretty sure she doesn't even give him a kiss as thanks or anything), it turns out blondie actually DOES have the mark and she was just pretending to be a Chrisitan pretending to have the mark (?). Not that we have to worry about her for very long cause Jesus takes her out with a train collision. Anyway, preacher man and the mom and her daughter get to the Christ caves and evil hippie dies during an earthquake.

Amen


This film has proved to be a terrible disappointment. It lacks any kind of magic or atmosphere one has come to expect from recent children's films. The main characters are unsympathetic and uncharismatic, both as characters and as actors. It's beating around the bush for the first hour, and doesn't deliver much during the second. The storyline is vague and non-captivating. There is no camera-work to mention, the score seems to be copy/pasted from different public domain musical clips, and if you are expecting to see a good deal of 3D effects, forget it. Overall it gives the viewer an impression of being a mediocre TV movie from the 80s. I was looking forward to seeing this film, but completely lost interest after only a few initial shots. There's just no electricity whatsoever, and the topic of terminally ill children seems to be employed as the last resource to give this film a "social message" and depth it lacks. I suggest you don't waste your time on that film - there are so much better around.


I'm giving this film a awful score. It's entertaining to watch just because it is that bad. There is a scene in the movie where the main character is being made fun of at baseball try outs. He rushes as the kid making fun of him. The one kid sidesteps him and than everyone on the baseball team throws baseballs at him. It's honestly funny only because it would never happen in real life. The coaches would have stepped in a long time ago. If you choose to watch this movie that scene is why you should do it. Other than that is a simply bad movie half fantasy and half real life with unrealistic scenes mixed in. Making it totally unbelievable. But totally worth watching for it's suckyness


This movie has already been covered by quite a few reviews. However, the best part of the movie has yet to be mentioned. A couple of our teenage protagonists have just come back into town and are talking to their friend Owen. They relate to him a charming story regarding an acquaintance of theirs named Percy. Well, it seems the mischievous Percy tied the rear legs of a dog together and then threw it into the middle of the lake to see if it could swim back to shore. Guess what? It couldn't! After a good chuckle by the group of kids, they decided to play a nice game of street hockey. Those crazy kids! "Mr. Rice's Secret" is truly one of the most touching and inspirational films of our time.


The first thing anyone will admit when mentioning this movie is that it is terrible. It is even admitted in the Anchor Bay DVD release that it was mostly edited from the original to extend the video shelf-life of the first film, which was also less than Citizen Kane. The new material is acted with less talent than a grade school play, and those same grade school children could have written the script were it not for the not so child-like subject. The movie is merely an attempt to capitalize on gore, nudity, and controversy. As such, if you haven't seen the original in a while, this is a decent horror film. The slasher genre makes no claims to being Oscar worthy, so don't expect it to be and you'll be fine.If you go into this movie wanting to watch a badly made gore-fest you won't be disappointed. I find the delivery of the line "Garbage Day" makes this film one of my horror favorites despite the fact I rate it 4/10.


I didn't know this film actually was a re-cut of the original when I begun watching it (remind me to check this site ALWAYS before renting a film!) so my first thought was: shenanigans! The entire first half of this "sequel" contains sequences  not even essentials ones  of the 1984 shocker, talked together as some sort of wraparound story by Ricky Caldwell whose brother was responsible for the infamous Christmas killing spree. The film then all of a sudden turns into a real sequel, with a summary of Ricky's repertoire as a demented killer and finally results in a grotesque 80's cheesefest where he chases a nun in a wheelchair. I don't really know how to judge the wholesome but it sure is fun. The acting skills of Eric Freeman (who plays Ricky) are bad beyond comparison and there's absolutely no depth or tension to detect in the screenplay. But on the other hand, I can't be too harsh because the murder sequences are great! Someone gets stabbed to death with an umbrella and Ricky even makes the eyes of his girlfriend's previous lover blow (by the way, why are all the jocks in 80's horror movies called Chip???). Silent Night, Deadly Night is a very stupid film.half déjà vu and half ludicrous. But you might as well describe it as a truly sweet horror treat for 80's fanatics. The sequences where nutball Ricky wanders through the streets killing people randomly and laughing ridiculously simply have to be seen to be believed. Enjoy!


This picture is nothing more than a dose of mindless fun, with some creative killings (have you ever seen an umbrella impaling before?) and some funny moments of self-reflection (the scene in the movie theater is a standout). Because of the extensive flashbacks in the beginning of the movie, in which footage from the first film is used, those who have seen the original recently will probably hate this; for the rest of us the flashbacks are almost a bonus: essentially you get to see two movies for the price of one. (**)