I had real fears about watching this film because the 1954 remake is one of my ten favorite films, and absolutely perfect in every way. It stars Judy Garland and James Mason, in my opinion two of a handful of truly great actors, and Garland's own tragedies gave the story an extra frisson and force. It makes the greatest ever use of Technicolour, intense, excessive and emotional; and its subject matter shook George Cukor out of his habitual gentility into his best direction, unafraid for once to be vulgar. It is a melodrama, it is a musical and I love it to bits.

So you can imagine how initially this original felt inferior in every way. There was no musical numbers to take the load of emotions too intense to be verbalised. Janet Gaynor seemed like a mouse compared to Judy's tornado. Fredric March was a wonderfully versatile actor, particularly good in comedy, but James Mason, behind his trademark suavity, sadism and insanity, always had a sadness and resigned loneliness, a great generosity of spirit that was just right for Norman Maine. Worst of all, Wellman's direction was far too discreet and distant, making the storyline seem rather childish.

And yet, as it began to build momentum, A STAR revealed itself to be a very wonderful film, quite different from its remake. For a start, it's as much a comedy as a tragedy, and there are many funny lines. The film is very bitter about Hollywood, and the sacrifices necessary for fame, as one might expect from a script co-written by Dorothy Parker, although it lacks the attention to detail that would have made the film truly corrosive. There is a seething cynicism that provides an interesting counter point to the film's weepy elements, without ever betraying them: the film opens and closes as a script, laying bear the artifice and manipulation we are about to see, mocking us for succumbing to the very canker it wants to expose. There are subtle attacks on Hollywood anti-Semitism - the very ethnic Henckel becomes WASP-worthy Norman Maine. Lionel Stander ('Moidah' Max from HART TO HART) is a very bitter publicity agent whose treatment of Norman towards the end is truly hateful, yet, we must admit, very funny.

Far from being childish, the film is very mature, and is the most sensible and sensitive film about alcoholism until LEAVING LAS VEGAS. There is no judgmentalism, no trite explanations. The great tragedy is precisely this mystery: why should Norman - so attractive, so talented, so popular - give up everything at the height of his powers. It suggest demons that are way out of the depth of conventionally pat Hollywood narratives. Also sex is quite frankly present, and they got the shower sequence - where March is quite clearly naked - past the Hays Office is a mystery and a delight.

A STAR is a sublime melodrama, building up to an unbearable tragic pitch. Even if you know what's going to happen, it's hard to resist the tears. This is principally due to the magnificent acting. Gaynor is truly great, convincingly maturing from a callow, ambitious, small-town girl, to a great actress who must helplessly witness the dissolution of the man she loves. March is truly heartbreaking, a worthy partner to James Mason. Norman is so patently warm, amusing, loveable, loving, that it's unbearable and unfair to watch his decline, his loss of control. As forces beyond his control topple him, he may lose his public dignity, but never our respect. Our world can't be all bad if it can find room for this masterpiece and its even better remake. Well, until we remember Mecha Streisand that is.


Fredric March and Janet Gaynor co-star in this early 30's Technicolour film. It is one of the best of it's era, and was justifiably nominated for a swag of Academy Awards.

Gaynor portrays small-town dreamer Esther Blodgett, who comes to Hollywood courtesy of assistance from her sympathetic, determined grandmother. Trying to break into the movies, she gets a job waiting at an A-lister party, where she happens to meet alcoholic matinée idol Norman Maine (March). Despite his drunken, foolish state he finds her inherently appealing in a sweet, attractive manner, and arranges for her to get a screen test. After a name change (hello, Vicki Lester), make-over and acting lessons she is soon starring with Maine in his latest picture, and garners enormous public and critical praise. Inevitably, as these films go, Esther and Norman fall in love and marry. However, as Norman starts to achieve great personal happiness his career goes down the plughole, and even Esther/Vicki is powerless to stop his decline.

March is terrific in a challenging role. He handles Norman's decline brilliantly; March was always terrific at accurately capturing a character's emotional state. It is one of the best portrayals of an alcoholic that I have seen, because March focuses on the pain, the resentment, that causes him to drink, rather than just the ugly aftermath that a binge leaves in it's path. He makes Norman more than a superficial Hollywood star- he makes him REAL. There's no Method applied to his work, it's just darn good skill at characterization. March could play comedy equally well as drama, so Norman is not a one-dimensional, tragic star in March's hands. Rather he is a multi-dimensional, charismatic, lovable yet ultimately flawed individual caught up in the money-hungry giant that is Hollywood.

One is reminded of John Barrymore in the character of Norman Maine. Barrymore was also a big-shot whose career declined heavily in the 30's because of his alcoholism. It was no secret in Hollwyood as to what he was. March, a smart actor, would have drawn on this in his portrayal.

Ganyor, the winner of the first Best Actress award, is also very good as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester. Her natural sweetness and quite nature give Esther a unique spirit. Esther is not just a wishy-washy, typically 'nice' girl- she is strong and willing to stick by Norman because of her faith and her faith in their love. Gaynor also does rather funny impersonations of Garbo, Hepburn and West at a Hollywood party that reveal a knack for comedy. Yet, it is almost impossible to see Esther/Vick's 'star' qualities in this film. Gaynor certainly keeps them under wraps, and one has to stretch the imagination to imagine that Gaynor, as capable an actress as she was, could possibly out act the great March.

Nice supporting work from Adolphe Menjou as a Hollywood producer, and Lionel Stander is just poisonous as the vile Libby, who, while justifiably fed up with March and his chronic drinking and star tantrums, has not a sympathetic bone in his body. May Robson as the Grandma is good also, but a little tiresome after a while (I think it's more how her character was written than her acting abilities). A nice bit of trivia- she was a native Australian! The early Technicolour looks quite good, but it is slightly primitive, so one must overlook this fact to appreciate the film properly. There are some wonderful sequences here- March's outburst at the Academy Awards, Esther and Norma's first meeting, March's final scene. The film loses a bit of class in the parts March is not present. This is understandable, as he was such a dominant presence and magnificent actor. Gaynor perhaps couldn't carry a film by itself at this stage in her career, which is ironic as her star was actually sliding in real life, not March's. He was enjoying the best success of his career; she would only make a few more motion pictures before retirement from the screen.

A satire on the entertainment industry and also a heartbreaking character study of a marriage ravaged by the effects of alcohol and one partner's growing dissatisfaction with life.


Perky aspiring actress Janet Gaynor (as Esther Blodgett) leaves her small town for Hollywood; instead of extra work, she finds work as a waitress. Ms. Gaynor breaks dishes; imitates Greta Garbo, Katharine Hepburn, and Mae West; and meets alcoholic actor Fredric March (as Norman Maine). Mr. March likes Gaynor's sweetness and sincerity; he arranges a screen test for her, and the two become romantically involved. Then, Gaynor becomes Hollywood's newest star sensation (as "Vicki Lester") while March (as "Mr. Lester")'s star sets...

David O. Selznick's version of "What Price Hollywood?" (among others) is beautifully photographed (W. Howard Greene) and directed (William A. Wellman); especially noteworthy are the location scenes, with its near-final "sunset" providing an excellent thematic statement.

Few of Gaynor's contemporaries could have played the early scenes with the same sincerity (which parallels her character). She is terrific as the naïve young star; most importantly, she is believable as a woman who steps from obscurity to stardom. March is perfect as the eclipsed movie idol; it would have been nice to know more about his character's history of, and reason for, drinking (amusement is a given reason). Lionel Stander (as Matt Libby)'s portrayal of a prickly publicist stands out, among the supporting cast (Adolphe Menjou, May Robson, and Andy Devine).

This film was heralded as realistic depiction of "Hollywood" stardom; and, there are cute, clever, and realistic details throughout. Nothing too extraordinary is revealed, however. The film barely scratches the surface; and, it is curiously more asexual than previous cinematic trips down the walk of fame (it was affected by the "Hays Code", no doubt). Still, due to its strengths, this version of "A Star Is Born" compares most favorably with subsequent versions.

********* A Star Is Born (4/20/37) William A. Wellman ~ Janet Gaynor, Fredric March, Lionel Stander, Adolphe Menjou


Esther Blodgett (Janet Gaynor) wants to be a star.She goes to Hollywood to find her way into the pictures.There she meets the big star Norman Maine (Fredric March) and soon the big Hollywood romance is blooming.Esther finds herself in the same movie with her sweetheart and soon there will be more.Her Hollywood name is Vicki Lester.Norman Maine is a troubled star.He drinks too much but she makes him stop.But fighting against alcohol is much harder when he finds his wife a bigger star than he is.William A. Wellman's A Star Is Born (1937) is perfect drama.It touches you the way it should.You really feel for Norman Maine when he loses what he once had.Fredric March does a brilliant job portraying him.The true star Janet Gaynor is wonderful in the role of Mrs.Norman Maine.Adolphe Menjou gives a great performance as Oliver Niles.Andy Devine is in a really sympathetic role as Danny McGuire.May Robson is fantastic as Grandmother Lettie.This movie from 70 years back does very good job showing the downside of fame.A Star Is Born is ageless.


A very touching story and should be watched by everybody. The best part of it is you can value a person's love which is very precious and should not be wasted. The moral of the story, don't be too enjoyed with your victory or popularity and you may forget about who you are, originally. Once you are married, try to balance it with your career and your personal life.


this is the first version of this movie made,and the only version i have seen so far.i liked it.i thought it was touching and ironic,and also tragic.it basically tells what the movie business can do to you,and the sacrifices that are made.it also shows how disposable the industry and the people in it are.as long as you are the flavour of the week,everything seems fine.but when you're no longer useful,reality hits and things can come crashing down.that's what basically happens in this story.it's an indictment(ironically)of the movie industry,however subtle.regardless,i thought it was well done.the acting by the tow leads,Janet Gaynor,and Frederic March,as well as the supporting performances,are terrific.i also thought the writing was very good,and the movie flows very well.for me,A Star is Born gets an 8/10


'' Grandmother Lettie: Esther, everyone in this world who has ever dreamed about better things has been laughed at, don't you know that? But there's a difference between dreaming and doing. The dreamers just sit around and moon about how wonderful it would be if only things were different. And the years roll on and by and by they grow and they forget everything, even about their dreams. Oh yes, you want to be somebody, but you want it to be easy. Oh you modern girls give me a pain! ''

These lines say it all. This story is about our struggle to fulfill our dreams and the sacrifices we have to make for them. This is about how we can reach the unreachable by fighting for it, not by sitting on the sidelines watching it all fade away in oblivion. This is about the cruelty of love, making us vulnerable and weak. Great themes that'll never get old. Of course other flicks had the same themes, but this one really shows the pain and the effort that has to be put in it to fulfill any dream.

I really liked this movie for its ironic vision on fame and how it alters the personality of the stars in a negative way. We see a man getting pushed aside because of his own destructive behavior and attitude. Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan,Amy Whinehouse, they weren't the first stars that went down in oblivion and they most certainly won't be the last ones. Those who want to survive in the cruel world of the showbiz must fight and stay clean from booze and other addictions. Only the strong survive! ( and that most certainly also applies for mere mortals as ourselves! )


The main character, Ester, arrives in Hollywood and can not get a job as an actress. Of course it does not help that she has no acting experience. This aspect of the film made it hard to watch at the beginning, but once she makes it the story gets better.

I liked the loving relationship she has with her husband and the I also enjoyed the location shots. It is interesting to see what Hollywood/Los Angeles looked like in the 1930's.

If you like classic films it is worth renting.


I saw all three versions of "A Star is Born" in the past, and enjoyed watching this original and the 1954 remake again after so many years. What superb acting by Frederic March as Norman Maine, Janet Gaynor as Vicki Lester/Esther Blodgett, and all of the rest of this excellent cast.

After many years between viewings, I was struck by the uniqueness of this film. Two aspects in particular stand out. First, that it is really three movies in one, with distinct stories. Second, that it has at least three major messages. The latter are so carefully woven into the script  and so well acted out  that most viewers may not be consciously aware of them. So, the genius of the script is in its putting all of this together in a most enjoyable and watchable story, without hitches or glitches.

Most movies have a single story, with the different characters and roles as part of it. Usually, they center on the hero or heroine, the romance of the two, or a major plot of war, crime, intrigue or adventure. But, in this original, we see first, a story of a young small-town girl, Esther/Vicki, who dreams of becoming a movie star. The opening scenes set the stage for her "escape" to Hollywood. The message is about taking risks to chase one's dreams (as her grandmother counsels and relates of past family history).

The next scenes show her difficulties in trying to break into the movies. She is behind in her rent and finds odd jobs as she looks for a break. We see the hopelessness and little likelihood of someone making it in Hollywood (one in 100,000, the woman at the acting agency tells her). But, we also see her determination to keep trying.

Now the second story begins to unfold. Only, we understand that the male lead's story (Norman Maine) has been going on for many years in Hollywood. He has reached his peak, and while still near the top, he has become a headache and problem to his studio because of his drinking the past several years. We don't know why he apparently has never married, but it's clear that his career has been his obsession. Now he is becoming a big publicity problem for the studio.

By coincidence, these two people meet, and the third story begins. A deep love blossoms between the two with their ultimate marriage. Lester's star rises and the first story fades as her dream is fulfilled  she has become a star. The male lead's story and the love story are now tightly (no pun intended) intertwined. In his love for her, and awareness of his drinking problem and acting decline, Maine bows out of films and stops drinking. Over time, he becomes distant as he realizes that he is no longer recognized. Finally, after a messenger boy calls him by his wife's stage name ("Mr. Lester"), he snaps and goes back to drinking.

After more run-ins with the law and drying out in a sanitarium, Maine is set to return home. But a chance encounter with the studio publicity man, Matt Libby (excellently played by Lionel Stander), spells doom for Maine. He can't stand the PRs insults about being supported by his wife, and after a brawl, he steps up to the bar to resume his drinking.

The next scenes show Lester and studio head Oliver Niles (Adolphe Menjou) worrying about where Maine is after four days. They get a call and Lester gets a judge to release Maine to her care. The courtroom scene is a great example of the humiliation of the man, now having sobered up, standing with other drunks, many of whom may live in the gutter, and being further embarrassed by having his wife appeal for him.

Back in their California beachfront estate, Lester and Niles have put Maine to bed. They think he is sleeping but he hears them talking in the next room. Because of her love for Maine, Lester tells Niles that she is quitting the movies, and that she and Maine will go away together. Maine can hear Niles urge Lester not to give up her career at its peak. We can see the anguish and torment on his face. In Maine, we have a real story of conflict between the man, with his ego and no longer being revered as a movie idol, and his deep love for his wife and genuine respect and hopes for her success.

I won't describe the last scenes  of Maine and Lester. His story ends on a tragic note. And the love story ends on a sad note. The subtle messages become clear. First, stardom, wealth and success don't buy happiness. Remember the veranda scene when Maine tells Lester that she now owns the world as they look out over the city lights below? And then he says that he has never found happiness with success. Second, that pride and ego can destroy love when one person can't humble himself and struggle to rise above his failings for himself and that love. Even as an alcoholic, Maine was able to quit once  with help. But now he doesn't want to try again. Third, we should not be fooled by the allure of Hollywood and success that come mostly from phony build-ups and PR (i.e. the fictitious bio and lies by the studio PR guy to the press and public).

I couldn't help but think of the adulation so many still heap on the movie stars and celebrities of today. And, how so few of them seem to have real happiness and love with their wealth and worldly success.


Those directly or indirectly involved in the entertainment field, will find 1937's "A Star Is Born" somewhat laughable and hard to swallow. Mired in cliches, this version is a couple of notches below the superior Judy Garland/James Mason 1954 remake and a couple of notches above the Barbra Streisand/Kris Kristofferson second remake (1976). Well respected upon its initial release, it was a major Oscar nomination grabber come awards time. In fact, the movie's dramatic script, probably the film's weakest link, went on and won an Oscar nevertheless.

On the plus side are the lead performances. Janet Gaynor plays a verrrrrry naive but determined mid-western country lass, Esther Blodgett, who defies small town mores and a typically narrow-minded family to seek fame and fortune in Tinseltown. With apparently no acting experience whatsoever, our heroine struggles valiantly for at least a few months (with granny's help -- the family's sole supporter) before happening upon Frederic March's Norman Maine, a former matinee film idol on the decline. Maine meets Blodgett at a Hollywood party (she's actually the hired help) and takes an immediate romantic interest in the starry-eyed girl, so much so that he winds up getting her a studio contract on her sweet, winsome looks alone -- experience be damned! If stardom were only that easy. Ah well, if Lana Turner can be discovered sipping a soda at a malt shop (or so they say), why not this?

Anyway, while Gaynor as Esther Blodgett-turned-Vicki Lester is quite winning, she has a full-time job overcoming the triteness of this obvious rags-to-riches story and narrowly succeeds by the skin of her teeth. Unlike Garland's Vicki, we never truly get to witness the genius of this supposedly innate, Oscar-winning talent Gaynor's Vicki has, save for a small stale bit with Maine at their film premiere. March (whose looks and voice is startlingly reminiscent of Gene Kelly here) comes off much better as the dipsomaniac star who has seen better days, although James Mason gave a far more trenchant and terrifying portrait of self-destruction in the Garland remake.

Adolphe Menjou who created the Charles Bickford studio executive part and, especially, Lionel Stander as the publicity agent later played by Jack Carson, shine in their subordinate but finely tuned roles, helping to counter-balance the banal tendencies of the script, while May Robson's spiky but wise, benevolent granny, Clara (Auntie Em) Blandick's acidulous aunt, Elizabeth Jenns' actress paramour, Andy Devine's true-blue friend, and Edgar Kennedy's pop get caught up soundly in the film's cliches.

Hollywood 'realism' has never been more obvious or watered down than here, yet the film still manages to give off a quaint charm and appeal that makes it bearable today. The first half of the movie is especially hard to take, but as the dramatic unfoldings take place, you'll find yourself caught up.

It's worth a look just for comparison's sake.


I've seen this flick probably 6-8 times; Gaynor, Streisand and of course Garland; not a contest; Garland kicks butt!!; I love this story; but, it should have been done once; maybe with March and Garland if possible. but, Judy shines and this movie forever made her a star; Lawford is weak in the Garland version; Gaynor is fine; Streisand embarrasses; and the performance of the year, Garland. Too bad, we couldn't have a Judy, Frederic et all.; The perfect American Movie; Why must Lawford be given any laurels for this? I was embarrassed for him; Was he drunk? :) Too much Rat Pack perhaps; anyway, Judy lives forever in my Gay heart and this made her a star;

(Correction; For all of you who realized that Mason not Lawford played Judy's husband Norman Maine; I apologize; sorry; and, Good Catch. :)


Indeed a copycat as already was written. Makeup is nice, casting great, acting reasonable to good, but the movie itself is very boring. I like the genre but the music isn't very good, there is no climax building up and the story stretches along slowly. One of the few movies I had to use the FF function to get to at least a little bit of things happening, besides the no good dialogs. Furthermore, metal or hard-rock (whatever it's called) music is louder then spoken words which made me have to use the volume button more often. Loud music is no warranty for a climax and in this case it causes rather more of an anti-climax and irritation.

I suggest you pass this movie or when you're really a genre-lover, wait until you get it almost for free. No exciting and sitting on the edge of the couch in this one.

Still I gave this movie a 3 because of cast, acting, makeup and stuff.


Themovie opens with a horribly lame scene - two men in the desert, no town nearby, no horses, no provisions, and dragging a casket. Right! This is the opening to what becomes and even worse attempt at film making. Poor dialogue, poor story, unbelievable circumstance, and mediocre - at best - make up effects make this one big bomb of a stinker. Don't get me wrong, I'm a HUGE fan of horror and have been since near birth. Love low-budget films since they nearly all contain the raw, gritty edge that Hollywood films almost always lack. But 7 Mummies is not worth anyones time let alone the money they spent to make this. The direction is just plain bad with overly long cut scenes and poor angles that do no justice to the forced story line. Just a big bunch of YUCK!


I don't even know where to begin. Just watching this movie all the way to the end was painful. The plot jumped around non-stop, and it was practically impossible to follow, even though it was incredibly simplistic. Other reviews claimed that the casting and makeup were 'great', but I didn't think that either was especially good. I can't comment on the 'stunts' because there weren't any that were bigger than someone rolling off a 1-storey roof onto the ground.

The lighting throughout the whole movie was horrible, so it was difficult to even see what was going on half the time. The music was poorly chosen and was played so loud that it drowned out the dialog. Although, drowning out the dialog may have been a good thing since the dialog itself was dull and repetitive. The so-called climax of the movie was in fact the most anti-climactic part of the movie.

I strongly recommend that anyone considering seeing this movie should NOT see it instead. It's too bad the vote system won't accept votes lower than 1.


The title says it all. Danny Trejo isn't the only similarity between FDTD and this bad copycat. The plot is so similar, the events almost exactly the same, it's almost funny.

It's starts like a action/criminal movie, and then, in some dark bar, it suddenly turns into a horror type of thing. Sounds familiar???

And it even isn't done very good. The acting is poor, the creatures are poor, hell, even Danny Trejo is poor.

So, as a horror fan, I can only give you 1 advice: Keep away from this movie. Actually, keep away from all movies that have "mummy" in their title


Admitted, I love bad movies (eg. Evil alien conquerors) and horror movies, but this movie was however bad in a REALLY bad way. It made absolutely no sense what so ever, horrible lighting, disastrous camera work, acting, etc...

It seems the people writing the script thought of "cool" ideas for a 30 minutes movie and then just filled in the rest with meaningless nonsense. I cannot believe anybody would put their names on this kind of crap.

I could go on for pages about how horrible it was, but being the optimist I am, I will mention the only two good things about the movie: It was the first movie I have seen, containing Ninja-Priest-Mummies and it contained quite some large boobies. Besides that it absolutely sucked ass!

Do not watch this movie without serious masochistic tendencies!


First let me say I'm sorry for your pain and suffering if you have already seen this movie. The movie is no more than a poor at best attempt of an ongoing subject, Mummies and their curse. I'm still trying to figure out where the title "7 Mummies" comes from. Unless I missed something, which is possible since I had no problem going to the fridge without pausing this waste of time, I only counted 2 mummies. If the movie itself wasn't enough to make you cringe, the soundtrack will at the very least will give you a "headbanging headache".The bottom line is that if it weren't for Cerina Vincent and the "Vamp Tramps",it wouldn't have even gotten a 3! The best part of this movie other than looking Ms Vincent was the fact that it is only 80 minutes long. Good thing, I don't think I could have taken much more.


The opening scene is roughly 5 minutes of two men dragging a coffin followed by ten minutes of opening credits (THANK YOU DIRECTORS GUILD). The plot fleshes out fast and simply with not a thought to be wasted figuring it out, sadly it's a plot more akin to a theme park Halloween show than an actual film. The dialog is blessed with more expletives than Eddy Murphy Raw, while maintaining a fresh 'I've never heard actual conversations' kind of pace. Now don't go thinking this film is devoid of personality, why the opening credits star a very talented Tarantula who is for all practical purposes acting very natural. I think probably the most amazing thing about this 'film' is that somebody actually funded it and it found it's way to DVD. HOW? WHY? There are tons of student films made every year that have this film beat in every way possible. Here's a short list of what can be found here, breasts, vampires, mummies, cowboys and kung fu mummies (which are wicked nimble), all this to a hodge podge of music ranging from uninspired rock to ineffectual rap. Brilliant use of money and B-list actors.


Nothing special here. A low budget film shot in a low budget place. Bad guys try and take something from worse guys without understanding the price they may have to pay. Escaped convicts fall upon an old Spanish treasure protected by Priests that have become mummies whose soul purpose in death is to protect the treasure. The acting was OK for the most part. The script was nothing special. The camera work was low budget. If you want to see a bunch of people and monsters killing and being killed, then this is for you. Moderate amount of gore. Cerina Vincent was hot in her usual white muscle shirt. Danny Trejo was good, as always, in his character. Billy Drago was born with, and perfected, that creepy bad guy image.


Acting - Diabolical Plot, _ Diabolical Dialogue, - Diabolical Lighting - Diabolical, Continuity - you guessed it Diabolical.

Need I go on?? How this ever made it straight to DVD is beyond me. It is jaw droppingly awful.

I had to watch it all the way through just to see what new depths would be plummeted.

The plot jumps around all over the place, for some reason all the "undead" just disappear out of the film at some point for reasons unknown. The lighting looks like its been done by some bloke with a torch (flashlight). I just haven't enough space to express how awful this was. I recommend that EVERYONE watches this film so that they can say they have watched the worst film of all time. And i thought one I saw in Singapore about a skateboarding monkey was the worst ever....how wrong i was.


Seven Mummies starts out on a lonely desert road where a police transport vehicle has crashed, the five convicts can't believe their luck & after killing one guard & taking the other (Carina Vincent) hostage they set off across the inhospitable desert terrain towards the border. En-route they find a gold medallion buried in the ground & an old Indian guy (Danny Trejo) claims that there is a town nearby which is stuffed with gold & they can use the medallion to find it, the escaped convicts need no invitation & before long their at the town which looks like something out of a John Wayne western. They quickly discover that the local population are in fact Vampire like zombies lead by Drake (Billy Drago)...

Directed by Nick Quested who also has a role in the film as Deputy Carry I thought Seven Mummies was yet another below average, nothing special, utterly forgettable & stupid low budget shot on digital horror film that steal most of it's ideas from better films such as From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) amongst others. To be honest I've had it with these poorly made, badly thought out, cheap, rubbishy & boring films. I love the horror genre & I'll watch anything associated with it but there comes a point where you have to say enough is enough, right? There is only so much I can forgive, I mean the script by Thadd Turner is boring, makes no sense, has poor character's, weak dialogue & a crap ending. The best thing I can say about Seven Mummies is that it's watchable if you've got nothing better to do & it's reasonably well made, other than that though I'm finding it very difficult to say anything positive about it. In case your wondering there are no Mummies in Seven Mummies, or at least of the typical Egyptian wrapped in bandages mummy, there are a few kung-fu fighting zombie Priests who look more like Monks at the end but there isn't a bandage in sight I'm afraid.

Director Quested does an OK job, the film looks alright although it's not scary, it has zero atmosphere or tension & it lacks any significant gore or violence either. There's a decapitation, a couple of stabbings, someone has their eyes poked out (although why this would make you cough up blood from your mouth I don't know), someone is slashed across the breasts & not much else to get excited about.

I have to admit that I was amazed to learn that Seven Mummies had a supposed budget of about $5,000,000, where on earth did all the money go? That's a lot of money & it certainly doesn't end up on screen. Martin Kove makes a cameo appearance but gets killed off, Billy Drago deserves better than this & a special mention goes to the babe who gets slashed by Drago as I have no idea what her character name was but she was hot & why did they have to kill her off?

Seven Mummies is a pretty poor low budget horror film that offers little, if anything, in terms of entertainment. Maybe I'm being a touch harsh on it as I've seen far worse but I'm fed up of wasting my time with crap like this, having said that I'll still be stupid enough to be the first in the queue when the next low budget piece of crap gets released. It doesn't even have any real proper mummies in it, honestly...


All I would like to say is better job next time. This movie will probably act as a spring-board for all involved but honestly it is flawed in nearly every aspect.

Not to write any spoilers, although talking over the flaws would give some of the story away. So I'll just write the 6 biggest flaws:

1. Title sequence: this goes on for a very long time. Bored me to tears. 2. Sound: most if not all dialogue is inaudible. At times the music tends to totally obstruct everything. 3. Ghost Town: characters are totally unquestioning of their new setting, treating 18th century sheriffs as modern day police. 4. Romance: the two escaping heroes appear to be romantically connected but this is never pursued. 5. Ending: final ending making no sense. 6. Acting: Indian man laughing... if you watch this be prepared for irritation.

The camera quality is very poor, but this is a low budget movie so that is be expected. Lot's of blurring or high frame-rates.

Some of the gore is actually well done, however one scene shows blood coming from a gunshot wound to the foot, the blood is far too thin and even has a froth.

In general avoid, but if you are into seeing others low budget work, certainly one for inspiration.


Two haggard old men are dragging a coffin full of gold coins out in the desert, long story short they're killed. Fast forward to present day which has 6 convicts escaping when their transport crashes in the same aforementioned desert. Taking the hot prison guard hostage, and on their way to the border of Mexico, they run into an elderly Indian (played by Danny Trejo!!) who tells them of how riches beyond their wildest dreams could be had buried under an old ghost town. They decide to take a detour to get this gold while Trejo laughs... for minutes on end. However all the denizens of said town are a little long in the fang, to say the least. The community headed by Drake (good ol' Billy Drago) has plans for these convicts. This flick while never something even approaching what someone might deem good, was enjoyable enough...up to a point. That point being when all the illogical nonsense going on got so high that I didn't know what the hell was going on, much less cared. It would have made an interesting 20 minute short MAYBE, but as a feature film, it meandered too often. Drago was the main draw for this one, as Danny Trejo, normally great, is just plain weird in the movie. Too make matters worse the nudity is very poorly lit.

Eye Candy: it's very darkly lit, but Ananda St. James does bare her humongous rack

My Grade: D+


To start off with, it's bad enough the heroes of the movies are a bunch of blood thirsty criminals. But the whole thing barely makes any sense. Seven monks brought some treasure over, but are they good monks or bad monks? A little more back story on the monks and why the brought this treasure over would have been nice and what about the town? Where did these people come from, since it started with a mere 7? What were these blood sucking monsters supposed to be? Mummies? Vampires? What? If they were mummies they didn't look like mummies and I never heard of blood sucking mummies and if they vampires, then why were they running around during broad daylight? Plus, the title characters, the seven mummies didn't make an appearance to like ten minutes before the end of the film. How lame is that, plus is Drake suppose to be one of the seven monks, because they never said. Finally, the final insult, without giving it away, the climax of the film makes no sense. A complete and total waste of time. THE RASBERRY.


A shame this is so bad really, because I like bad horror movies and actually rather liked the basic premise: Back when the Spanish were being generally unpleasant to natives in America, they enslaved the local populace and got them to mine all the gold out of the mountains and basically ended up with a wet dream's worth of gold. Overseeing the operation were seven Jesuit priests that vowed to protect to gold until the Spanish forces returned for it. They never did. Over the years they died and were mummified and buried with the gold by the remnants of the native population. Fast forward a few hundred years and a bus load of convicts being transferred escape with one of the guards as hostage (the only good thing about the film, the delectable Cerina Vincent). They bimble across the desert looking for the Mexican border, finding en route a mummified body buried in a dry river bed with a gold medallion on it; when they later find a mysterious Indian (the always reliable, although poorly cast in this case Danny Trejo) who spots the medallion, he tells them the legend. Naturally, having just crawled out of the desert and barely survived, they decide to go back and try to find the gold, ignoring the Indian who is now laughing manically at their decision. They find the town, and most of them die. It's the vast majority of components that are wrong with this film.

The dialogue was too quiet, even the slightest incidental music or sound effect totally washed out the dialogue, so you had no idea what was being said most of the time.

The music was atrocious and very very loud, a mixture of gangsta rap and ultra heavy thrash metal, totally inappropriate and made the dialogue situation even worse.

It was shot predominantly in total darkness, so most of the time you could not only not hear what was going on, you couldn't see what was going on either, I imagine it would be like watching a group of people being stalked in a windowless warehouse by Carcass or Napalm Death.

Now when they got to where the gold was buried, there was a wild west style town there, complete with an evil sheriff (Billy Drago! Yaay! Who actually turned out to be the prime antagonist, not the mummies of the title), lots of random grizzled 1860's type western folk and the obligatory bar/cathouse populated with extremely buxom young lovelies. The gang of convicts do not question this one bit, they are not remotely bothered by the fact they seem to have slid back in time 150 years or so.

The explanation for this is either simply not in the film, or is very briefly covered in sub-audible dialogue, but I gathered from a review that some wild west era settlers arrived there, settled, found the gold and woke the mummies, who subsequently killed the entire town and the inhabitants are now cursed.

The convicts are enjoying the bar when the inhabitants turn into undead (terrible effects, ghouls look just like normal people, just with some blue eyeliner, right?) and the prostitutes turn out to be vampires (WTF??) that dispatch a couple of the convicts right there and then.

The remaining convicts run around in the dark, breaking into boarded up buildings for no apparent reason, but they do eventually encounter some mummies, and they turn out to be ninja, high speed kung fu combat mummies with a propensity for crazy jumping around - to be fair, this is actually a pretty good fight scene (what you can see of it in the almost pitch black).

The weird thing is that since things went belly-up in the cat house when the ghouls revealed what they were, the entire population of the town apart from the Sheriff has vanished. Eh? Why? No idea. The convicts spend the latter part of the film just being chased by the sheriff, the mummies don't even join the pursuit after their one fight scene.

And the ending with two blokes and a coffin is completely random and meaningless, it's not anything to do with the rest of the movie as far as I can tell.

I love crap movies, but please, this was dreadful in every conceivable way and it's not often I watch a lousy horror movie and think to myself "Wish I'd done something else, like maybe got some sleep".


This wasn't a bad movie, but the end was ridiculous! The end scene with what I assume was the sheriff was unnecessary, and repetitive.

That said this wasn't a bad movie. I am a fan of B horror, and I have certainly seen worse, much worse. But there were a number of inconsistencies, that could have easily been cleared up without adding any extra time to the film; though at one hour and twenty minutes another 15 or 20 minutes to give us some backstory certainly wouldn't have made this film overly long.

MY biggest complaint is what were Billy Wirth and Matt Schulze doing in this film! Both are good actors that weren't even given the chance to rise above the mediocre script.


i got this film cos I'm a fan of Billy drago, he was cool in it.

I didn't like the montages of images as they were walking through the desert, and that horrible choice of music (ganster rap) i didn't catch anyones name, there were some plot holes in it, but that didn't really bother me all that much. i did like the actual mummies, and i liked the fight scenes with them in it, but i don't understand why is was so short, and what happened to them? they came, kicked back, and then vanished. i didn't catch what happened to, billy drago's two hench men either. i was left with lots of questions after this movie, but i still enjoyed watching it.

but any fan of drago's should get this anyway.


There is one and one reason alone to see this dull, uneventful horror flick: Billy Drago. Its very perplexing to me why an actor with his immense talent and underrated potential ends up in crapsack projects like this. Nevertheless, he is still captivating as a giggling, psychopathic, sleazy town sheriff and supernatural 'mummy'. But as for any parts of the movie without him: boring, boring, boring. Even the usually excellent Danny Trejo looks awkward and embarrassed playing a character whose dialogue consists of chuckling heartily to himself for ten friggin minutes strait.

Avoid unless you're a die hard Billy Drago fan like me.


There are numerous things wrong with this movie, of which I'll just point out a few.

The soundtrack was intrusive and borderline-offensive. You can tune out a John Williams score if you don't like it, but nu-metal or mexi-rap-rock so loud it drowns out the (dubious) dialogue doesn't have that option. If you don't like it--and most people don't--it kills the movie.

The plot... what can I say? There were moments where it seemed a plot might emerge, but they inevitably turned out just muddying the waters further. My theory is that Thadd Turner woke up from a drunken stupor and simply wrote down what he'd dreamed while under the influence of alcohol poisoning. You can practically smell the stale beer and vomit in some scenes. The gosh-golly-we're-in-the-Old-West-but-won't-question-it situation was absolutely laughable. And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't people mine gold in order to spend it, not so they can hide it forever? Are these Jesuit priests actually Smaug the Dragon? Where did they acquire elite kung-fu skills? The motives throughout are completely baffling. I'm still unclear on whether the sheriff was one of the seven mummies, whether he wanted the gold for himself or to protect it, or why he was after the amulet at all. Speaking of which, where did the other six amulets go? And the other three or four mummies? What are the chances that a gassed-up, operational Harley Davidson would be found under a mass of cobwebs in an Old West shanty? How did the dehydrated self-mutilator find the town, and why did he cart along a corpse? Whose corpse was it? Did the "heroes" ever return to burn that godforsaken town to the ground and claim the gold? Does anyone even care? The production values weren't bad, aside from sound and lighting. It seemed the camera operators and editors had extensive practice in the adult film industry. Only a few moments really dragged on, mostly Sheriff Dusty's monologues to his horse and Danny Trejo's self-amused chortles. It was a -horrible- movie, but it wasn't -unwatchable-. Those who claim so clearly haven't seen just how bad movies can be. At the very least, there was no shortage of eye candy. Teenage boys would probably prefer this to a blank screen... maybe.

Goonfactor: extremely high, but much of the gooniness was derived from equally goony but less atrocious pieces.


Hard core horror fans might be disappointed, but this film has some good action-adventure with an Old West twist, which makes for a fun time. Vampires, ghouls, a decapitated convict, bad-ass Old West Sheriff and deputies, lost gold, all make for an interesting story, much more than your standard slasher flick. The film contains an upbeat score and strong talent, including popular tough guys Matt Schultz and Andrew Bryniarski, Billy Drago as the wicked Sheriff, Danny Trejo as the old Apache, and a couple of hotties, Cerina Vincent and Adrianne Palicki, nice! Rapper NORE plays a decent part as a convict, who looses his head when chased him down off horseback with a cavalry saber! Opens a little slow, but picks up momentum when the convicts get to town, with some good chase scenes and stylized fight scenes choreographed by Hong Kong action director Tony Hueng. Special makeup effects look good, especially the scissors in the eye and decapitation. Definitely worth a look.


This movie was one of the best straight to video's All in all the acting wasn't that bad It has Kinda Known Actor's And Noreaga a Known Rapper The Storyline Is what keeps you into it.Six Convicts Find A Gold Medallion in the sand out in the desert.The Come Across Danny Trejo Who Gives them A Choice to Either Go Find The Gold Or To The Mexican Border To Freedom,Of Course They Try To Go For The Gold And Thats when the fun starts.The Chicks in the movie are hot The Death's Are Awesome What more is there to ask for in a horror movie Don't Be Fooled by the 1.8 Rating IMDb is giving it If you see this on a shelf at Blockbuster Pick it up and give it a watch for yourself,


For an independent film, this movie has a great cast. The acting is good, the stunts are simple but done well, and the makeup is great.

As an inspiring SFX Makeup artist, I enjoyed the makeup and gore effects best. Most of the horror scenes are done with makeup, like the mummies/zombies and the characters that die by zombie attacks and other oddities, but there are a few CGI effects as well.

If your an indie horror fan, i would highly recommend checking this out... for a couple hours of your time its worth it!

As far as the release date, American World has not given an exact date, but I've heard its set for early 2006...Jan/Feb.


Lost treasure, old west cowboy ghouls, and great special effects. Probably equal parts horror, Western, and action/adventure. The story is based on the real-life legend of Tumacacori, an ancient Spanish lost treasure of gold, and is a fun romp through the Arizona desert. The music is scored well and moves the film nicely. Billy Drago is awesome as the wicked cavalry saber-wielding town Sheriff. Don't expect a typical blood and guts horror pic, there's more here to the legend, as the six convicts look for the lost gold and meet their untimely deaths. Great decapitation scene, and a very cool Harley Davidson/horse chase at the end. Rate it a six, maybe seven, but definitely worth watching.


I know this TV movie as A Deadly Vision I remember it airing on ABC and I just watched it recently on Lifetime. "Sex and the City" star Kristin Davis stars as a waitress who has psychic visions of murders before they happen and as serial killings are developing she is asked by the police to help assist in the investigation. In the final 15 minutes the drama is high as Kristin is held captive by the serial killer, Kristin is taped to a chair you name it tape all the way around her arms, hands, legs, and yes the mouth to keep her quite. Never worry like many TV movies with happy endings she breaks free and puts a bullet to end the terror of the serial killer. Good movie to catch sometime on Lifetime especially if you like Kristin Davis it really does showcase her well.


What are accomplished actors like Ellen Burstyn, Peter Boyle, James McDaniel and Deirdre O'Connell doing in this piece of dreck? This is one of the worst-written things I've ever seen - it barely even rises to the level of cookie-cutter formula in its laziness (in the credits, the serial killer character is just called "The Killer" - the writer couldn't even be bothered to give him a name, never mind any background). The plot developments are laughable and absurd, the police are made to look completely incompetent, the psychic-ability angle is gratuitous and poorly used, and there is virtually no suspense to speak of. Kristin Davis and Matthew Settle are very attractive-looking leads, but their characters are boring ciphers. Avoid at all costs, especially if you are a fan of any of these actors.


This is an enjoyable Belgian TV series. I have watched most of the episodes on the DVD box sets available. The DVDs have no English subtitles, so you need to be able to speak Dutch to understand them. OK, its not great art, and doesn't have the high production values of American or British crime series e.g. CSI or Midsomer Murders but the show has an interesting, likable set of characters who come and go over the course of the different years, moments of charming humour and is very watchable. A good, old fashioned police drama which has provided me with hours of viewing pleasure. By the way, I have also seen Sedes en Belli and Witse, which are entertaining too. Thank you TV1.


The people who have reviewed THE GRANNY here are obviously NOT horror movie fans, and thus should stick to reviewing films like FREE WILLY, PART 10. Anyway... What an improvement for Luca (GHOULIES, ROCKULA) Bercovici, who wrote, directed and co-stars! THE GRANNY is wonderful, tasteless fun and easily one of the best direct-to-video horror films of the decade.

Stella Stevens is not only the Granny of the title, but the reigning Granny of B-grade direct-to-video flicks. She's terrific chewing the scenery as Anastasia Gargoli, mother to some rather objectionable jerks who (along with their children) are trying to kill her for her inheritance. The only person kind to Granny is her bastard niece Kelly (well played by soft-core queen Shannon Whirry). Before dying, a magical elixir that promises eternal life is injested, and ends up backfiring. Since Kelly is screwed out of an inheritance, Granny returns as a cannibalistic zombie to settle the score.

THE GRANNY is thankfully played out in tongue-in-cheek fashion, so we get a lot of black comedy (such as gags involving incest, decapitation, castration, grave robbing and more). Gore FX are effective and creative, but pretty mediocre. The performances are campy and fun.

On the negative side, the tone of the movie (fluctuating from camp to drama to comedy to horror) may turn some off, and the (open) ending is unnecessary. But in a movie with this much energy and good things going for it, those aspects are quite easy to overlook.


I read some of the user comments on this movie and I was kind of shocked to see that all I saw was negative comments about this movie. To say it is the worst movie ever made is ridiculous. I found it to be quite a good film. There was a lot of gore for horror fans, a lot of funny one-liners (like with Freddy in the Nightmare on Elm Street series) for those looking for laughs, and a cast of characters that you actually loved to watch get killed off. Oh, and the actress that plays the seductive Antoinette was very fun to watch. My only complaint is that I can't figure out for the life of me why movie-makers will always put glasses on a female character (who is obviously very attractive) and then act like all the characters think she's ugly. Is being visually impaired such an ugly thing in America? Well, anyway, I think this is a great movie for die-hard horror fans. Just don't watch it if you're one of those uptight movie-goers


I've been studying film half my life, and THE GRANNY is without any question the most abysmal, disgusting movie I've ever laid eyes on. And I've seen some bad movies! Stella Stevens is unwatchable, the script is beneath contempt, and I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy. To be avoided like the bubonic plague.


A friend of mine made me a tape of various stuff. This was on it. I had never even heard of this film before ... now i know why. I wonder why 'Glitter' has a lower rating then this drivel, but i am afraid to watch that film to find out for myself lest i wake up in the middle of the night from a Mariah Carey nightmare! ;)

So - i watched it, but i watched most of it in fast forward. You get the picture that most of the cast are mean people who are going to 'get it in bad ways' as soon as they are introduced.

This is a real stinker - one of those 'heavy metal' horror films that never should have been conceived. The problem is not that the movie is stupid, cheesy, and inane, but that that the movie realizes it is such and still continues to deliver the same old good versus evil confrontation - and guess who wins, and guess how it ends anyway. Blah blah blah.

Hey. I like horror films - this one is best avoided, unless you want to witness some of the worst one-liners in Hollywood history. Sigh, i guess some movie makers forgot that good horror films died back in the 80's.

On the plus side, this one would have probably made a decent Tales From The Crypt short. It does have a very E.C. Comics feel to it, but that is The Granny's biggest problem - it only has 20 minutes of entertainment tops. And didn't we already see this story in the first tale of 'Tales From the Crypt?' - at least that had Ed Harris getting crushed by a tomb stone via zombie telekinesis!

Check out 'Night of the Demons' for a better film from this inane sub-facet of the horror genre (heavy metal evil incarnate). It sucks too, but at least it didn't annoy me. Check out Fulci for some real horror.

1/10


The Matriarch (1995) is a pretty boring horror movie it has to be said!! Granny (Stella Stevens) gets a visit from a strange man who gives her this potion that he claims will give her eternal life, while this is going on Granny's Granddaughter Kelly (Shannon Whirry) is preparing dinner for all Granny's nasty, greedy, money seeking relatives.

All these nasty relatives want Granny dead and want all her money and fortune, after the dinner, granny decides to drink the potion but it ends up killing her...... temporarily!!! She then returns as some zombie type creature, killing off all the horrible relatives one by one, it ends up with a good vs evil battle, with granny having a climatic battle with her nice innocent granddaughter Kelly.

The Matriarch is quite a boring horror, there's blood and killings but not really any good gore and the film drags on, i give the movie 3/10 but thats only coz i like Stella Stevens and Shannon Whirry!


This is another one of these incredible animated shorts that was done with painstaking patience, taking a lot of time to do just one frame, and then doing thousands after it to make an eight-minute movie. In this case, it's thousands of tiny steel pins manipulated one frame at a time. In the world of art, you may know this as "pointillism."

We see a landscape and then a painter. The painter's artwork almost blends into the country scene he has painted. He then steps into the painting. At that point, we see - this is my guess - the area slowly go back in time to what it might have looked like thousands of years ago. This constantly shifting landscapes animation, done in black-and-white, was very eerie.

Later, we are back to modern times. At that point, we see a house and a neighborhood change over time and that part was the most interesting to me.

This is a haunting animated film by Jacques Drouin and I would interested in reading more about the story he presented here. The movie was part of the DVD "Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada.


it is mind-boggling to see this short. It reminds me a little of michel gondry's video for "let forever be" by the chemical brothers. I feel reluctant making this comparison though, in a way, because it is evident that this piece of animation must have taken thousands of hours to produce. i love it.

the rendering alone shows a mastery of this obscure medium, pinscreen animation.

I still have not been able to find a clip of this piece anywhere on the internet. I saw it on TV on a channel in new york called fine arts showcase.

If anyone knows where I could view it again, please post.


Le Paysagiste/Mindscape a surreal and breathtaking experimental short film, available for viewing thanks to the National Film Board of Canada's Focus on Animation.

The NFB Focus on Animation site is wonderful for its educational content as well as its film collection, with a superb series of articles documenting key techniques, films and filmmakers in the history of animation. Le Paysagiste is a perfect representative of what the NFB site has to offer. Created in 1976 using an obscure technique known as pinscreen animation, Le Paysagiste is considered by many the crowning achievement of the rare, but beautiful form. Instead of simply hosting the film, the sites supplementary articles represent some of the best resources for information about both pinscreen animation and the filmmaker.

At its essence, pinscreen works through shadow. A screen is poked through with groups of "pins" that can be moved in and out, and then is lit from the side. When sticking out, the pins cast a long shadow, which creates black on the screen. When pushed in, they cause no shadow and create white. Intermediate distances create different lengths of shadow and white, allowing for a whole scale of gray.

The results are what you see in Le Paysagiste, a beautiful tapestry that looks like charcoal sketches put in motion. Drouin exploits this impressionistic form in order to create a stream of conscious tour through the mind of an artist. In the film an artist is painting a lovely landscape when he finds himself able to step into the picture. Entering into this foreign world that is in fact his own, he begins a tour of psychological symbolism and random association, as objects and settings twist and morph around him.

The fleeting, transitory nature of the images bellies the intense and meticulous work needed to create them. Pinscreen is a very labor-intensive technique, which is a big reason for why it has been virtually abandoned as an art. The NFB's Focus on Animation site though reclaims and highlights historically vital works such as Le Paysagiste, making it a great resource for animation lovers.

Read this and other reviews of online short films at ShortoftheWeek.com


Just wanted to say this is an absolute masterpiece, and everyone

who's lucky enough to have a chance to see it shouldn't miss

that chance, it's a once in a lifetime. Congratulations Jacques,

give us more of the same please! (or anything else, actually)


This is a truly amazing animated film from Canada. The entire short is done in black and white and unless you know more about the process, you might not realize how long and difficult it was to bring this film to life. Instead of hand-drawn or computer-generated animation, the film maker used thousands and thousands of tiny pins and put them on screens. Then, by manipulating the height of them, it makes the appearance of a giant picture when they are all seen together. All this is set to lovely music and the scenes continually change--morphing from one scene into another rather seamlessly. It's amazing to think about the time it took and the film truly is a work of art--and would probably be at home in a modern art museum. The only reason I didn't rate this amazing film higher is that after a while it all becomes a tad tedious, as this is NOT a film with a lot of commercial appeal.

FYI--This style film was not created by the makers of LE PAYSAGISTE. In fact, UNE NUIT SUR LE MONT CHAUVE is done by the same process and predates this film by 43 years. See them both if you have a chance. Also, I recently saw NIGHTANGEL (also by Drouin) and it is even better than this film--an amazing work of art from start to finish.


"Lust for a Vampire" is the second in Hammer's Karnstein vampire trilogy.The other two were "The Vampire Lovers" and "Twins of Evil".Carmilla Karnstein is revived in a black magic ceremony and enrolls into an exclusive girls' school.Novelist Richard LeStrange is visiting the area in search of the truth behind the legends surrounding nearby Castle Karnstein and falls in love with Mircalla. "Lust for a Vampire" is definitely the weakest of the three films.It offers some moments of eroticism and Ralph Bates is excellent as the intensely creepy Barton.The story is thin,the film is cheap-looking and the pop song used in it 'Strange Love' is glaringly awful.However if you enjoy watching bare female bodies give it a try.7 out of 10.


This is the second film loosely based on the story "Carmilla" and "The Vampire Lovers" was the first and "Twins of Evil" being the third. This is definitely not one of the strongest entries but I don't go along with people that think this is a truly bad film because it's not. It could have been handled better but to say that this is a bad film is just not being honest. Story takes place in 1830 where a young novelist of horror hears about vampires that live up the road in a castle. Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson) ventures up to the Karnstein castle after hearing that the Karnstein's are vampires and that a young girl from the village is now missing. Lestrange finds the castle but behind it is an all girls school that is inhabited by young lovelies. He also hears that an English teacher is coming and when he arrives Lestrange tricks him into going to Venice for a month and now he can get the job at the school.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Lestrange meets the PE teacher Janet Playfair (Suzanna Leigh) and also notices the arrival of Countess Herritzen (Barbara Jefford) who brings her niece Mircalla (Yutte Stensgaard) to the school and instantly Lestrange is infatuated with her. Mircalla is actually Carmilla Karnstein who was resurrected by the blood of a virgin and one of the owners of the school Giles (Ralph Bates) has been studying the castle and notices the resemblance between Mircalla and the paintings of Carmilla. One night Mircalla kills her lesbian roommate (Pippa Steele) and then when she finds out that Giles knows about her she kills him also. Meanwhile, Lestrange has fallen in love with her and she allows him to make love to her but Miss Playfair who is in love with Lestrange is very suspicious of the goings on and calls the local police. The headmistress Miss Simpson (Helen Christie) wants to do the right thing but seems to be in the control of Countess Herritzen.

This film is directed by Jimmy Sangster who is better known as a writer of many Hammer horror films but he did direct some as well. Technically this is a film that could have used some rewrites on the script because while you watch it some things just don't make sense. Johnson is a horny young man at that school and is surrounded by many sexy girls but he becomes entranced instantly by Stensgaard. Is it because of her powers as a vampire? And later in the film Leigh out of nowhere announces that she is in love with Johnson. These two characters have barely spoke to one another! Also, the vampires in this film can walk out in the daylight with no problem and at the end of the film a villager is asked how they are going to find the vampires. He says that at night they will find them in their graves! I thought it was suppose to be the opposite. Actor Mike Raven and actress Barbara Jefford are suppose to be vampires but they never feed or drink blood. Raven in fact does nothing at all and most of the time he just stands in the background looking like Christopher Lee. But I have to admit that I did enjoy this film on an exploitation level. First, it's from Hammer Studios and that alone is worthy enough of a look. Secondly, the schoolgirls are all hot looking and wandering around their rooms with no tops on as the camera leers on them. This definitely works better as exploitation rather than horror and it's one of the reasons why audiences loved these films from Hammer. Leigh doesn't get unclothed but she's beautiful to look at and a good actress but this is a film where the attention is on young Stensgaard. She is glorious to ogle at in all of her nudity and the scene where she allows Johnson to make love to her is interesting. She was obviously using him to make sure that she could control him later on. The first film "The Vampire Lovers" is the best and a bonafide classic but this is a pretty darn entertaining film also. Don't let the bad reviews sway you, it delivers the goods.


Hammer took a different direction with this piece of Gothic cinema and broke some rules. Vampires walking about in daylight? For all its good points the biggest let down is the lack of references to the original Sheridan Le Fanu on which this supposed to be based. Hammer took a different direction with this piece of Gothic cinema and broke some rules. Vampires walking about in daylight? For all its good points the biggest let down is the lack of references to the original Sheridan Le Fanu on which this supposed to be based. Its predecessor 'Vampire Lovers' contained more references but I was hoping for a full and proper transcription of the book into celluloid. Tudor Gates appears undecided which direction to take the script. Yutte Stensgaard was cast at the time as she was famous on UK TV as Bob Monkhouse's co star in a game show. There she was required to look pretty and not say much as she showed objects to the audience. Think of the 'The Price is Right' hostesses. She went on to make a couple of film s which were more credible dramas. I first knew of her via a short story on the web which had a couple of photos attached to it. You can see why everyone thinks she gorgeous. A painting that was around at the same time was by the story's writer: an actor called Stephen Armourae who has reappeared in connection with ESP research and I know he's done more of other horror actresses including one about Barbara Stelle called 'Catherine' and another AJF. There was a rumour about an interview between him and Yutte if anyone knows more? I like this Hammer film as there is something quirky about it. Raven trying to be Lee. The change of casting to Ralph Bates is refreshing and more convincing. I can't see Cushing playing that lusting role. Bates is more suited. Also the eroticism could have been more, I agree with Armourae's review on this point; he has been trying to get film made loosely based on these Hammer themes but with greater erotic content whilst remaining tasteful. Watch this film as for all its flaws its still classic of its time.


Just when the Hammer Christopher Lee Dracula franchise began to run out of steam in the late sixties, the company revved up its product by turning to Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla (written before Bram Stoker penned Dracula, by the way, and a big influence on that better known book) and filming several versions of the novel. The other most interesting one is Vampire Lovers, which keeps far closer to the plot of the book and has a more sustained sense of mood and atmosphere, but ultimately is undone by an actress who is far too old to be believable as the Lolita with fangs that Le Fanu imagined long before anyone had ever heard of Vladimir Nabokov. Lust is admittedly shaky in terms of script, and the ambiance is on again off again (but wow is it terrific when it's on). What makes this click with so many horror buffs, in particularly those who love lesbian vampire films, is the one-time star Yvette Stensgard, a gorgeous Scandanavian child-woman who looks absolutely innocent (particularly when her eyes fetchingly cross), even the moment before she rips open the neck of her next victim. Lots of nudity, with nothing but blood covering her nubile body. Carmilla Karnstein is bisexual, seducing both her lovely young roommates at the all girl's academy and her teacher, a Byronic British romantic who combines elements of Shelley, Byron, and Le Fanu. A genuine cult following has formed around this film because of Stensgard's devastating charisma, which would never be properly employed again, by Hammer or any other company. (Hammer discarded its female star creations as quickly as it stuck with its male stars, Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing.) Many jerks complain about a dumb song called "Strange Love" that's indifferently imposed on one sequence. Morons: turn down the volume and enjoy the two gorgeous nymphettes as they swim in the moonlight, adoringly cuddle one another, and then . . . the kiss of death.


'Lust for a vampire' is the second film in the Karnstein Trilogy based on the novels by Sheridan le Fanu. The sequel to 'Vampire lovers' starring Ingrid Pitt, and prequel to 'Twins of Evil' starring playboy playmate twins Mary & Madeline smith, 'Lust for a vampire' was hindered in its production from the off set. Legendary Hammer director Terrence Fisher was forced to pull out and Peter Cushing was replaced by Ralph Bates in the lead role. Yutte Stensgaard plays the truly beautiful Mircalla, a lesbian vampire who is torn between her love for her teacher and her lust for blood. This film has a very cosy atmosphere very traditional of hammers work around the late sixties early seventies. The sets are reasonable and although highly criticised for her performance, Yutte does her job well.

I could go on for pages but as an overview I would HIGHLY recommend this film even if it does dabble in as much romance as horror.


The absolutely stunning Danish actress Yutte Stensgaard stars as the vampire seductress Mircalla in Hammer films part two of the "Carmilla Karnstein" trilogy. Not a great film but a worthy one for all Hammer/British horror film fans. Originally to be directed by the ace of gothic horror, Terence Fisher, he was injured in a car accident just days before filming started. A good/decent film from Jimmy Sangster, but one thinks of what it could have been in Fisher's hands. MUST viewing for all Yutte fans and fans to be.


Good film, really enjoyed when I watch the DVD over the weekend though one thing did spoil it, vampires walking in the daylight! Now I'm sure I didn't miss anything, I was paying attention but Mircalla was a really honest to god vampire, yet mincing around in the sunshine as she did she'd have been a crispy critter in 2 seconds.

Great movie, for all the usual Hammer reasons. I grew up watching the Hammer movies on TV in the 70's and despite the flaws in most of them they'll always be very dear to me. One might hope that with the advent of next gen DVD which will have more than enough capacity it would be nice to have all the Hammer horror movies on one disc. That, as they say would be cool!


A Hammer vampire movie directed by Jimmy Sangster, let me get through this proper review as quickly as possible before getting to the main reason I love this movie and rate it so highly.

It's not the best Hammer movie and the tale, all about an infernal clan who can avoid death and then feed off the blood of the living, is nothing that unique. The setting (an all-girl school) is enjoyable enough for male viewers and the cast, for it's time, even throws is something to keep the ladies happy in the presence of dapper Michael Johnson. Others appearing include Ralph Bates, Barbara Jefford and the very pretty Suzanna Leigh.

But they are not the reason for me wanting to see this movie for years and years. Oh no, not at all. That dubious honour belongs to the one and only Yutte Stensgaard. A woman so beautiful that I pined for her long before my young mind knew quite what I was pining for (having only seen her in pictures and never managing to have caught her on screen). Her acting skills are quite, quite bad and she doesn't have much in the way of actual personality but, good grief, Yutte remains one of the loveliest women I have ever lusted after in movie form and is absolutely the right choice for a film with this very title. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but it's my eye and my decision to rate this particular Hammer horror a 7/10 based on little more than my enjoyment of the woman I have been smitten with for many, many years.

See this if you like: The Vampire Lovers, Twins Of Evil, The Hunger.


This has more style than most of Hammer efforts. For that reason I'm giving it a high rating. Its based on the story Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu. As such it has a stronger narrative than the late Dracula films where the screen plays were not based on any novels.

The story is about the resurrection of a long dead vampire girl by her vampiring relatives. For some unclear reason they feel she needs schooling and enrol her at an exclusive finishing school. Socially responsible these vampires.

Part of the advantage for them is that it provides a supply of good looking women to appear for their scholastic vamp to suck on. This is only used a couple of times. Into this a stranger wanders along and is immediately given a teaching job without any checks as we are meant to have now days. He falls in love with Yutte Stensgaard's bloodsucker immediately. He is really inappropriate for a teaching post. What would he be like if he was there for 5 years?

I knew of this film but hadn't got round to it as part of the Hammer canon until I read a review of Le Fanu by the writer and actor Stephen Armourae. On a couple of vampire websites also appeared a portrait of Yutte Stensgaard by him taken from the film. Yutte was a very good looking actress and I have recently seen an excerpt of a game show presented by Bob Monkhouse where she was assistant. Her performance was as wooden then as in this though she made a couple of good films later.

A note on this film is that Peter Cushing was intended to play the Ralph Bates role but had to pull out due to ill health. This is to the film's credit. It would have been a shame to see Cushing die and the late great Ralph Bates does a good turn in a scene of desperation and appropriately enough lust.


The title sounds like a sleazy porn film, but Lust for a vampire is actually a (flawed) Hammer classic. It is 1830 in Styria, and Mircalla Karnstein is biting men and women in a classy girl-school. The well-lit colour photography looks more natural than the jewel-like Gone with the wind colours of 1950s Jack Asher period, but it is still beautiful, and the Gothic sets and suitably melodramatic score are wonderful. So is Miss Mircalla, who has truly striking, sensuous presence, and the breast-baring and heavy-breathing lipstick lesbianism is actually very tame. What comes to Mircalla's walking in the sunlight - well, you poor illiterates, Dracula and Carmilla and all the vampires before the silent Nosferatu could happily do that, thank you. The only problem in this enjoyable, if silly film is some truly horrible acting from Ralph Bates and the gay caricature in the tavern.


"Lust for a Vampire" is a half-way decent example of the lesbian-vampire genre.

**SPOILERS**

Arriving in the village below Count Karnstein, novelist Richard LeStrange, (Michael Johnson) quickly hears and becomes fascinated about the local legends about the Karnsteins. At the nearby boarding school, new student Mircalla, (Yutte Stensgaard) arrives and moves in with her fellow students. Soon afterwards, he starts to feel for her and they begin a relationship. The other students start mysteriously disappearing, and when LeStrange gets on board the school, he and another teacher, Janet Playfair, (Suzanna Leigh) take the case to the police, who round up the town and charge after the Karnstein family help up in their castle.

The Good News: There are some really nice things about this film. One of the big reasons is that it didn't miss one possible shot of nudity, especially in the first half hour of film. The nudity is very tastefully done and isn't at all gratuitous. From the skinny-dipping sequence to the seduction of the other women, it adds leaps and bounds to the sensuality of the film. The eerie opening, when an abducted village woman is abducted and taken to the castle, has two vampires slice her throat and the blood drips all over a white shroud the covers a corpse in a coffin. Production values are still admirable for a later period Hammer title, and the decision to retain the period Gothic setting is admirable. It's best move is that it takes the classic story of Dracula and put a female twist on it. It was the typical vampire-wreaks-havoc-and-gets-killed-with-a- stake- through-the-heart-story. It's a formula that has always worked and will always work. However, just the addition of a simple twist, such as making the head vampire a beautiful female, and the concept looks brand new again. These make it a pretty decent effort of the genre.

The Bad News: There's some really nice moments, but there's also some really off moments here. The pace here is the really biggest factor here. There's a large amount of scenes that go on for an eternity and just stretch out the film without really doing anything. The middle section of the film is the prime example. Its dealing with the staff and faculty of the school are just long, pointless talk scenes that don't really go nowhere. It constantly keeps going through those sequences where it feels like something's going to happen only for the conversation parts to continue. It gets old very fast and that makes it very aggravating. That also limits the action in the film, and other than the beginning and the end, there isn't much of that in the film. Beyond those two elements, the biggest factor against this is a sort of attitude towards the nudity. Granted, it's great to look at, but the attitude present in the film is more stand-offish. While the first one had it integral to the plot, this one instead seems more like it was done because it could've been done. There's no sensuality to it and its quite noticeable. These are the main problems with the film.

The Final Verdict: There's a couple of good moments in here, and some really troublesome parts as well. It's not as classy as the previous one or as exploitative as the next one, making it the runt of the trilogy. Hammer fans and those into lesbian vampires will want to see this one, others are advised to seek caution with this one.

Today's Rating-R: Nudity, several sex scenes and Violence


Sheridan Le Fanu wrote a Gothic little vampire tale called Carmilla in the 19th century that has astoundingly been the subject and backdrop of a surprising amount of films. The story is quite good yet in no way is the material enough to cover the breadth and scope of more than one film - which is one of the major problems with this Hammer entry. Lust for a Vampire is the second in a trilogy of Hammer films known throughout filmdom as the "Karnstein Trilogy." The first film is The Vampire Lovers which is a wonderful adaptation of Le Fanu's work. Then we have this film - which is what it is - still clinging ever so strongly to the vastly resource-depleted story of Carmilla, and lastly there is Twins of Evil which is nothing more than a Carmilla film in name only because of places and general themes and film trends. So the story here by Tudor Gates is very lacking. This time around we have a girl's school - and the girls are of course all around 18(Many looking like they are in their early/mid 20s)and drop-dead gorgeous with well-coiffed hair, elegant dresses, and that "I just had my picture taken for the centerfold in Playboy" look. Nothing wrong with that but we are asked to believe it opened up in the heart of Eastern Europe RIGHT BY the castle of a family known throughout the countryside as evil vampires(and still coming to life every so often as we are told through the opening sequence of the film). Now I know it is only a film, and, yes, maybe I am over analyzing here - but this Hammer entry lacks the ingenuity, creative spark, and acting/directorial talents associated with Hammer. It is a product of its time - the early 70s - and Hammer had resorted to "tricks" if you will far more heavily then they ever had done so before. We see lots of bosoms here - lots.(Okay I CAN live with this.) Violence is at minimum for even a Hammer film, but what we also get which is a trend at this time are films where there is no recognizable star power. No Peter Cushing here(although I do understand he was slated to be in it but personal problems forced him to cancel). No Christopher Lee. No Andre Morel even or Andrew Keir. I would have even taken Michael Ripper, but what we get is Ralph Bates, a serviceable actor at best, in a throwaway role and not much else in terms of acting talent. The male lead Michael Johnson has a bit of charisma but is far more annoying as a thespian - I wanted him to get it very early on. The young beautiful girls are just that. Carmilla/Mircalla is played by Danish beauty Yutte Stensgaard. She is lovely to be sure, but she has little to do other than the "normal" things lesbian vampires do in films like this. Pippa Steel is also awesome eye candy. But the worst casting and most laughable of all is that of Mike Raven as some vampire in the wings so to speak who looks, acts, and sounds like Christopher Lee. Almost his whole repertoire of words is "heart attack." Pretty soon you start laughing just at the sight of him for just how ridiculous and unprofessional these scenes are - and in very bad taste as to the mood of the rest of the film. While I will agree that Lust for a Vampire is entertaining overall to a degree - it is also heavily flawed and unworthy of the great Hammer tradition, Jimmy Sangster the director, and many of the Hammer legions of production workers who have worked and created much superior work.


The reasons are: 1. A very embarrassing Greece dancing 2. There are more many women than men in the film except the underrated actor Ralph Bates & the unknown actor Michael Johnson 3. The pretty blond danish model Jutte Steensgard is not a famous Horror actress. She played Carmilla Karnstein a bit boring, the reason is that she was not really an actress but she was a model. If the famous horror actress Barbara Steele would play in that role, the movies would had been very different.

4. The same plot 19th century Romanticism (a classic Gothic horror tale), which Hammer Film Studio didn't develop the story at all.

The most stupid element in the movie: a young writer who fell in love in a female vampire, and could not save her and was unable to protect himself. It looks a bit cheesy, cause you'd already seen this in various Hammer films.

2 - 3 stars as a result !!


Chad Everet and Dirk Benedict as military officers denying the existence of UFO's. Parker Stevenson as the abductee whose life has been turned up side down. I know..I know..I know. But hold on this one is different.Parker Stevenson gives a sensitive, endearing performance when he first encounters the alien that the military have captured. It's reminiscent of "ET" but without the happy ending. It is not geared for small children.


"Official Denial" easily overcomes it's budget constrained special effects with a fast moving, highly intelligent script. The film covers a lot of scientific speculation regarding U.F.O.s, alien cover ups, and alien abductions. Because interest is generated by what's being said, rather than what's being seen, the low grade visuals are not a problem at all. The entire production is very positive, and acted with enthusiasm not seen in many "blockbuster" movies. Overall a very entertaining and thought provoking film, that will reward multiple viewings. I highly recommend "Official Denial". The VHS is not easy to find, but well worth seeking out. - MERK


Although is is clearly a B movie, I have seen it at least three times and recorded it once but have lost the tape and have many times wished I still had it on nights when TV viewing was exceptionally poor. And I have Sky too.

I have just found this title on ebay and placed a bid for it, which if I win in about 3 hours time, will have cost me a phenomenal £10 in a time when used VHS tapes can be picked up for 50p.

I found the film thought provoking and inspiring. I have long been a sci-fi buff but only when the subject is truly believable. And this film is just that. It actually brings to the surface some of my own thoughts on the subject of whether or not "we are alone". And indeed if our visitors are actually our closest relatives and living here on earth too.

I would urge all to see this film.


I just got back from seeing a midnight screening of the newest installment in The Terminator franchise, going into it with an open mind after witnessing the debacle that was T3 several years ago. Having said this, I honestly felt at though this movie did a fantastic job of translating the visions of the future that were set up in the original Terminator and T2 and fleshing out a feature-length film of them. While there indeed a few "what in the hell were they thinking" moments in the chase scenes, I felt that on the whole, the movie was a wonderful success, gripping me in a way that T3 never came close to. I truly hope prospective viewers give this film the shot that it rightly deserves and go into it with an open mind, and are able to just sit back and enjoy the ride...its a terrific one, trust me. Leaving the theater, I honestly felt as though this one gave the first two a run for their money as a film, as much as it pained me to say it. Truly a magnificent job breathing life into a series that could have very easy been done in once and for all with another terrible installment.


WARNING! I will ruin this movie for you

I've seen all of the Terminator movies (all in their respective days) have read most of the comic book adaptions and have snored my way through the recent T.V series. And yes. Some incarnations were obviously better than others (to me) But, this turd of a film could not be further from the mark. And when I actually bothered to look up "McG"s body of work I can't say that I'm surprised. Gap commercials, music videos, Charlie's Angels... At what point did the financiers of this movie say "wow, we have to get this guy to direct the movie" But, I can't put all of the blame on one person. The entire creative staff has obviously gone to the Michael Bay school of film making...and failed. I only have 1000 word to work with...sooo...I shall list my gripes in point form.

1. Within 10 minutes of the title shot, this movie fired off one of THE BIGGEST Clichés IN WESTERN FILM. "It's too quiet in here (dramatic pause) It's like they're waiting for us" Seriously now! Is this the best writing that Hollywood can come up with? If this was an attempt at humour...it failed...just like the rest of this movie.

2. Giant Robots!!! Loud noises!!! Almost all of the battle sequences in this movie played out like a stylized ripoff of Transformers. There were big walking robots, big robot sound effects, big robot guns and aircraft, big robots riding the robot aircraft, motorcycle robots... They even had little stabby robots that swam around in the water. And they all looked like something out of a cheesy mecha flick. All glossy and pointy looking. These are not the cold, machined gun metal designs that set this series apart from all the others.

3. Chase scenes...chase scenes....followed by more chase scenes. #&#$ off with this already! How much time did these people fill with these blown out, CG'ed chase scenes? Foot chases, car chases and even air chases. "How do we transition from our crappy battle scene to our feeble attempt at character development?" Oh! I know!" Yep...you guessed it...

4. Even more clichés... Yep...Just about all of them. I'll have to make sub-points for this.

- The irrelevant love interest cliché.

- The conflicted double agent cliché.

- The antagonist's fatal flaw cliché. "Let's just leave all of our nuclear power cells laying on a big table. They'll be OK"

- The incompetent villain cliché. No, a hydraulically powered mechanical assassin would not simply shoot/crush/eviscerate it's victims. But, would merely toss them around, fire it's weapons erratically and then stand underneath precariously placed heavy objects, blast furnaces etc...

- The (pathetically mangled) hero's sacrifice cliché. "Oh no! John Connor has been impaled through the chest with a ragged piece of metal! And, his heart is just about to fail! Here, take my perfectly good cyborg heart...that has just been crushed repeatedly with a giant metal casting....and then nearly punched out of my chest by another cyborg"

Need I go on?

This movie is big budget Hollywood hackery at it's best. And I still can't believe that it made it off of the script. I hope that the persons responsible for this mockery are ripped apart by wild dogs.

Thank you and good day


I was actually rather surprised that this film was as enjoyable as it was. After reading several scathing reviews I was very worried going into this film. Overall I had a good time watching it.

Now I should preface this with the fact that I am a huge fan of the Terminator films/franchise. I think that overall the look was amazing, the action and CG were great and the acting was mostly good. I think the film suffered from not enough character development and I think that McG was on the right track, but needed a tighter script and story to work with. You can tell in the film that he is a fan of the first films... I definitely got a kick out of all the throw backs to the films. Not just the obvious ones like the music choices or one liners, but also subtle things like single handed shotgun cocking or single handed pipe blows, or the choice of settings and shots.

I have to say that Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese did a fantastic job. He was probably my biggest worry in the film as Michael Biehn's, Kyle Reese is probably my favorite character in anything ever, so basically he had big shoes to fill. Well I didn't think it possible, but he actually made me love that character even more. So mad props to him. Again I think this was a very valiant effort by McG, he needs to work out a couple kinks for the next films, which I really he gets the green light on.

Basically there are a few of loopholes and inconsistencies which could bring you down if you linger too long on them, but if you are able to get past that it is definitely worth watching. But those are in all the films, even the second has some. (I'm not saying it's better than, so don't stone me!) In short I had a lot of fun at Terminator Salvation.


Let me start this off by saying that TS is very but not entirely different from the previous installments. T1 was thrilling and fun, T2 elaborated and twisted the original's plot and themes, and the unnecessary T3 is almost entirely ignored (aside from the Kate Connor character).

Now TS takes to the beginnings of the battles and war between Skynet and humanity. If you know anything at all of Fallout series of games, the atmosphere and landscape of those games is almost identical to that of TS'.

I'm sick of reading the same review (ie. Plot sum up etc.) we are all familiar, so let me say this simply with Pros and COns

Pros ----

-Solidly continues the legacy without repeating the same idea (send a terminator back in time to kill one of the Connors) - Characters are likable (although kinda wooden here and there) - Action is fantastic - Score is actually engaging (i love the old school synth soundtrack, but i prefer Danny Elfman's live strings more) - Visually fantastic (direction, cinematography)

Cons ----

- Stated above, while the characters are likable they are wooden-ish - Script is a little rushed (a few moments of cheese :P)

There you have it.

Not THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!!! but a damn fine film and WORTHY film to be included with T1 and T2.


Alternate titles for this review:

1) A great sequel... to some other movie franchise.

2) The new terminator has a heart. The movie doesn't.

3) Go in expecting to be disappointed. You'll still be disappointed.

Wow, was this bad.

I stopped caring about anything that happened in this movie about 1 hour and 10 minutes in. I guess it was the second Huey helicopter crash with John Connor as both pilot and sole passenger that did it for me (it seems the U.S. army hasn't surplused any twin-engined Hueys yet, because Hollywood is still flying leftovers from "Apocalypse Now", even in the future).

I also zoned out during the drawn-out battle with the Schwarzenator near the end, because I really didn't care about John Connor (or his cute, perky wife, though she was never in danger the entire movie - another dramatic mistake).

This movie fails miserably in both aspects where the new Star Trek film shines: staying true to the original while making the new characterizations and situations compelling on their own merit.

Even Sarah Connor's recorded voice didn't sound right. I'm pretty sure it was neither Linda Hamilton nor Lena Headey - either one would have been better. And while this movie needed to have a big-name celebrity like Christian Bale to have a chance at success without Ah-nold in the main role, it couldn't have been any worse if Nick Stahl and Claire Danes had been brought back. In fact, Thomas Dekker would have been more interesting to watch.

I cared more about the people who got snatched up by the Martians in Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" than I did about anybody in this flick. There was zero character development. The girl who's a combination of Newt from "Aliens" and the Feral Kid from "The Road Warrior" managed to be annoying without saying a word but, like Jaden Smith in "The Day the Earth Stood Still", you can't blame her for it, only the script non-writers.

This film is practically shot in monochrome, except for the flames. We get it. To quote George Costanza: "When you're bleak, you're bleak".

This movie reminded me of lots of other movies: "The Road Warrior", "Aliens", "Transformers", and even "Resident Evil: Extinction". Just not "The Terminator".

Yeah, maybe it doesn't seem fair to give Star Trek's time-travel pretzel plot a pass and nitpick "Terminator Salvation" but I mean, there were two huge plot holes in this one that just plain insulted the whole series storyline:

1) SkyNet went through this complicated plot to lure John Connor in with its infiltrator, instead of just killing him with the infiltrator. Ditto with Kyle Reese. It made absolutely no sense, and that's even *without* any time travel.

2) For some reason, John Connor was (a) unable to trust a terminator even though he found out in part 2 that they can be trusted if programmed correctly and (b) totally stunned to find out that a terminator had flesh and blood and organs, even though that's the first type he ever encountered. What's that all about? Oh, was it supposed to be a big deal that the terminator didn't know it was a terminator? Like that's really hard to program... (and can you say "Total Recall"?).

Then there's the whole confusion/inconsistency about exactly what type of damage will or won't stop a terminator.

The movie tries really hard to create a sense of urgency with the rescue of the prisoners from SkyNet headquarters. It just doesn't work.

OK, so Sam Worthington's and Anton Yelchin's performances aren't as wooden (or metallic) as those of the other actors. This minor fact alone does not a summer blockbuster (or a worthy sequel) make.

I kept looking for some big, intense, dramatic scene that could have possibly made Christian Bale go ballistic on the director of photography. I must have missed it, and I won't be watching this turkey again to try and find it.

"Terminator Salvation" fails miserably as a Terminator sequel. As a standalone, post-apocalyptic sci-fi vision it doesn't really fare much better.