This film is a nothing more than series of rip off moments from other, better films. It's a mash of Predator, Aliens, Terminator 2, Species, amongst others. To be fair it doesn't try to hide it's 'influences', but when they are performed so badly it's hard to forgive. The actors all try to keep a straight face, especially Mark Dacascos. It's a shame the rest of the crew didn't seem to be bothered about making a good movie. Obviously the budget was low, so low the studio couldn't afford an original screenplay. Watch only for the unintentional comedy, such as the laughable helicopter crash and the blatant theft of an entire scene from Terminator 2!!


This is the most crappy film I've seen in a long time. The bones of a creature is found in a jungle and they turned in to a creature of malice(I can't remember how, the movies was so bad). The creature starts killing people. The visuals of the monster is a history of it's own. Sometimes it's a man in a costume, sometimes it's animated. The differance is like the one between a wookie and a fish. The special effects are... hard to describe without crying. They are horrible. Some events in the movie are just odd, like when a grenadelauncher, or some sort of big mega gun is thrown in the water and floats ashore.

I'd say you should see the movie though, just to get a laughter. We laught/cried in the end, we had rented it for some money, and, well...


... of movies like Predator, Alien, Jurassic Park, Rambo, Indiana Jones, etc ...

... and of bad script, terrible lines, lame acting, rubber ducks and aliens from "Alien", bad actors, stupid situations, idiotic characters and other stuff in the same category.

oh and how the hell can you extract dna from goddamn BONES?? let's clone dinosaurs, shall we?

and what IS that thing anyway? is it an alien? "ancient creature" ? I bet those things lived around Caesar or Cleopatra. did they keep them as pets? 'cause I want one then !

so... Enjoy !


Well, this movies doesn't have stolen scenes but they do have some stolen ideas from other movies. So here we go...

A doctor in the movie finds some bones but a mad scientist wants to clone it so he can create a perfect war-machine. The beast is inside a cage like the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. And the dude who is taking care of the computer system is a black dude smoking just like Samuel L. Jackson in JP...

Then the beast escapes. It looks like Alien but it can do everything that Predator can. You see? But the best part is the helicopter scene. Man, I laughed a lot, the worst special effect ever!!

Rating 1-10: 2

A bad movie but I really recommend this movie if you like b-movies. :D


It is difficult to watch this problem-ridden film. The lead actor often mouths the dialog of the kid as the little kid speaks his lines. Whenever the two speak with each other face to face, the man is mouthing the words as the little kid speaks.

As the German officer and waiter attempt to secretly speak with each other in crowded rooms, their body language and darting over-the-shoulder glances REEK of guilty activity. A flashing neon sign over two 6-year-olds as they try to steel mom's cookies as she is at the nearby stove stirring the soup. Come on, with a room full of high functioning adults, EVERYONE would notice their dumb behavior.

The first half of the film contains little more than over-acted clowning. In the second half, nothing plays true. What this movie needed was some self-aware sarcasm, some winking sign of intelligence.

The camera work is all right. However, the background music used seemed lifted from carnival rides.


This movie was not a good movie at all. I understand the story was about a family and not the war but how can people get past the unrealistic points of the war this movie portrayed? The carelessness of Benigni's character's actions in the movie would have killed tons of people.

The first hour of the movie was terribly boring I was waiting for the movie to end. The second part was better but I could not get past how unrealistic this movie was. I have seen many foreign films from many countries and movies dealing with war and this is one of the worst ones I have ever seen. One example of a movie that dealt with a boy trying to survive in a camp and the war was realistic was "Empire of the Sun".

Another thing I did not like about the film was the beginning. How perverted Benigni was acting with the little girl. I thought I was the only one but talking to people that loved the movie, they also had the same uneasy feeling. I do not think this movie deserves the status it has gotten.


I am the type of person that stays away from watching previews and reading any form of critique before entering a cinema. The only thing I knew about this film was that Roberto Benigni, Italy's Jerry Lewis, wrote, directed and acted in it. The first half of the film blew me away! It was very funny and life was beautiful! Then out of nowhere Jews are persecuted, people get sent to concentration camps and Mr Benigni becomes annoying.

I didn't know who I wanted to slap out first, Him or his cutesy little son who never got dirty inside a supposed harsh and un-human environment of a concentration camp. For that fact, his wife still looked a little too pretty to me with that heavy make-up, which did not resemble any sedimentary cosmetics produced by mother earth.

Many historical questions must be raised when dealing with something so historical such as a holocaust. Where was the over-crowding? Why was everyone so clean? Why did everyone look like they ate three square meals a day? Why were the Germans portrayed as if they came from an episode of 'Hogans Hero's'? On and on..

If anyone noticed, this film relied on two major sets where at least 80% of action occured. The first half was set around the town square. Then to make an ALLEGORY of the second half, we have the concentration camp square. Forget other smart semiotics such as ANALOGY and METAPHOR'S to answer the cheapness and un-imaginable use of locations question.

'Schindlers List' comes to mind as to what this film had wanted to be. Do we have to applaud this film because it is a foreign film (read: 'Art-house cinema') or do we praise the film for dealing with the holocaust issue. I say foreign film-makers make as many bad films, or even more, than the ones that come out of Hollywood. And this life was beautifully stupid!


My summary says it all. This film is an insult to anyone who lived through the real thing. No concentration camp even remotely resembled what is shown in this film. No child would ever be successfully hidden from those running the concentration camp. Anyone who acted like the character played by Roberto Benigni would have been immediately killed. If Benigni wanted to make a film about a father protecting his son from the evils in the world, he could have invented any situation or set of circumstances he wanted. He certainly didn't have to, and shouldn't have, totally misrepresented this period of time in modern history. For reality, try watching "The Pianist". Try visiting the Holocaust Museum. Take the time to see and learn what really happened. Life was not beautiful.


A few people on this page have compared SECRETS to a sort of Aussie 60s version of THE BREAKFAST CLUB but I have to steadfastly disagree . THE BREAKFAST CLUB was one of those productions that Hollywood used to churn out in the mid 1980s in order to sell a few records . SECRETS has an entirely different feel to it , in many ways it feels neither like a cynical marketing excersise nor a feature film but more like a theater play , and even though I haven`t bothered to check I`m probably right in saying SECRETS started life off as a play . Check out the character of Randolf who starts off by speaking in a scouse accent then when he gets found out reverts to an Australian accent . This type of deliberate internal logic gaffe is not uncommon in stage plays since it gives actors the chance to show off a bit and of course the story is entirely low concept just like you`d expect from a stage play .

This is a very uncinematic movie and the director seems to be lost in what to do with the characters . Check out the early scenes where Didi sits alone drawing . She`s been down the basement with Danny but neither of them have said two words to one another . Very difficult to believe . But I guess the selling point to this movie is more to do with the music of The Beatles rather than character interaction but the music featured here is of the band`s early stuff and I much prefer their later material<br /><br />As a strange footnote last year Paul McCartney`s daughter Stella was married on the island of Bute where I live . We had some really big name celebs like Madonna and Gyneth Paltrow over for the wedding and the local population were totally star struck just like the characters in this film . Quite pathetic really


I found this film to be severely irritating and tacky. Flash Gordon resembles a zealous fitness fanatic as he traverses space dressed in lycra and using what appears to be some sort of treadmill as his main form of transportation. Also, the flying monkeys/humans, which I am supposing must either be a complete yet poorly done copy of those in "The Wizard of Oz" or the missing links between chimpanzees, humans and bats. Sadly, "The Wizard of Oz" despite being made nearly fifty years beforehand had higher quality special effects as concerns flying primates. The costumes are atrocious, really, I hope whoever designed them got stiffed on their salary.


After all these years it still amazes me how big a blunder this film is. The Buster Crabbe serials of the 30's were classics compared to this bust. Why did they camp it up? Why did the filmmakers forget that one of the pleasures of the serial was the cheap sets and effects? It's a big mistake trying to make this film funny but then spending millions in special effects that looked cheap but weren't meant to. Why not make it look cheap in a campy style? Have fun with it. Either do it one way or the other.

The biggest problem with the film is the casting of the two leads. Sam J Jones and Melody Anderson as Flash and Dale Arden are both just awful. With all the money spent couldn't they have gotten two leads who could act? The only two performances worth noting are Topol as Dr. Zarkoff and Max Von Sydow, inspired casting, as Ming the Mercilles. Even the score by Queen is overdone. This film is a mess.


Make no mistake, if you rent/buy this and are in a haste, only watch the second segment! Horror-maestros Romero and Argento's teaming is not what could have been expected. First we have a spooky retelling of Poe's "Mr Valdemar", directed (or should it, in this case, be non-directed?) by Romero, and it's so very, very looooong. The plot never get's to boil here, just simmer slightly. All there is to enjoy is the over-acting of Ms Barbeau in one of her (many) bitch-parts, otherwise nothing interesting happens until the last five minutes where there is some suspense and horror. The second story is by italian horrordirector Argento and it's at least twice as good, but still not good enough. Interesting directorial touches, mixed with some nice gore, manages to hold the interest even if the material is stretched well beyond it's limit. There are numerable references to other Poe stories to find and an impressive dream-sequence with a very nasty impaling. Harvey Keitel is nicely creepy in his part as killer and cat-hater. It's his show from beginning to end. But the ending is too abrupt and, as I said earlier, there is not enough story fill the space with. So, to make a final verdict, a pretty pointless affair with the following ratings: segment 1: 3/10 segment 2: 5/10


This film is (or should I say "Both of these films are"?) really very suspenseful and action-packed. The acting is very good, although I would have liked to see the old pro's like E. G. Marshall, Martin Balsam, and Kim Hunter all have more time onscreen. Tom Savini reaffirms his position as one of our great makeup artists. The problem is that TWO EVIL EYES is much too gory, especially Dario Argento's take on THE BLACK CAT. I watched this movie on video last night and my stomach is still queasy 12 hours later. It is not necessary to show graphic and gory effects to tell a good story. DO NOT WATCH THIS RIGHT AFTER EATING, although dieters might do well to watch it before eating. Also, do not show this to children.


Two adaptations of Edgar Allen Poe's dark tales. Two famed directors and recognizable stars. I was real eager to view TWO EVIL EYES, but it didn't take all that long and I was bored to death. Not enough action; not enough gore. George Romero directs THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M. VALDEMAR, where a deceitful cheating wife(Adrienne Barbeau)plans on killing her husband(E.G. Marshall); and while he is in a vegetated state, she cashes in some of his major assets. Even a fully clothed Barbeau is gorgeous.

THE BLACK CAT is directed by Derio Argento and tells the tale of a crime photographer(Harvey Keitel), who is haunted by cats after himself being involved with a murder. Keitel,who is known for playing some quirky roles, does not disappoint.

Other stars involved in these twin tales: Sally Kirland, John Amos, Kim Hunter, Martin Balsam and Ramy Zada.


Dario Argento and George Romero team up, each telling a tale supposedly based on works of Edgar Poe. Romero's segment further solifies my notion that you can classify whatever George makes into two distinct parts: His Dead trilogy which is great and Everything else which turns out lacking. Blasphemy you say? Well bullocks to you, if you can prove me wrong please do so. Anyway, in this first segment that plays out like a longer boring version of 'Tales From the Crypt", Jessica Valdemar (Adrienne Barbeau, of "Swamp Thing" and "Escape From New York" fame, and NO I will NOT even mention "Maude" it was a horrid horrid show) wants to off her dying sugar daddy with the help of her hypnotizing Docter lover only to have the old coot come back. Even the almost good last few minutes of it can't save it. Luckily Dario Argento's segment while not without it's flaws (such as a story thats WAY strecthed out), can't help but seem better. In that one Harvey Keitel beats the sh*# out of an angry cat and the feline's owner. But it's a bit more then that.

My Grade: C (the high Argento grade cancels out the low Romero grade) Blue Underground DVD extras: Disc 1: talent bios; Theatrical trailer; and a poster/stills gallery Disk 2: 'Two Master's Eyes' documentary; 'Savini's EFX'; "At home with Tom Savini"; and a five minute interview with Adrienne Barbeau

DVD Easter Egg: On disk 2 press up until "Extras" is highlighted to get an interview with George Romero's wife about her bit part as the nurse in his segment


This 85-minute film was intriguing for the first half hour. Then it begins to bog down, big- time. After an hour, it was like pulling teeth for me to finish the last third of the movie.

Olivia de Havilland plays identical twins, one of whom commits a murder. Most of the film is devoted to psychiatrist who tries to figure out which of the two women is the guilty party. Both twins have an alibi for the crime. That sounds better than it played.

Lew Ayers plays the shrink, "Dr. Scott Elliott." Thomas Mitchell plays the investigating police officer, "Lt. Stevenson." (They never said his first name.) With a fine director like Robert Siodmak, I expected a better movie but then again, all of the Freudian nonsense usually turns me off. Also, the story was too much of a stretch. Sorry to waste Olivia's talents in this psycho-babble yawner.


I believe that our fundamental film opinions take 3 categories: Excellent, OK and Awful. Sometimes you get a movie which is below average throughout but then the last 15 minutes are as if it has been directed by someone else and it suddenly grabs your attention. At the end of it you think back to the film and although most of it was less than mediocre, you still class it under "Ok" simply because of the ending. Well this movie is exactly the opposite... once in a while, you get a movie like THIS.

The bulk of the movie was quite good until suddenly the last 5 minutes of the film was so terribly awful that I was left with total disbelief and my jaw had dropped while I was thinking to myself "No... that cant be the ending... they cant have finished it like that". The ending in this "film" is quite simply THE worst ending I have ever ever EVER seen. It drops this film so far into 'awful' that once I saw the ending I even forgot all the funny, good bits in the rest of the film and just imagined watching that ending for 3 hours instead.

I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who needs a lesson in how NOT to make a film. If you like realism then i wish you luck when watching this movie... and worse still it sucked 3 hours of my life away! UNBELIEVABLE!


Recently I saw Anna May Wong in PICCADILLY, a stylish silent melodrama made in England in 1929, and while the film had its flaws I felt that it was quite interesting and unusual over all, and that its leading lady was fascinating. Anna May Wong was virtually the only Chinese-American Hollywood star of her era, gorgeous in an unconventional way, with a magnetism rivaling that of Louise Brooks. I was eager to see more of her work, and knew that she'd made several silent films in Hollywood during the '20s and a number of talkies there in the '30s, after she'd returned from Europe.

One of Anna May's first vehicles upon her return to the U.S. was DAUGHTER OF THE DRAGON, which was also one of the first screen adaptations of a Fu Manchu story from Sax Rohmer's long-running series of books. Unfortunately, while PICCADILLY exhibited the best technical qualities of the late silent era, including first-rate cinematography, fluid camera movement, and smooth editing, this film exhibits some of the weakest traits of early talkies: the dialog is awkward, the editing rhythm is lethargic, and the acting (with a couple of exceptions) is theatrical in the worst sense of the word. There are sporadic attempts by the director to infuse the movie with interesting visuals, such as using silhouettes cast on screens or off-beat camera angles, but for the most part the presentation is as flat and dull as a school play. Aside from rare bursts of action we find ourselves staring at actors who strike attitudes and declaim purple prose against the harsh crackle of the soundtrack, with no background music to help smooth over the rough spots.

Anna May Wong's charisma is intact, but the material she was given to deliver in DAUGHTER OF THE DRAGON puts her dignity to a severe test. I never expected Political Correctness from a Fu Manchu movie, but it was nonetheless disheartening to observe the Yellow Peril stereotypes on parade here. Sinister Orientals spy on enemies through panels in the wall, and gongs are struck at key moments as Dr. Fu Manchu intones such lines as: "My flower daughter, the knife would wither your petal fingers." Fans of the Charlie Chan series might be surprised to find Warner Oland playing Fu, very much the opposite of his more benign Asian portrayals. Legendary Japanese actor Sessue Hayakawa is on hand as a Chinese detective working for Scotland Yard, thus providing a positive Asian role model to balance the villainy of the others, but even in his case it's made clear in an early scene that he's a "special worker" who will never be made an official member of the force.

Hayakawa manages to retain his dignity in the midst of this hokum, and so does Anna May Wong, but the waste of these two extraordinary actors is frustrating to witness. This movie is as silly as the toy dragon breathing fire under the opening credits, and perhaps it can be enjoyed as such, but if you care about these actors as human beings it leaves a depressing aftertaste. One last thought: what's the deal with sinister Asians spying on people through sliding panels in the wall? What's up with that? I mean, did you ever see an old movie where sinister Mexicans, Greeks or Eskimos spy on people through sliding panels? Oh well, I guess it's just one of those inscrutable mysteries of the Hollywood Orient . . .


This Grade B film offers a rare opportunity to see the underused Anna May Wong in a lead role as a noted Chinese dancer on tour in London who also happens to be the daughter of the sinister Fu Manchu. Playing a Chinese detective is the Japanese actor Sessue Hayakawa no less. One can see why Hayakawa would have been a successful silent film actor with his elegant physical presence and one can simultaneously hear why he didn't cut the mustard in talkies - the accent is so thick that one must strain to understand him. He never improved. Even in late films such as THREE CAME HOME and THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI the accent blunted the power of his performances to some extent. Warner Oland, the Swedish actor best known for playing Charlie Chan, is Fu Manchu. Finally, we also get a chance to see the fine actor Bramwell Fletcher in a rather substantial role as one of Fu Manchu's intended victims. He is probably best known as the archaeologist who screams so memorably well in THE MUMMY when the monster approaches him in a tomb. Otherwise, this film is just a passable crime melodrama with some colorful exotic touches of costuming and decor. Editing and continuity are noticeably clumsy. Wong makes a spectacular entrance dressed in a sparkling Chinese goddess gown with a huge Ziegfeld-style headdress. If this were a silent it would be worth watching just to look at her in an array of flattering outfits from scene to scene. Her emoting is as good as one could expect from the comic book-level material she is given. She had a beautiful, somewhat deep speaking voice similar to that of Claudette Colbert with just the slightest trace of an accent, making it all the more enchanting to the ear. Judged on its own terms, DAUGHTER OF THE DRAGON is a reasonably diverting suspense offering with some real excitement in the final reel as the bad guys fight it out with the heroes as well as a beautiful and romantic closing shot which I won't give away.


I have seen several Fu Manchu films and he was a popular character from the 1920s all the way up to the 1970s--having appeared in many American and British films and serials. He was a demented and power-mad genius--sort of like Dr. No or Blofeld or Dr. Evil. However, in this rather listless installment, the menace of evil is very, very subdued and the film never delivered on its promise.

Unlike other Fu Manchu films, in this one he is NOT the main character. Warner Oland plays Manchu and looks a lot like his Charlie Chan character. He is only in about 10 minutes worth of film despite his high billing in the movie. His purpose is to see Anna May Wong's character and reveal to her that she is his daughter--and that he expects her to help him carry out his revenge. So, one day, Wong is a sweet cabaret dancer and the next she's expected to carry out a plan for murder--and at first she agrees wholeheartedly. Having her become his evil accomplice wasn't a bad idea, but what sank this film was by having Manchu killed soon after this. This "brilliant" villain sure wasn't very careful and got himself killed rather easily. Additionally, Wong's character was a real negative because she never really could make up her mind whether or not to be evil--spending so much of the film bouncing back and forth---and in the process losing all the cruel menace that SHOULD be part of any Fu Manchu picture.

An additional deficit in the film is how they used veteran actor Sessue Hayakawa. I wasn't upset to see a Japanese man playing a Chinese man--heck, for Hollywood, that's a lot closer to realistic than the usual White Westerner playing Asian roles of the era. Instead it was a completely mindless plot device thrown into the film towards the end. While his and Wong's characters barely interact, there is a love scene that appears out of no where AND makes no sense since the lady was already in love with another man. It looked as if there may have originally been much more to this but it was somehow cut, at least in part, from the film and they forgot to completely remove traces of this subplot.

So, what looked like an exciting adventure film turned out to be a rather dull little film. The only big plus for the film were the great sets--they really were cool and made this B-movie look more like a higher budget feature film.

So much promise--so little delivered.


Sorry, I don't like this film. They tried to mix something of E.T., Free Willy and other child-animal films, but this time it did not work at all... The acting is very bad. Only Ernest Borgnine is OK as grandpa. The big turtle "Mel" is very, very fake. The face of this animal is copy of E.T.'s head. Did you ever see a turtle fly? Well, this one can... Bad film. Don't buy it.


Horrible acting (what was Julie Haggerty doing?) and bad special effects ruin a good lesson to be learned by kids. I know this is not for adults, but watch the Secret of Roan Inish, a kids movie that isn't stupid! It can be done.


Oh this was just HORRIBLE! I am still puking! Can you imagine if the flying turtle dropped a speeding turtle turd on you while you were in your row boat? I think this was based on a true story. Apparently there was an over-sized turtle that lived in the Pacific Northwest that had a neck that put most porn stars to shame. He was accepted by the locals and soon became a charter and rented himself out as quick mode of transportation. I saw this flick on HBO one night and was completely blown away by the special effects and dialogue. When the credits rolled, I had a tear in my eye and was wishing that it wasn't over and that there might be a chance of a sequel.


As a fan of the extreme japanese cinema i was really excited to finally get my hands on this film. But it was simply not worth the wait. The film is very slow and boring and as a matter of fact i had to fast-forward most of the film. Also most of the film's action is in the last 30 minutes and even when you finally reach that point of the film you are simply not interested anymore. It would have been way better if they had cut out about 45 minutes of the film ! and also , the scene at the end where a guy goes crazy is far too long. we dont need to see the guy jumping up and down for 10 minutes to understand there is something wrong with him


Stripes was one one the best dumb movies I have ever seen. Police Academy, trying to be like Stipes, is just an embarrassment. Many memorable lines from Stripes like "I think you're ready for the Special Olympics," or "I thought I should join before I got drafted," or "All I know is that we finally get to kill someone" are hilarious. They are things that you wouldn't expect someone to say, but they make a movie out of it! Police Academy is way too predictable, you know where they are heading, but they stop just before they get there. I can't even remember any memorable lines from Police Academy except this really disturbing one. The shy cop says at the end of the movie "don't move dirtbag." It was disturbing because you expected her to become "tough" and she does, but in such an unamusing and forced way. Of course, Police Academy doesn't have the caliber of actors like Stripes does. If John Candy or Bill Murray did Police Academy, they could make it work. Instead Police Academy hired all these crappy no-name actors from nowhere that take the movie nowhere. I was surprised that there was so much hooting and hollering and laughing going on in the theater. I thought that perhaps everyone else was watching something else. I know it is a little too late, but if you haven't seen this dud, avoid at all costs!!


Yes, while the film is an exact copy off of the 1981 film 'Stripes' with Bill Murray, Ivan Reitman and John Candy, just nowhere near as good, it has some funny moments. Aside of Guttenberg's horrible acting rip-off of Murray's character from Stripes, Police Academy has some funny moments, but after the sequel it just got horrible. I mean what, didn't they make 7-8 films? Then a cartoon show? The funniest thing, is watching part of Police Academy- Mission to Moscow, on the local Spanish channel I get. I didn't understand what they were saying, but that made it even more pathetic!

 So even though it's basically a rip-off gone bad of Stripes, Police Academy has SOME funny moments, at least enough for a friday night viewing.


Mighty Joe Young (1949)

As a movie it's pretty awful, but Harryhausen fans take note

Wow, there sure are some silly moments and bad acting in this movie--and yet I watched it to the end! Why? For the story itself (I love the King Kong idea) and for the campy fun of it. It's actually pretty horrible, and the special effects are interesting if not exactly convincing, so I would recommend not seeing this, actually, unless you are especially into the genre. (Can I put this into somethings a serious as a genre?) The director, Ernest B. Schoedsack, is the very same Schoedsack who directed the original King Kong way back in 1933, but after a series of similar adventure films in the 1930s, he had been inactive for nearly a decade before getting involved here.

The story we've seen before--big ape taken from the jungles of Africa to become a stage act for a impresario of dubious character. The acting is terrible terrible. Say no more there (Robert Armstrong isn't bad). The effects, for all their Ray Harryhausen fame, are pretty basic, though there are a lot of them (the ape, but also lions behind glass, and some mutilation to the lions, beware). Remember this isn't the early 1930s, when the effects for King Kong were pretty amazing in that context. This is post-war America. The fact that everything has to be created by hand and matte shot (double exposed in a selective way) does make it impressive, but even if you like Harryhausen's efforts, the rest of the movie might let you down.


If you're an enormous fan of Willis O'Brien and his work, then do watch this film as it contains some of the best integration of stop-motion animation and live action you'll see in any film. Alas, even that plus is spoilt for me by the model of Mighty Joe Young, who's made to look more like a bemused teddy bear than a ferocious gorilla (his ancestor, Kong, has bags more character in that respect). If you're hoping for a decent story with some sympathetic characters, don't expect any of that from the human actors. This is a big slice of schmaltz, woodenly scripted and very poorly paced dramatically, guaranteed to send you back with all the more admiration and gratitude for what the 1933 version of King Kong achieved.


I hate MIGHTY JOE YOUNG. I liked the special effects, but other than that the movie was downright horrible. The pacing was all off. The story was pointless. The timing was horrific. The acting, by some good actors, was downright bad. It was corny and it was lame. I mean, they just happen to come upon a big house burning down... and lo and behold, it's an orphan's home. And the drunks who get Joe drunk all act drunk like they're in cartoons with that overdone twisted way of talking like they should be in a mental hospital. And the lions were lame, and not scary. And the ending was really, really, really bad, the very ending where Joe's name is written in the clouds. And the very beginning, where the little girl, the biggest overacting child actor I've ever witnessed, is talking to some hunters, man is that a bore. This movie is downright painful to watch. And as bad as SON OF KONG is, I still like that one more; it's more enjoyable, more relaxing, and there are way better fights because there are dinosaurs and giant bears and you can at least have a good time. But this film was just pointless. It's sappy and tiresome. No on Joe.


This is quite possibly the most pathetic excuse for a film i have ever seen. And to think that some commenter's have the audacity to compare this to a George Romero flick.

The first thing you notice is the acting (or lack of it). It is some of the worst i have ever had the misfortune to watch, and i just didn't know what to say. Lets take an example: a girl sees her dad go ape sh_t and then eat her mother. What does she do? She stands up, watches with absolutely no expression of shock on her face, and slowly walks out of the room. WHAT is movie making coming to? Is it not possible to make somebody show a spec of emotion in their acting? Pathetic.

It is not possible to follow this film and take it seriously. The lack of any acting skill coupled with the inconsistent transitions from scene to scene and down-right unrealistic actions makes it unwatchable. I have seen bad films in my time and i rarely EVER turn one off but this made me tap out before the half way line.

The film takes a plunge into the pit of crap with its consistency. Again, there just isn't any. There are basically two sets of survivors from the off. They somehow avoid the whole city turning into zombies by sleeping in an alleyway and a car park respectively. Only one group encounters a single zombie before they make their way, and they miraculously act like they all know each other perfectly the next morning. The dialogue, the acting, the events, the consistency, EVERYTHING i can think of about this film is bad except the camera work which is borderline respectable.

At times it comes across as a decent flick with good angles and some good cues of music but these things are all made useless because there is no pacing. Its like one minute you will see the survivors talking by a car, then it will cut to a desert setting with them talking about how the infection started, then cut back to the same people somewhere else by the same car they left. Another example is when the survivor groups meet up. We don't see it at all. We hear a gunshot when a survivor of the army meets group B and group A run towards the camera after hearing it and claiming "we're saved". End shot, next scene somewhere completely different.

I am just lost for words at how to explain this film. Its like it was made without a director and the people responsible just filmed a load of crap they thought might work and then threw it together in movie maker.

Do not watch this film, ever. You will only waste the time in your life up until turning it off.


To kako is an independent zombie movie from Europe. It was done with very much of a low budget and less special effects like they used to have in Hollywood.

The plot is very common. A zombie disease with it's point of breakout in Athen. A couple of miners finding a secret cave within a highly toxicating gas. Soon the outrage begins and a couple of survivors find themselves right into the heat of the zombie chaos.

I really can't say, that i liked this movie it's not even an average zombie movie it is just bad. I don't think, this movie is supposed to be a trash production but with the filmmakers opportunities they would have been able to produce such as a decent movie. First of all the actors. They are gross. There is no acting skill, no realistic characters or even sense. A preteen is played by a women that looks like a 21 years old.

The effects are very cheap and absolutely inappropriate. The effects in Georg Romero's Dawn of the dead were much better and this was a movie made in the 70's. Sure it's not fair to compare it with Dawn of the dead, but still they don't even try.

Don't watch this movie.


I'm a zombie fan and this movie was just BAD. I even fast forward some parts when they where running.

I didn't look at all the votes only the first ones and those said it was good. I learned a lesson that always look how many voted and also read all votes. There are so man other good Zombie movies out there then this one.

They often use effects like 3 small windows instead of a big one some times and that ruined it a lot.

Acting bad, story bad. I liked the last scene at the end. That was nice.


The only reason this got made was because the businessmen behind it (I refuse to call them film-makers)knew they could secure a DVD deal in the States. They are nothing more than Greek Uwe Bolls.

It's the worst-directed, worst-scripted, worst-acted, worst-lit, worst-scored movie I've ever seen.

It's hackneyed, nonsensical and features some of the most obnoxious characters ever.

I would call it cinematic vomit but I feel uneasy to have the word cinematic associated with this turd, even under this context.

Since the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text, all I can add is this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks,this stinks.


OK first off this is a bad film.No way putting that more straight forward.This movie has no story,no good characters,no good dialogue,nothing cool to wow,the effects are the same effects we've seen in zombie films of the 70 and 80,and this film also had special effects on a computer that looked completely fake.This terrible amateur film that never should have seen the light of day.Also this film has a terrible soundtrack.And to end my tyrant of hate for this films let me end with this that i hate that people don't understand what make a good,fun,scary and entertaining film.You have a good story,fun characters that you invest with,good effects not sloppy things like in this film,and slow moving zombies.Zombies shouldn't be running or walking like orcs like from the damm Lord of The Rings films i mean Jesus.Watch Night Of the Living Dead,Dawn of The Dead also the remake,Day Of the Dead,Land Of the Dead and Shaun Of The Dead.Also Zombie 2.These are zombie films not piece of garbage and just to take it as a B movie is not right.Its not even that funny its over the top nonsense.


I Saw the 6.9 rank of this movie and... Oh my god. Fortunately there is only 50 or so votes that means that there is the cast of the movie who voted! The movie was Really bad. There was a premier in a big cinema in Athens one day before the official date in cinemas and i booked 2 tickets. The hole crowd were laughing... I tell you just one scene where the team Hunted by zombies is going to a house for the night! So two members come to bed together and the boy start leaking the girl at her toes. Then a zombie comes knock down the boy (the girl were enjoying with her eyes closed) and started licking the girls toes for a little time when it Bytes her toes and she starts screaming because she thoughts that there was the boy licking her. Any way DO NOT SEE THES MOVIE


When i read the comments here, i was hoping for a nice gory Zombie Event. What i got was a cheap piece of amateur trash! Sadly the overjoying comments here have to be from the Moviecrew themselves.. Every other "normal" people couldn't possibly that misguided, to praise such a trash movie. The Acting is ridiculous, the Effects are laughable at best, and even for a "Zombie"Movie the Story is just Crap. Wouldn't the makers praise their trash-movie so much, one could prepare for a nice piece of trash and it would be OK. But so, users hope for a decent Horror movie, and all they get is a piece of Sh.... Anyways.. only good thing at this are the nice, young, Greek girls - so everything has it good sides too, it seems.


Female Yakuza Tale is my first foray into "Pinky Violence". The closest thing I have ever seen to this wild Japanese take on the sexploitation sub-genre was Lady Snowblood and I can say that in comparison it hardly counts. The tale involves Ocho, a female yakuza member, who is ensnared (or en-"snatched" perhaps) in a plot to smuggle heroin using the wonders of the female anatomy. Then there is this subplot about a guy who was sent to prison and it cost him his right to be boss of the Ogi family. It really doesn't matter so much. Most of the plot is inconsequential and is really a catalyst for more carnal pleasures... Characters have the usual undeveloped back story elements that one expects from a poorly written film that serve only to frustrate the audience. These elements are handled with little care and are jarring, obnoxious and clichéd interruptions. As a young male the only reason to sit through this flick is for the copious amounts of female flesh. One only has to go so far as the opening credits to be rewarded with the nude splendor of the star Reiko Ike. There is plenty more where that came from, rest assured that if you see an attractive woman on screen you will find out what she is hiding behind her clothing. This film makes a rule of this concept, in fact the finale has almost the entire female cast engaged in combat with only their shoes on. Blood, breasts and posterior... Too bad the camera work is static and boring and coupled with the editing makes the combat painfully staged and slow. Basically this is a film to watch if you crave a low brow cinematic fix. You watch FYT for the same reason you watch Cannibal Holocaust or a Troma flick, you crave the assault on good taste and art in favor of having primal desires satiated. While I got a kick out of this it is by no means a good film and a four star rating is all I can bear to give this.


Two famous personalities from Victorian England, and yet Hollywood can't be bothered giving them English accents. Laughton, despite his mutton chop sideburns and glowering demeanor, looks far too young to be Shearer's father (in actual life is only 3 years older than she). Well at least he adds some spirit to this rather stage bound, dull movie.

March didn't convince me he could write a line of poetry. The engaged cousin is a female Elmer Fudd, advewse to evew pwonouncing an R. Shearer's illness is not explained, perhaps she recovers from a bad cold, we don't know, in any event she appears remarkably fit at movie's end.

Maureen O'Sullivan, and Una O'Connor are good in supporting roles, and the costuming is well done.

I'll remember this movie for Laughton's valiant attempt at portraying a middle aged man, all the more ineffective having seen him as a middle aged man in his more recent films.


Apparenlty this is suppose to be a horror/triller movie. Laughed so hard, one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. Acting is awful. Filming is terrible. Special effects, if that is what they are suppose to be, are as good as any you can create at home yourself. Used a 'known' name to attract people. There are actually other recognizable people in this movie, I am not sure why they agreed to be in this. The most money was spent on the cover/poster for this movie. I felt tricked into renting it, the DVD case made it appear to not be as bad as it was, I guess the saying of 'Don't Judge a Book by It's Cover' applies here.Worth watching, just so you can see how bad it really is.


I think the coolest scenes was when Mario Lopez, then that 2nd guy (baby daddy) discovered the girl lying beautifully in the woods and realizing that her head was on backwards. The reaction from both was top rate. I found ALL of the actors quite engaging, it was a B movie but they did not phone it in. I was rooting for them to survive, especially that nice Sheriff. But the couple that was having the baby annoyed me at the end, because they had a 2nd chance to get away and they're doing the "Run! But no I can't leave you!" argument yet again, until the slow walking psycho catches up to them.

So the cars have been located, and tied to all missing people in the area, but no one knows the whereabouts of this cabin in the woods, everyone who did is dead. So does the guy get away with it or do they call in CSI Boondocks?

Things that made me go hmmm?: Cops investigating without back-up. Why did the psycho killer kidnap the pregnant gal, suddenly breaking away from his M.O., and give her the chance to get free and run? Was the deputy's reaction to Mario Lopez based on the fact that he was Latino? Or was it standard police procedure in that town to club and arrest someone who waves them down screaming for help? The scene with Gary Busey was ridiculous and unnecessary. Bummer we never see "Jeremiah's" face. Yet another, wound the bad guy but don't make certain he's dead scene. Can't they at least tie him up? All in all it was fun. It's one of those see with a group, laugh, cringe and thrown popcorn at the screen movies.


There's a scene in A Crack In The Floor where busty beauty Heidi (Daisy McCrackin) accidentally spills her drink down her fronta rather obvious excuse to have the lovely actress whip off her clothes and give us an eyeful of her charms. Except that she doesn't. Before she can undo her top and free her puppies, Heidi is interrupted by her irritating boyfriend Lehman (Saved By The Bell's Mario Lopez). It's a moment that pretty much sums up the whole film: a tease.

Barring a few moments of nudity in the film's opening moments, and a fairly fun impalement on a pitchfork early on, this film wimps out on delivering either the gratuitous nudity or graphic gore one expects from a backwoods slasher, meaning that it's a very frustrating experience for fans of the genre.

A shame, really, because the premise is solid enoughhulking maniac Jeremiah has spent thirty three years hiding under the floor of his cabin after witnessing the rape and murder of his mother by rednecks, and now kills anyone else who should stumble across his homeand although not great actors by any stretch of the imagination, the cast are likable enough.

But when a film racks up a kill count that reaches double figures (I counted ten, including several by pick-axe), but prefers to suggest the carnage rather than gross out the audience (probably 'cos it's cheaper that way), you can't help but feel disappointed and cheated. Hell, even Gary Busey's name on the cover is a tease: he's only in the film for five minutes (although his surreal rant about chicken-wing suppositories is definitely the highlight of the film).

The surprisingly nasty tone and downbeat ending are daring touches (how many horror films have the balls to feature NO survivors?), but these factors alone cannot prevent A Crack In The Floor from being a dud.


They sure gave this thing a good write up on the DVD box but sadly it was no surprise at all when this movie turned out to be a major piece of junk.I was pretty drunk when I watched this thing so I may not get all the details exactly right BUT it was bad ,that much I do remember.

A bunch of friends set out on their annual trip together.This year they decided to go camping and hiking and dope smoking ,the stuff a bunch of 20 year olds in a horror flick usually do.They get lost and end at an old deserted cabin out in the middle of nowhere.Unknown to them a weirdo lives beneath the cabin in a cellar.

It sounds like it might be a cool horror film but it wasn't.A few good scenes early in the films were pretty cool.Rance Howard and Gary Busey played a couple of weirdo local yokels but they were used too little and never seen again after these early scenes.Why Im not sure,cause none of the youngsters in this film were good actors at all.They were a dull and uninspired bunch.Mario Lopez was really really bad.I mean really bad.

Bo Hopkins played the local sheriff and he was good as always.But damn was he ever fat.He sure packed on the weight in his last years.

This film had very little gore and what there was was clunky and badly done.The weirdo under the floor wasn't developed much at all and therefore didn't never seem that scary.There was some brief side boob shots of a pretty large pair but once again it never developed into that glorious full blown nudity that would have made this mess a whole lot better.

I never understood how this guy survived laying underneath the cellar out in the middle of nowhere.As I said the villain was never fleshed out and never really even seen that much so I didn't develop that much dread of him.

In fact it was sort of a relief when he would kill one of these bad acting idiots.This was a totally lame and totally forgettable piece of junk that isn't worth your time.


the mouse.that's right,i said mouse.there's a mouse in the movie,and even though it has the briefest of cameos,it was the best actor in the(alleged)movie.for some reason,i watched this right to the bitter end. i don't think anyone involved in the movie knew there were cameras involved.you can't fake acting this bad.it's a real talent.nor can you fake making a movie this horrible.and this is the end result. it wasn't really a movie.more like a collection of scenes strung(loosely)together.i'm not sure how much this thing cost to make,but i feel confident in saying i have more than that underneath my cushions.brutal,but still nowhere near as bad as Dracula 3000.a very reluctant 1* for the mouse's performance.


This was the worst movie I've ever seen! I mean, I'm a giant fan of horror movies, I've seen so many and there definitely are MANY bad horror movies, but this movie was not only bad, it was completely senseless! The dialogs of the terrible clique of weed-headed young people were just killing me, they weren't even funny. Could anyone please tell me, why the hell the people selling chicken wings happen to be that crazy? are they some kind of relatives to the crank slaughter with the ax? Or are people living in this area just perverts? I didn't get the sense of these characters. Then, what about the cops? How stupid can one be and why are they so stupid? Was the intention of the movie to show that you can never trust in police cause they won't believe a guy who runs across the street completely out of breath and out of his mind, telling that his friends are just about to get killed near by? is it possible the movie-makers really think a cop wouldn't even stop for a second to think about it and make himself an own impression? Wouldn't he at least have a look if the story is true or not? Then the ending of this senseless minutes of horror : No ending! Crazy guy will continue to kill people who come to his house. Hm...u So let me sum it up: Bad characters, bad story because old old story with no fresh material in it, bad actors, movie FULL OF stereotypes (people who smoke weed are like this, cops are like that, people living far from the cities are so AND SO ON!) This equals a bad bad movie which wasn't worth one cent of the 5 Euros I paid for it!


This is the worst writing I have ever seen in a movie. Watching it leads one to wonder if it is meant to be a spoof. But, it isn't. The acting is like a bunch of 8-year-olds who have no sense of reality. Roughly two minutes of this movie was frightening. If you like bad movies, this is for you. It is absolutely hilarious because it's so bad. But, I would not recommend spending the hour and a half on it. Gary Busey is in it for roughly five minutes. Strange and twisted, he seems to be the comic relief, but I can't tell.

There is also no resolution at the end. It ends abruptly and frustratingly does not answer some of the key questions. Most of the dialog gives background information of all the different characters which is rather pointless and shallow.

A few gratuitous bloody scenes and sex scenes, but again they're hardly enough to be considered interesting and worthwhile.


Geesh this film kinda sucked. I guess what made it so bad was the so unneeded sexuality and the use of veteran actor Gary Busey. They made made as a deranged weirdo that had an obsession with chickens! How sick can one get? I don't like it when I have seen a great actor many great movies and in many great roles and then some director or someone has them in role that makes them a total joke and I don't care if the actor agreed to it or not it shouldn't be done in My opinion! And why of why was Rance Howard and Bo Hopkins in this? The only good aspect (I guess) of this film is that the killer kills everyone! That is something that rarely happens in a killer/slasher movie. Only watch this film if you have absolutely nothing to do whatsoever otherwise stay away from the film watch something else that's much more greater like Halloween!


Filmed in Topanga Canyon, this low budget horror film is laughable, considering who all has showed up for their free lunch off the taco wagon, and scale pay. When a group of high times teens pull into the unwelcome gas station from hell, gas attendant "Floyed"(Rance Howard)appears in a cameo asking, "What'll it be?" "Filler up" the driver replied, as Howard directs a 'PTY', Ms. Orsi if I recall, behind the store to use the restroom, where appetizers await her arrival: beheaded chickens carcases & wings, with lots of bloody dip sauce, are scattered all about the ground. At least twenty hits of brutal visual salmonella carcases in all, as though someone broke into your mind and contaminated your thinking processes. Not for the faint of heart. No need to use the out-house. A dogie bag would have worked just fine.

While the nauseating sound effects of barfing quickly get underway, Gary Busey steps into frame with a haunting, "thud" from bumper music providing a typical 'surprise' and, 'gotcha!" effect. We're left sickened with the feeling of having just munched a very bad dinner from some Chinese 'takeout' joint in Sri Lanka. Isn't that India?

Howard is slick & cunning in his brief cameo roll, knowing full well what happened and what is awaiting for her on the other side of his 'little shop of horrors'. Great chemistry between Howard and Busey with some amusing lines as they engage in their sickness together.

Putting aside the metal plate in Busey's head from a motorcycle accident, and a long history of drug abuse, is this guy really that desperate for a job? The script was horrible and the cast was great. Is it that difficult to get a matching set? And Rance Howard, father of actor/director Ron Howard, acting in another sicko film about axes through the back, and enough blood and gore to meet the appetite of any voracious vampire.

Funny thing is, Rance hasn't even seen the movie. Knowing that such hideous films contribute to the moral decay of society, I asked Howard why he continues to act in such films? After a lengthy pause on the phone, his response was, "because there's an audience."

After asking the wise owl, just how many licks does it really take to get to the center of a tootsie role tootsie pop, I found the time to ponder & reflect my next visit to McDonalds. "Crack in the Floor" receives a caution rating of (4).


This one was bad, but I've seen worse pictures.

I only bought this one because Gary Busey was listed, and figured...Even if he only has a small part, it might be interesting. But I was wrong..maybe Gary did it for a friend or the paycheck alone...either way..it seems like he doesn't take this role seriously..when this is said I've seen way worse pictures...This one might have been better if they have had a higher budget to work with. Mostly I don't judge movies even if they seem cheaply done, you'd notice that if you saw my collection of DVD's. But in this case..well.

I'm glad I didn't pay more than 2GBP for this one. I was bored before I began to watch, but my boredom increased me (almost to death;-)during the movie.

The only thing/reason why i'm giving this one 3stars is because of the beginning and the end of the movie..it starts okay...and ends in a way that I didn't expect.You do wonder how it's going to end, and look at every angle...but that's it.

Don't think it was the actors fault,,they didn't have that much.. at all to work with.


This film makes my soul cry. My friends and I were on a kick where we would rent random movies and either fall in love with them or sit there and make fun of them. A Crack in the Floor definitely fell into the second category. The "characters" are really nothing more than muddled stereotypes with nothing motivating them. The bad guy gets sodomized as a young boy, so he decides to kill everyone he can. The kids know people are dying, so the split up to go screw around in the dark woods. Not exactly convincing. Some of the movies "highlights": When the perverted redneck tells the little boy he's "pretty like his mamma". When the kids are talking about pot on the car ride. When Busey shows up and a girl freaks out about someone KILLING CHICKENS!. When at the end one of my friends said, "they're all gonna die, there's no other way for this movie to end and make sense" Yep, there was no ending that could have proven any less crappy.


I thought that there was absolutely no redeeming value to this movie. There was no point! Everyone dies... I thought it was a waste of time to watch. I guess it was my fault for thinking that what this movie lacked in horror could be made up by its cheeziness.


A couple weeks ago, I decided to go into Blockbuster video in search for a cheap movie to watch. I came along this movie and at first the cover was pretty cool and it had Gary Busey in it. What can go wrong. I was expecting Gary Busey to appear in the film for longer than one minute but that didn't happen. This is the worst movie I've ever seen and every copy should be burned. If I could give a zero for this movie I would but the lowest you can go is 1. Lifeforce is better than this piece of crap and Lifeforce is pretty bad too. Avoid it at all costs.


This movie is so bad I don't even know where to start. First of all, what is the deal with the rape scene? Not that I want to see a realistic rape or anything, but c'mon. I mean the woman who is supposedly getting raped just looks bored and the hillbillys obviously have their clothes on when they are supposed to be raping her. It just looks ridiculous and stupid. This is supposed to set the tone of the whole movie and motivation of the killer but instead sets the tone for this being a piece of crap. Watch it if you want to know what I'm talking about. And the shots of that guy with his eye twitching are hilarious. This has gone down in my personal history as THE movie to reference when I want to talk about bad movies. Hey, at least it wasn't as bad as a crack in the floor!


The worst horror(?) movie ever...AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL,AWFUL...I lost 2 hours of my life watching this unbelievably bad movie...A 5 year old kid could have directed it better,wrote it better,acted better...Avoid it at all costs...


This was by far one of the worst "horror" flicks I have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Despite the fact it appeared as if it were made on a $50 budget, the acting was just as bad. Mario "AC Slater" Lopez has ruined any last hope of any future acting carer by appearing in this thing. And Gary Busey shows his desperation to remain in the film business by shamelessly appearing as a "chicken-killing" mad-man. The movie stars a group of spoiled rich tree-hugging college kids who will never be "coming to a theater near you" again. Trust me, this movie is not worth the tape-dvd it is recorded on.


This movie is simply a piece of crap. If you feel you need to waste two hours of your life this is the best way to do so. The acting is pathetic, the story is confusing and the set is cheap. It looks like it was shot by some poorly trained monkeys from the zoo. Don't see this film.


Spoilers ahead (if you can call them that). There is no reason to watch this worthless slasher. A killer with a twitchy eye awakes. Mario Lopez from "Saved by the Bell" leads a bunch of nobodies into the forest-they all die (EVERYBODY!) and rather bloodlessly at that!!!!!! The twitchy eyed killer goes back to sleep.....THE END.....So many unintentionally laughable moments....No fun whatsoever.....Gary Busey's roll is stupid and about 1 minute long. Should be called "A Cr.p in the Floor".


In a woods cabin live a mother(Tracy Scoggins), a Quaker-alike, and his little son named Jeremiah. She always warns him on dangers of exterior world.But she's brutally murdered by a rednecks in presence of Jeremiah. Thirty years later he becomes into a deranged youth . Three couples(Mario Lopez,Bentley Mitchum, Jason Oliver and Justine Priestley, twin sister of Jason Priestley) go on a weekend hiking journey in the mountains. They stop in a strange location where encounter quirky local folk(Gary Busey)and run afoul into the van . But their misfortunes actually start when they do camp in an allegedly abandoned cabin that's not so empty they think; then the terror really begins. The psycho behemoth chases down and kills scabrously young people. Meanwhile a sheriff (Bo Hopkins)is investigating creepy deaths.... This is a customary splatter plenty of grisly killing,thrills,gruesome shocks, nauseating chills and quite boring. It relies heavily on old-fashioned buckets of blood and the plot remains the same of 'Slashers genre'. In the film appear usual actors from 'B series', such as Bo Hopkins, Gary Busey and Tracy Scoggins. Special cameo in flashback as a paramedic of David Naughton, the starring of the classic 'American werewolf in London'which the hikers comment when they're walking. The motion picture is badly directed by Sean Stanek. Another films about trippers trapped into woods and chased by killers or rednecks, are much better, such as the classic 'Deliverance', 'Wrong turn and Cabin fever' among others. Rating: bottom of barrel and below average.


In a small cabin, a scarred, long-haired psycho (who witnessed his mom getting doggy-style gang-raped and killed as a kid) lurks underneath the floorboards and emerges to cut up dumb college kid hikers. This is like a crude teen comedy mixed with a slasher film, complete with embarrassingly bad dialogue provided by the director. Tracy Scoggins gets good billing for a rather degrading cameo. Other name star cameos include Rance Howard as a one-armed white-trash gas station attendant, Bo Hopkins as (what else?) a sheriff who spends a lot of time driving and walking around in the woods, and Gary Busey as a strange guy who chops up chickens. It's not good, but it's at least a little different than the usual direct-to-video tripe.


This is the worst film I have ever seen since The Blair Witch Project. Words to describe my feelings for this film, PATHETIC, STUPID, PREDICTABLE, PEDANTIC, TRAGICALLY FUNNY WHEN IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE, ETC ETC ETC ETC. The only highlight of the film was Gary Busey's hill-billy character in an otherwise complete waste of film.

On the technical aspect of the film I suspect that there was no lighting director involved. I completely lost track of the continuity errors as they were so numerous. The night time shots were made worse by the dark clothing that the costume designer had chosen for the characters.

In summary, I would not recommend anybody from this crew be allowed to work in the film industry ever again.


Ed Wood, purveyor of class and dignity with a veneer of exploitation, gives us a great story about the consequences of parental neglect, albeit wrapped in nice, tight sweaters.

The movie deals with a newspaperman's daughter (who looks about the same age as her parents) who has become a wild child because her father is too busy at work to notice that he keeps giving her the same birthday present every year. In addition, her mom's continuously on the charity circuit, so she's never around for those heart-to-heart talks that young women need. So, left to her own devices, she has a gang of other females in need of thrills who rob gas stations and rape young men.

While this tragedy is at times overly done, the point is still well made that parents need to be involved in their children's lives. Sterno says give The Violent Years some time from your life.


Four teenage girls, who are well into their twenties, disguise themselves as boys (they wear bandannas) and "run rampage" through the city by pushing their sexual advances on a weaselly boy on Lovers' Lane and hitting a gas station employee with a handgun, not killing him of course, but, as one policeman remarks, "Not for lack of trying."

After enduring a friend of her father's who shows up at their slumber party, trying to hold a conversation with the "teens" as they make out robotically, Paula leads the gang on their most heinous crime of all: breaking into their classroom in order to slightly disrupt the furniture and even erase the blackboard! Fortunately, the cops show up before they can finish the job, and a shoot-out ensues. One of the girls, after being blasted with a shotgun, announces, "It wasn't supposed to be like this," before lying down gently with no visible signs of damage whatsoever. The other three girls high-tail it out of the school but stop directly in front of the cops to chat long enough for another girl to be shot down as well. Day and night lose all meaning as the remaining two girls speed off at a snail's pace past the police.

After another shooting, the girls have a wonderfully ridiculous car crash into a plate glass window, killing one of them. Paula receives some cuts on her face, but manages to live just long enough to give birth to her illegitimate child. A judge refuses to grant Paula's parents custody of the child and further punishes them by reading a speech so long and pointless that even he seems to be dozing off by the end. In short, it's the fault of the parents that Paula turned to a hobby of crime because they didn't give her enough love or force religion upon her. Let this be a lesson to us all.

"The Violent Years" isn't nearly as inept as "Plan 9 From Outer Space" or "Glen or Glenda?" (possibly because Ed Wood only wrote it, didn't direct it) but it's still terribly entertaining.


Incredibly dumb and utterly predictable story of a rich teen girl who, not given love by her parents, starts a girl gang. They rob gas stations, rape guys (!!!) and kill a policeman.

All the "teenagers" in this film are easily in their late 20s/early 30s, the acting is all horrible and the script has every cliche imaginable with hilarious dialogue--it comes as no surprise that it was written by the immortal Ed Wood Jr.!

Worth seeing for laughs. Best lines--"They're shooting back!" and "It ain't supposed to be like this."


With a script by the infamous Edward Wood Jr. and the sleaziest of juvenile delinquent plots - Voila! Instant camp classic!


Please note: My score of 2 does NOT mean that this film isn't fun. In fact, THE VIOLENT YEARS is a wonderful film to watch. Just don't assume this makes it a good film or a picture made by competent film makers! No, its watchability is because it is so bad...so incredibly lacking in any subtlety that make it a must-see for bad movie fans. In other words, if you like laughing at films such as PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, then this film is definitely for you! The film begins with a judge lecturing two parents and basically saying that any time a teen goes bad it is because the parents are to blame! While this is true in some cases, the film pounds home this contention with all the subtlety and grace of a 2x4 being smacked repeatedly against your head!! As the judge is talking, the mother begins to think back about recent events and wonder if she DID have anything to do with her daughter becoming a menace to society.

This daughter turns out to be like a Jekyll and Hyde sort of person--acting sweet in front of Mom and being an evil thrill-seeking idiot outside the home. For kicks, she and her three friends rob gas stations, destroy schools and rape men. Oddly, however, they are not caught for the longest time because you can only assume everyone in the town (especially the cops) are idiots! The girls leave lots of fingerprints and other evidence behind but the cops conclude at one point that it's the work of a gang of men from another town!! While the girls DID disguise themselves for one of the robberies, it's pretty obvious they weren't guys!!! And, when they raped a man and left him and his girlfriend as witnesses, don't you think they could have identified the girls?! And, later in the film, when one of the father's co-workers comes to the house and one of the girls' boyfriends pulls a knife and threatens the visitor, don't you think perhaps this MIGHT have clued somebody in to the fact that the girl and her friends were up to no good?! Regardless, the bad acting and silly script is very watchable in a salacious and laughable sort of way--particularly if you enjoy laughing at such films as REEFER MADNESS, SEX MADNESS or HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL. Plus, it is just funny seeing the actors(?) having trouble with their lines (such as the judge who appears to be reading his lines as he talks to the parents) and the inconsistent and brainless writing (for which Ed Wood was responsible). I particularly loved it when two of the bad girls just told a crook that they shot a cop---and then this crook picks up the phone and tries to call the police! Didn't they just say they killed a policeman?! Didn't you think perhaps they might do the same if you made this phone call?! Duh.

Overall, because the film is so earnestly stupid, it holds a near and dear place in the heart of every bad film fan--you know, the sort of people who enjoy laughing at horrible films as an exercise in self-torture. If you aren't the sort of person who likes to do this, then my advice is to steer clear!!


In what is yet another bad juvenile delinquent movie from the moralistic 1950s, four "teenage" girls rob a gas station, erase a classroom chalkboard, and do other vile things. The four females are all miscast. They're too old to be teenagers. The main "girl", Paula, is 18 years old. But the role is given to an "actress" who looks more like she's in her thirties.

The film's sets are cheap looking. Dialogue is horrible. There's no subtext at all. Characters say exactly what they're thinking, which renders a production reminiscent of a high school play. Overall acting is amateurish. None of these people have any talent. They mouth the words without conviction or credibility. B&W lighting is conventional but tolerable.

With speech after speech about right and wrong, the worst element of the film is the ending, as a judge hits us over the head with a moralistic sledgehammer. He starts out by blasting a teenager: "...this thrill seeking became the one great thing in your life, piling one thrill on another until, with ever increasing intensity, you became much like the drug addict, with his continual increases of dosage ..." As the actor playing the judge continually looks down at a paper, which is probably the film's script, he slogs on: "... to kill for the love of killing, to kill for a thrill". The judge's sermon to the teenager goes on for several more minutes.

But the judge isn't through yet. Later, he gives another sermon, this time to the parents: "No child is inherently bad. He's made what he is by his upbringing and his surrounding. Adults create the world children live in". (I didn't know that! hehehehe) "And in this process, parents play the key role. When children grow up among adults who refuse to recognize anything that is fine and good or worthy of respect, it's no wonder that ..." Yawn! The film "credits" show that the infamous Ed Wood, Jr. was the scriptwriter. No wonder the script is horrible.

There are unintentionally funnier films out there than "The Violent Years". But the film still provides a good lesson for young filmmakers about what to do, and especially what not to do, when making a cheap movie.


This is a low-budget little drama written by Ed Wood Jr. focusing on what can happen when parents don't make enough time to spend with their children. Paula Parkins(Jean Morehead)is a spoiled little rich girl. Her father(Arthur Millan)is the editor of the local newspaper and her mother(Barbara Weeks)is a social climber. At night Paula and her friends dress as men and rob gas stations. They attack young lovers parked in lover's lane and actually sexually assault an unlucky/lucky guy. Of course all the mayhem that develops and progresses will turn to tragedy. Drive-in movie fare. Other players: Theresa Hancock, Gloria Farr, Lee Constant and Timothy Farrell.


The 1950s were awash with movies warning about the dangers of spoiled teenagers becoming juvenile delinquents and wreaking havoc on society. Although they inherently verged on exploitation of the audience's desire to see girls being bad, they were supposedly serious and undoubtedly did reflect real concerns people had, however muddled their transition to the conventions of 1950s film-making was.

"The Violent Years" shows one of the worst examples of the trend. Here, we see lower-class male criminals (what people really feared) represented as upper-class females on screen, creating an absurd and utterly implausible plot. The delinquent teenager movies of the 1950s always played on the fear that one small mistake, one step away from conformity, would lock a youth into an inescapable path toward total moral ruin and life in prison. The motivation for this belief was undoubtedly fear of communism in the 1950s, with the idea being that if we veered away from being good Americans we'd lose the cold war, but "The Violent Years" makes the ludicrous connection much more blatantly than any other film I've seen. The film inadvertently shows how silly a lot of the fears of communist plots were: the viewer is asked to take seriously the idea that international communism is hiring upper class schoolgirls to break into their classrooms and destroy American flags.

"The Violent Years" is riddled with implausible characters and situations, broken only by a monumentally boring, laughably moralistic speech by the judge about how following the 10 Commandments will solve everything.

If you want to watch a genuinely good 1950s juvenile delinquent moral panic movie, check out "Caged" (1950). If you want a laugh, try "The Violent Years", but make sure it's the MST3K version, otherwise you'll probably be bored to tears.


Not as delirious as "Plan Nine from Outer Space" or "Bride of the Monster," the "Violent Years" is certainly outrageous in its own "cool" 1950s way. Watch out for those tight sweaters! And don't miss the "party" scene! The delinquent girls are at least 10 years older than they're playing, but... hey... it's Ed Wood were talking about.


Written by Ed Wood of Plan 9 fame, this film centers on a group of girls who run around doing all sorts of criminal shenanigans. The problem is the film is just...boring. Honestly, I got more entertainment out of watching fish then this film.

I supposed it was some 50's psycho-drama, but the film opens in one of the worst ways possible. Basically, a very small court room where parents are being a judge who looks oddly like Commissioner Gordon from the Batman comic franchise. From there, it recaps the whole story as one giant flashback, including one of the girls getting impregnated via raping a man (this does happen, but on the whole treated in a very "meh" fashion). Two of the gang die and no one cares, some other stuff happens, and end story.

Truth is, the basic technical aspects are good, but they are drowned out by the bad acting, bad script, and bland feeling that makes it seem everyone had other things they'd rather be doing.

Going forward, there are worse films from multiple stand points, but otherwise, this does just fall flat. Nothing overly glaring, no outstanding rampaging plot holes, no real issues with production. Just all in all, boring.

3/10 stars. There are worse, but avoid this film unless you are drunk and like "bad girls"


The viewer can decide what sort of leauge it is.First things first,some reviews have given the impression that the bad girls/innocent boy scene is more graphic than what it is.It's a scene that's more like 50% visual-50% imagination.The newspaper in the film states that the young man was attacked,it doesn't use the r word.Some reviewers are stating an act happened that the law says is not possible.At least that was the law when I was an adolescent more than 40 years ago and spent time researching important information like that,I'm still trying to figure it out. Knowing that Ed Wood is behind this movie can make the tough storyline easier to watch.The finger pointing at the parents may be hard for some to take.There are many parents breaking butt in life to provide for family and instilling religious values in them but they mess-up anyway(the family not the parents).Making the parents look bad in this movie may be touching a sore area for some persons.One comment that the judge lost interest in his own speech half way through it was very funny,I remember seeing the top of the judge's head and wondering if he was reading the script or falling asleep.Showing them off sweaters are popular in this movie even the older Sheila(Lee Constant)comes out with in-your-face lookers too.Being an Ed Wood movie though Sheila could be a cross-dresser.


This is a horrible, terrible, and lousy (and more) movie. In the 50s, there seemed to be this attempt to moralize through movies and TV shows.

If I could rate this movie a 0 I would. Was it really possible for man rape to occur? I mean seriously, would it even be possible for four young attractive women to rape a man? Yeah, you know women have always had to work really hard to get sex if they wanted it.

It's a journey of 4 troubled teens that ends up in the destruction of them all after I guess the climax, which was a shoot out at a school. All the time the parents are oblivious to these the nature of the devious teens. Be warned, chalk boards are erased, literally.

Just avoid this at all cost, the MSTed version isn't even really watchable. I'd love to understand why or how this steaming pile actually has a 3.4 rating? The acting sucks and is totally flat and the plot is ridiculous. The story is poorly written and very uninteresting. The dialog isn't believable and it doesn't appear that there's one actor who isn't reading directly from a transcript while on screen.

I don't care what the message is or whatever, avoid this movie at all cost. 1/10, 0/10 if I could.


The other name for Lethal Orbit is Countdown to Disaster. Let me tell you that title fits this movie. The endless courtroom scenes are just too dull. The DVD case is misleading in that it looks pretty interesting, but that is about it. Don't read this movie by its cover. I bought this movie because Jan-Michael Vincent made a appearance in it. Well, I made myself stay awake long enough to see his performance as Riff. I quickly fell asleep there after. If you are having trouble sleeping this movie is a great insomnia cure. Because it had Jan-Michael Vincent in it I will say it is not a total waste of film, but it is pretty close.


I kept going from laughing to feeling almost physical pain, so completely awful it was. All of the other comments are right. Some time later I accidentally caught a TV special about either the movie or J.M.Vincent (I think it was a about him, one of those Hollywood true story shows). They said JMV had a huge drinking problem (it's also in the trivia) and that when he got on board the producers or whatever hadn't met him. Most of the time he couldn't remember his lines, or mumbled them out, or just got totally spaced out watching nothing, just frozen. Towards the end it was the best of the worst, with that shadow creeping over the astronaut face... want to know what happened? Watch it and suffer. I'm thinking about renting it and watching it whole. I'm a masochist.


Acting was awful. Photography was awful. Dialogue was awful. Plot was awful. (I'm not being mean here...It really was this bad.) Even the DVD itself is cheaply made and starting to delaminate. The worst of all was the editing; it made dialogue painful, cutting back and forth between people with unnatural, long pauses...Jan Michael Vincent slurred his words and never moved a muscle in his face.

This movie really is SO bad that there needs to be some sort of apology or explanation for it. Most bad movies have SOMETHING going for them, SOMETHING that made the participants get out of bed in the morning. How could this "movie" get made? Every step of the way, every participant must have known that the movie was an absolute failure...when it was written, when the actors were hired, during production design, during editing, mastering the DVD, writing the crap on the back cover ("Our three astronauts are running out of air...Blake must be caught and forced to tell the password that will reactivate the shuttle's life support systems.") It's worse than you can possibly imagine. It's so bad that I want to hurt myself.


This disgraceful presentation deserves a score far lower than the allowed minimum of 1 out of 10. Filmed on what seems to be a cut-price video camera, it was of a standard that a troop of baboons with a drink problem could comfortably have bettered. The splendid video jacket fooled this punter into forking out a couple of pounds that would have been far better spent on going to the dentist of having colonic irrigation. If the maker of this complete junk is reading this, I hope he blushes with shame at his involvement in this garbage.


Too bad I can not assign a 0.

This mind-bending garbage has Loni Anderson, Dom Deluise, and Jennifer Love Hewitt in a steaming pile of a kids movie. The pitch was clearly "ET meets Gremlins, but without the scary gremlins." They even stole the scene where ET flies in front of a full moon.

Munchie is ancient, grants wishes, but doesn't really do anything cool besides fly a pizza into the kids room when he is denied dinner. Loni Anderson shows off fine plastic surgery work, there is the requisite mad scientist neighbor, and the evil stepdad figure and "i wish my dead dad was here to see this" type writing.

What I love about this movie is that there are all these C-List actors in what is just a totally botched Z-grade kids movie. The writing is terrible, the puppet is literally a teddy ruxpin rip off with no facial expressions, mouth that just opens and closes, and eyes that only move horizontally. Mystery Science would have had a field day with this vomit. Truly terrible.


The dark and ominous music was the highlight of this exercise in predictability. In Poe's original Morella, the narrator's wife dies giving birth to her daughter. In this mediocre modernized telling, Morella is a genetic scientist who creates a clone of herself before dying. While Poe's text was full of eloquence (The days have never been when thou couldst love me- but her whom in life thou didst abhor, in death thou shalt adore), this script is driven by pretentious voice-overs. The movie tries too hard to be moody and creepy, and ends up being cheesy.


I feel sorry for whoever has the misfortune to get roped into seeing this: cliched and dull. A waste of whatever talent one or two members of the cast might have. I just happened to be visiting a friend who rented it...ironically, they fell asleep pretty early into it. (Recommended for any insomniacs with a VCR near their bed.)


This may be unfair because we only watched the first 25 minutes of this movie. I am the kind of person who NEVER turns off movies I've paid for, but this was a first. Not only were we so disgusted with the movie we turned it off not even half-way through, we went out and rented another to get the memory of this movie out of our minds. This was a great story idea gone very, very bad with HORRIBLE acting, bad camera work, and script caliber of no more than USA Up All Night.


This is the worst film that I 've seen in a while. very amateurish acting and directing. A bad independent film, an imitation of Cassavetes films. But Cassavetes had talent and a flair for good actors. Nobody sticks out in this film. It was a waste of time.


ONE HELL OF A Christmas (1 outta 5 stars) And 1 out of 5 stars is being GENEROUS! Dismal low budget hodge-podge of a zillion horror movie clichés... and even some Latino gang movie clichés added in for good measure. Our "hero" Carlitos (Tolo Montana... trust me, you are never gonna have a reason to remember this guy's name) is a just-released convict doing a bad imitation of Al Pacino from "Carlito's Way". (Maybe his name is some sort of "homage"? Oh, who cares already!) Anyway, he meets up with his pal Mike (Thure Lindhardt... a bargain basement version of Jason Mewes), who has just gotten hold of some kind of stolen talisman that gives the owner incredible power (except, I guess, the power to not have his talisman stolen... which seems to happen with great frequency). Carlito says he wants to go straight and lead a clean life and win back his estranged wife and child... but insofar as Mike and Carlitos are back into the drugs and whores on his first day out of prison... I don't think that's gonna happen. So, there is also some kind of mysterious body-switching guardian who goes after whoever has the talisman to kill, maim, hurt, whatever. Terrible acting, terrible special effects, terrible story, terrible plot. This one dead prostitute who comes back to life to fight Carlitos is almost scary-looking... but the effect is outdone by this terrible cartoony voice they dubbed in for her. Another winner from the people at Fangoria Magazine (whose mag is almost as bad as the movies they endorse... almost). Avoid this trash (located in a Wal-Mart bargain bin near you).


I keep giving Fangoria movies a chance and keep being let down. This is it. I decided to give this one a chance because it is by the same maker as Angel of the Night which I thought was pretty good. No more, if Fangoria has their name on it I will steer clear. This movie SUCKED!!!! They may have a great magazine but they should think twice before putting their name on crap like this. AVOID at all costs!!!!


Carlitos is a felon, upon getting out of jail around Christmas time, a junkie no good "friend" , Mike, shows him a claw he stole from someone. It seems some demonic forces want said claw back and decide to torment Carlito for it instead of his friend who is busy shagging Carlito's wife. Shades of "Evil Dead", and "Hellraiser" abound, but bargain basement shades, with a horrid story, below sub-par 'special' effects, and atrocious acting. Steer clear of this dreck. Fangoria endorses some god awful films and this is NO exception. As a matter of fact, I implore you to read "Rue Morgue" instead as it's so incredibly much better.

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Fangoria Article; Theatrical Trailer; and Trailers for "Slashers", "Wilderness", "School's Out", "Angel of the Night", and "Lady of the Lake"


This is the worst movie i have ever seen. Since I'm Mexican i know much of the actors and they are talentless, underachieved, lame, performers.

The music is also a sad intent of what the director thinks futuristic music will be, Paul Van Dyk has probably never seen this movie and if he did he would probably be ashamed.

Its like a third world Mad Max meets a cheap Mexican version of star wars.

Its a low budget futuristic film, and all the good comments about this film were probably written down by members of the crew.

I suggest this movie gets submitted for the bottom hundred, so if someone wants a bad movie they wont be disappointed.


Because I had some free time yesterday, I perused my cable provider's Video On Demand movie listings. While there wasn't anything spectacular, I decided upon a 1 hour and 20 minute film called "Fifty pills." The movie featured Lou Taylor Pucci, John Hensley (Nip/Tuck), and Kristen Bell (Heroes, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). I thought to myself as I was choosing the film, "Hmm, an indie film on Showtime, has great potential." Unfortunately it didn't First, a quick rundown of the plot. A college student (Lou Taylor Pucci) loses his scholarship after his roommate (John Hensley) throws a party that gets busted. To make it up to him, the roommate offers the student an option to sell 50 ecstasy pills at 20 dollars a pop to stay in school. What follows is a somewhat odd series of supposedly "life changing" events. In his travels the student meets a dominatrix, an insane day trader, and a competing drug dealer (among others).

Content/Performances: Poor Follow through/Forced While the concept has great potential, there was a complete lack of follow through in the story. It seems as though the screenwriter was trying too hard to make jokes rather than allowing them to flow organically from the situation. For example, the student visits a dominatrix. Instead of allowing the viewer to merely enjoy the awkwardness of an innocent college student entering the lair of a dominatrix, the writer went too far. Entering the home, the student was greeted by a grandmother. Thinking he had entered the wrong house, he turned around to leave, however the grandmother stopped him with the statement, "You're the one selling the ecstasy pills, right? My daughter is downstairs." The grandmother acted completely normal in the situation. It might seem funny, but it translated poorly. I didn't laugh, rather I just waited for the plot to continue. To make things worse, once the boy got down there he was greeted by the screaming dominatrix. Who through a combination of poorly written lines and mediocre acting completely took me out of the film. I was so uncomfortable at the poor composition of this scene and the forced attempt at humor that I almost had to fast-forward through the part. This was not the only scene that went poorly, the rest of the drug dealing situations were much the same way: crazy person, awkward interaction, boy leaves.

The mediocrity was not restricted to these situations, however. The motivations of the female love interest (Kristen Bell) were not well developed. I'm not sure whether it was poor acting or writing (likely the former), but I couldn't find a justification for her to act the way she acted. In the film, she is supposed to be "worried" that the protagonist is turning into his roommate by selling drugs. However, the way it plays out is that she doesn't seem too concerned about it, because frankly she is not too invested in the character. They're merely good friends. One things she asks of him in the film is that he show up to her charity Christmas tree selling event. Due to a rival drug dealer the boy cannot make it because he gets kidnapped. When he finally escapes and finds her again, the resulting fallout made it seem like had cheated on her. He literally begged for forgiveness. Strangely enough, he hadn't mentioned that HE WAS KIDNAPPED. I couldn't help but laugh, partially because of how ridiculous he was acting and partially because I wasn't connected to either character in either way. Frankly, I just saw him as an absurd boy, which in this film is not a unique quality for a character.

In this film you'll see that characters are one dimensional which tends to make them very uninteresting. "Coleman" the student's roommate (played by John Hensley) is the quintessential "player." He cheats on his girlfriend, throws parties, yet goes through NO journey in the film. Even though he faces ramifications for his actions, he doesn't learn. He just continues to act of his own accord. This makes it incredibly hard to believe that in some magical moment in the last 5 minutes he shows remorse and offers to pay his roommate's tuition. Once again, what an absurd boy.

Film Design: Nothing Special One could easily argue that without good writing a film is doomed. I would tend to agree, however sometimes the overwhelming beauty of a film can remove some viewers from a poorly constructed plot. This was unfortunately not the case in this film. Unlike Harry Potter which had outstanding visuals to accompany a good plot, lighting was fairly high key. There was no shot complexity, no mood lighting, no inventive editing. Just a banal shot progression. It's what one would expect out of a film and it's what you get.

Overall, this film was mediocre at best. The concept was good, but poor acting and forced comedy essentially killed it. The one thing I will mention that was outstanding was the music. The music was primarily performed by a group called La Rocca; I highly recommend them. Favorite songs: Cambodia- La Rocca, Now the Sun is out- Greg Johnson.

twitter.com/elyswim hopefullymakingfilms.wordpress.com


This is utter crap. There is no two ways about it. The comedy is not funny the acting is horrible and the girls don't get naked enough to make up for the horrible everything else.

PLOT: a geeky thin college kid on scholarship needs to sell 50 pills in one day or he's totally in big trouble. A variety of totally unbelievable and unfunny scenes follow this is an incredibly boring and tired movie that uses a lot of recycled see it coming a mile away jokes.

LAME.

The dominatrix was a nice touch but not anywhere near enough to save this complete train wreck.

Don't bother.

As I said- see a movie that IS funny and WORTH WATCHING with basically the same plot- see "GO" from 1999


It's too bad that someone took such a good name for a movie...I mean the title alone gives anyone an idea or three about what this movie could have been...(almost famous, requiem for a dream...just to name two extremes...and extremely good, creative movies with similar resources)...It's like when a band takes a great name and shoulda' just named themselves 'another lame-ass band'... Well, the same thing holds true here...a great writer could have taken the same concept (forget the name) and driven this movie into a completely original direction with some real drama, real comedy and real emo-tion...instead, we get what we get...plus now this great title is attached to this run of the mill, halfass storyline with so-so performances...

I don't know...Whenever I take on a project (regardless of what it is) I find myself 'forced' to 'climb the mountain, burn the candle at both ends', etc, etc...to get the best result I can...even if 'those' results weren't required, expected or asked for, I just find myself pushing it as far as I can with the resources I have. So I really don't get it (or maybe just let down) when I see something that has been given great resources and it's not even nearly the best it could be..Specifically, when I see a movie that has had a decent budget thrown at it and it turns out mediocre (at best)..well, it's just too bad...someone fell down somewhere...I think in this case it was a combination of people not giving it their all...starting with the screen writing and then dribbling down to the casting...then onto the direction and the actors themselves...it's just not as good as you would hope for (especially with the great movie name, again)... and that's all I gotta' say about that....F...F.G.


I've heard all the "Western Classic" comments but I would call it a Seventies Classic view of the old west. Unlike some real Western classics like "The Searchers", "Rio Bravo", "Open Range" and others, this film left me with a bad taste in my mouth both because of characters and the so called realism. It seems like every character in this movie had either a major flaw that made them unbelievable in their role. A kid with a widow mom that regularly races the wagon and team? How long is that going to go on before he's got a wreaked wagon, a dead horse, and financial ruin? Taking off for Colorodo without even a slicker or a bedroll? A trail boss that lets his men get close to a shootout between themselves and lets a green kid take the night watch alone after just losing four men to rustlers? The settlers the men died for don't even have the decency to bury them and then the final straw was the kid throwing his gun away after the burial. Good Grief!!! He's out between home and Colorado, been thru several gun fights and he decides to throw his gun away and head home(?)!!! This is just going too far to make a peace statement for the end of a bloody movie. The wranglers have lost nearly all their guns, five men and horses, and $200; he could at least round up the horses, guns and money and take them back to the drivers.

I could go on and on, but basically, everyone the drivers run into needs to be shot and some of the the drivers could use a good flesh wound themselves. Just because the cowboys are dirty and dusty instead of clean and in fancy shirts, doesn't make it realistic. I really felt lead on after sitting thru this movie.


Excruciating 'tenderfoot western' has young, overeager greenhorn Gary Grimes begging bearded, salty cattle boss Billy "Green" Bush for a job on his cattle drive--to get away from life on the farm with Ma, but also to be a real cowboy, apparently an occupation you take up "when you can't do nothing else." Director Dick Richards made some good movies in the '70s, but his debut here lacks substance (it deliberately lacks heart). Grimes is so open-mouthed innocent that he can't even help cook dinner without looking repulsed by the process. When he's assigned to stand watch over the horses, it's entirely predictable he'll run afoul of horse thieves (after being left bloodied and horseless by the scurrilous gang, boss Bush of course blames the naive kid, not himself for neglecting to get an experienced cowboy on the post). This isn't on the inviting level of Jack Lemmon's klutzy attempts to be a cowpoke; Richards seems to have been raised on TV westerns, and gives us a scenario lifted straight from the tube. While we wait for the kid to harden and become "a man", we're treated to fake high drama featuring a weary old cast of character-actors (if ever you want fake drama infused into the proceedings, you get Bo Hopkins or Geoffrey Lewis or Anthony James--this picture has all three). The dusty cinematography helps give the movie an appropriately dirty, mud-and-blood appearance. Yet, the minute the actors start speaking, it loses vitality, conviction, and interest. * from ****


Do NOT assume from my score of 1 that this is a terrible movie. What I saw of it wasn't too bad for a Black-produced film of the 1930s. The problem, however, is that it was released by Alpha Video--possibly the worst producers of DVDs you can find!! Like so many of their other releases, this film is a horrible print and desperately needs to be restored--and Alpha, as usual, has done NOTHING to clean up the print and piece it back together properly. It was really frustrating when again and again, scenes would "chop"--with chunks missing and the scene abruptly changing. I know the original film couldn't have looked like that!! And yet, this happens throughout the film and makes viewing and enjoying it next to impossible. I sure hope that some other video company releases the film after some restoration work--it was interesting and I really wanted to finish it, but couldn't because the print was THAT bad.

By the way, HARLEM RIDES THE RANGE is also on the same DVD. While its print is very fuzzy, it is watchable and doesn't have chunks missing like in MURDER IN HARLEM. It's one of five Black Westerns starring Herb Jeffries in an attempt to create an African-American version of Gene Autry for Black-owned theaters. It's not an especially good film, but very important historically and worth a peek.

Also, some time back MURDER IN HARLEM was on DVD from Westlake Entertainment and I assume their copy must be better. Sadly, Westlake is no longer selling the DVD according to Amazon.