Cracking Up is one of my favorite movies.....OK, I might have a weird sense of humor... but the first time I saw it, I laughed so hard my side hurt. I bought the movie, and occasionally get it out and watch it again just to get a good laugh.

several parts I like are the Restaurant scene, the waitress when she takes his order, it's hysterical. I'd love to do that to someone sometime.

I also love the scene with the guru on the operating table, so funny.

And the airplane scene..... "chef surprise....you'll love it" it makes me laugh just writing this.

If you haven't seen this movie, get your hands on a copy and watch it.


The quality of Jerry's films has been somewhat erratic (some might consider this an understatement), some great, some awful. By 1983, when Jerry made this movie, the last film he directed, many people had written him off, I think. In any event, the movie escaped my attention when it came out. I came across it in a movie rental store when I needed a number of movies to get me through a post-operation recovery when I was stuck at home sometime in early '90s. I put it into the VCR and proceeded to be amazed. I still have vivid memories of some of the surreal sets and sketches. I consider this film to be Jerry's bid to rival the best of Peter Sellers.


THIS is the film Jerry Lewis should have made his min-comeback with instead of the mawkish "Hardly Working". Yes, there isn't much of a story here, but like "The Bellboy" the gags for the most part are really pretty funny. The opening title sequence may contain Jerry's best moment in the film as he tries to cross a highly polished floor. Then listen what happens when the title card of the film's composer comes up. The scene where Jerry plays a cop and pulls over a overweight speeder is also one of his funniest in years. Can't argue this is a great film, but it IS funny and that's something Jerry had not been since at least "The Big Mouth" back in 1967. The other films Jerry made around this time were either just terrible ("Slapstick Encounters") or featured more of his dramatic side ("KIng of Comedy", "Funny Bones"). This film is just plain funny and its too bad it never got a wide theatrical release.


This is a sloppy mess of a comedy, with barely a plot to speak of, yet it contains some of the funniest bits Mr. Lewis has ever committed to film. It's one helluva lot better than the previous movie, "Hardly Working" which got a big theatrical release. It is the "Test Market Audience Mentality" that kept this excellent movie from getting a big-screen release in the U.S. "Cracking Up" keeps moving--if one gag fails, don't worry because there will be another, funnier one right on top of it. This overlooked gem has no less a fan than Martin Scorsese, who particularly loved the waxy floor opening credits sequence.


I am a big fan of Jerry Lewis. "Cracking Up" in my opinion is not one of his best, but it still has some very funny bits, ie the waxy floor and very beginning. Although in some parts it drags on a little, this movie is worth seeing, especially if you are a Jerry Lewis fan. This movie lacks plot, but some of the bits make up for it. Grade: C+


Jerry's finally lost it.

I knew he was going downhill with "Hardly Working", which left him just that. But with "Cracking Up", he finds himself stuck with a movie that is so loud, so shrill and so in-your-face that laughing at it is not an option. You just want to analyze it to death.

As an all-around crackpot, Jerry sees a psychiatrist (Edelman) to try and get to the bottom of why he is in such sad shape.

The vignettes, when not repetitive, are just plain dumb. See, one part has him trying to quit smoking, so he goes to seek help. Now, whenever he lights up, Dick Butkus pops out of nowhere and belts him one. He shows up out of the bushes, in a buffet line, as a statue, etc. Cute at the beginning, but after the eleventh or twelfth time, it gets kind of annoying.

There is a bit part for Sammy Davis Jr. but his best role is in an out-take at the end where Jerry hoists him up and announces, "I'd like to thank the NAACP for this award...."

So, you see, Jerry can be funny. He used to be funny and there are times when he still has funniness within his grasp. But not here.

Three stars from me. Eight stars if you're a rabid fan. Ten stars if you're reading this in France.


The low rating of the movie may be misleading, the demographic show that this is a love it or hate it movie. 10 got the most votes, but lots of other votes from 1 to 9. The average is actually 6, only the weighted average pulls it down to 4. If you like slapstick comedies, I can only suggest you run see this movie. I'd rate it as one of the most funniest I've ever seen. The movie certainly lacks any sort of plot and is very chaotic. Its more a collection of Jerry Lewis thrown from one funny scene, into the other. To give an example: In one scene he tries to commit suicide by driving off a hill out in the middle of nowhere. The car gets stuck right at the edge and won't budge. So Jerry gets out, opens the trunk, and pours petrol all over him. Then he frantically looks for matches, only to realise he doesn't have any. If you can picture Jerry's face and body language throughout the whole seen and find that funny, you should really see this movie. I won't describe anymore scenes, as with every slapstick comedy, once you know the gag it's not as funny anymore. However, if you need a good plot and can't laugh out loud at slapstick comedies, you should maybe pass on that one. Or get yourself a better sense of humour...


I have a theory. First, we all know that French have had a love affair with Jerry Lewis' movies,...right?! Second, they MUST have seen this movie. Third, the French now HATE the UNITED STATES. So, I assume this movie is the reason. It's got to be--as this film only serves to enrage normal people.

So, is it funny? Yep--for about 2 minutes. That's about the length of the airplane skit. It's VERY funny and highly original but hardly makes it worth sitting through this mess!! I am serious when I say this is one of the only movies I have seen that made me physically ill. The one and only time in my life I had a migraine occurred as I watched this and I know it was the fault of the movie!! For example, the movie begins as Lewis enters a therapist's office and spends the next 75 minutes slipping on the floor and sliding off the vinyl furniture. Okay, maybe it only lasted 30 minutes--but it seemed like it would go on forever. THEN, later in the film he repeated this sequence AGAIN!!!! My head felt like it was ready to explode!! Somebody needed to tell this man to STOP! Fortunately for the studio, this film was not released since they knew it was a bomb and it was later released on cable and video. For this, someone needs to pay! If you LIKE pain and want to see other Jerry Lewis monstrosities, see most of his flicks after his breakup with Dean Martin (particularly Slapstick of Another Kind) and avoid The King of Comedy (where Lewis did an excellent job playing it straight).

PS--Despite its being raised to "classic status", The Nutty Professor wasn't funny. At least without the use of alcohol, drugs or a severe blow to the head.


This film reveals a lot about the reconstruction era in the U. S. after the Civil War. It is amazing to see this era explained without an agenda or politically correct spins that Americans are fed now. The post Civil War era in the South shows the hardships the people faced and how one honorable Yankee military governor attempts to handle it.


This film grabbed me right from the start with it's opening theme and stark but crisp black and white cinematography. There's something fascinating about the character of Major Clint Drango, intent on winning over the citizens of Kennesaw Pass one at a time. In part to right the wrongs of Sherman's Army and his own involvement in the War as well, Drango's challenge is to bring the murderers of Henry Calder to justice. In so doing, he must gain the confidence of the citizens that Reconstruction will proceed with an emphasis on the law for everyone, not for a single man or for the army that won the War.

I found it interesting that Clay Allen (Ronald Howard) distrusted Drango because the Major was an honest man. There seems to be a corollary there that resonates with the current state of political correctness, but I digress. The ebb and flow of the story with characters slowly taking sides was my best takeaway from the film. It helped that there was a great cast of familiar character actors here from the genre, folks like Milburn Stone, Walter Sande, Parley Baer and the venerable Donald Crisp. Julie London and Joanne Dru are also effective in somewhat understated roles, even though important to the story. John Lupton probably deserved a larger presence as Drango's adjutant, but I guess that's how the saber rattles.

Overall, an intriguing Western with an out of the ordinary theme that moves along at a nice pace. The traditional good guy ending is tested along the way by forces that pit the citizens of a small town against each other, much like the Civil War did to the country. As a microcosm of that larger conflict, "Drango" delivers it's message well.


Somber account of a Union soldier attempting to right the wrongs of war that left a community broken and sore, wrought with hate and anger towards "them dirty, rotten Yanks." The setting is Kinnesaw, Georgia, not long after the Civil War as malevolent feelings remain towards the North, with Major Clint Drango(Chandler)placed over the town, a type of military governing the citizens, but he desires for the people to start over, re-building their lives. This noble effort is constantly defeated by Clay Allen(Ronald Howard), Confederacy sympathizer and father to Kinnesaw Judge Allen(Donald Crisp), who wants "the South to rise again" and is secretly motivating his township to form a mob, thwarting everything good Drango wishes for them. The despicable lengths, such as burning a newspaper which kills the child of the father who runs it, and murdering Drango's fellow officer, and best friend, Captain Marc Banning(John Lupton)for which Clay will go prove that he will cause nothing but terrible repercussions to those he feels deserve to have won the war the Confederacy lost. Prices are paid for this mad goal, such as food rations stole, and in this the shooting of town physician, Doc Blair(Walter Sande), but no matter the obstacle he faces, Drango's will and resolve remains strong, as he continually runs up against it, this man simply wishes for the people of Kinnesaw to have a chance to begin again, without killing and death.

Anchored by the strong central performance of Jeff Chandler(..who I'm not familiar with, which is a shame really), I really liked the thought-provoking script from Hall Bartlett, and while it does seem a bit one-sided at times, I think the themes of bringing divided groups together after a war left scars never to be fully healed and the attempt to reconcile with those you have hurt by helping the community start over are powerful enough. Really rock solid cast of no-names and the material is provocative enough, even if the ending is a bit too easy in it's resolution as Clay has the town in his grip and prepared to storm a Union base for supplies Kinnesaw needs, only to be impeded by the very man who has always loved him, realizing that his son has become a monster willing to lead people into a certain massacre. The "lynch mob" theme is again explored(..this material has a recurring use during this time)as Clay Allen is able to pull men together, exploiting their yearning for revenge, the deep-rooted, seething feelings of intense disgust for those who defeated them, killing their relatives, burning their crops, destroying their homes.

What really adds a unique spin to this material is Drango's notorious past, how he led an army who actually caused the destruction across Georgia, how guilt and the sobering account of his part in a regrettable war have left him ashamed, fueling his goals to help those he caused such harm, lends a great deal to the film, I think. Chandler provides the anguish and regret, and it's etched clearly on his face throughout, and I think it's quite a performance deserved of praise. Joanne Dru is excellent as Kate Calder, a Kinnesaw citizen, opposed to the Civil War, whose father was lynched by Allen and others for his bold stance against the Confederacy. Dru becomes Drango's support system, at first bitter with him for how he talked her father out of leaving the town for the nearest fort. Julie London is Shelby Ransom, Clay's lover, knowing that he's responsible for the lynching and other devious activities in and around Kinnesaw, agreeing to seduce Banning for him. Crisp, Sande, Morris Ankrum(..as the lynched Henry Calder), and Twilight Zone veteran Barney Philips(..as the town reverend) head a strong cast putting faces and voices on those who all suffer for their eventual allegiance to Drango, understanding how he wishes to help, not destroy. I think the film effectively conveys the rift between both sides, how a war left those still alive wounded, and we are witness to the aftermath, with director Bartlett and Bricken choosing this specific location to speak about issues of that time. While maybe the ending is asking us to take a leap of faith that a people can put aside their feelings, embracing someone they find out had led the raid that positioned them for great misery and strife, hunger and suffering, believing that they can, in fact, overcome what ails them, I admire the filmmakers for the message they want to get across.


This is a notch or two above the usual "good guys vs bad guys" Western movie,being at its core about the need to bring about reconciliation after conflict ,in this instance the American Civil war . Major Drango is appointed US military governor to a small Georgia community where tensions are running high after the defeat of the Confederacy .Drango himself participated in Sherman's march through the state and saw the devastation at first hand .Neither Drango or his men are welcomed in the community except by the small coterie of Union sympathisers

Opposition is lead by Ronald Howard (son of Leslie Howard ,in his first US Movie) the son of the local judge(Donald Crisp).The father -while in sympathy with the aims of his son -is less than impressed by the violent methods he employs.A confederate sympathiser is lynched and arson is also deployed as a terrorist weapon by the unregenerate Southerners.Drango -in addition to his professional problems -finds himself drawn to the daughter of the lynched sympathiser -winningly played by Joanne Dru

Chandler is a bit wooden in the title role -perhaps worn down by his production duties as his company produced the picture-but the rest of the acting is fine especially from John Lupton as an embittered Confederate Captain .The direction ,jointly undertaken by Hall Bartlett and Jules Bricken (who also scripted)is lumpen but the fluid and inventive monochrome photography by James Wong Howe is superb The movie is more intriguing than exciting but it is a striking and worthwhile movie with something interesting to say


A good source writer and an intelligent director were hamstrung by a lack of funds and some awful editing and a non-performance by Anita Ekberg in the lead. This girl was not a bad actress, she was a non actress, as evidenced when asked to do her hilariously awful 'sexy' nightclub routine. The body moves but the eyes are blank, and, one suspects, the head is empty. It is a film that warrants quite a few viewings but only if you are really anxious to find out if your initial confusion was down to you or them. Them.


Somehow surmounting a creaky script rooted in some crackpot psychiatry, Screaming Mimi creates a somnambulistic, doom-laden mood that keeps you watching, bemused. And that's not easily explained.

The director, Gerd Oswald, was one of the lesser expatriates from Germany, a pedestrian workman who the year before helmed Crime of Passion, a jejune noir starring Barbara Stanwyck, Sterling Hayden and Raymond Burr; it's hard to extinguish the sizzle in that kind of cast, but Oswald did a pretty fair job of it.

In Screaming Mimi, he was saddled with the sort of rounded-up cast that doesn't incite box office stampedes. Anita Ekberg, - the Swedish bombshell with the storied bosom - proves oddly affecting in the numbed-out role she's called on to play. And society stripper Gypsy Rose Lee supplies a welcome bit of sass as proprietress of a nightclub called El Madhouse. But the male leads emerged from the La Brea tar pits of Hollywood anonymity. Philip Carey passes as sort of a poor man's Gary Merrill (that is to say, absolutely penniless), while Harry Townes, an even more faceless actor, makes up the roster.

The plot? Ekberg, an exotic `dancer' who writhes about suggestively in an act with bondage overtones, is visiting her sculptor-stepbrother on the California coast when she's almost knifed by an escapee from a nearby asylum, whom the brother promptly shoots dead. In consequence, Ekberg winds up in the selfsame asylum where her smitten shrink (Townes) arranges her release and, in a development reminiscent of The Blue Angel or Sunset Boulevard, leaves his post to manage her career (as `Yolanda Lang').

Then one night she's stabbed (again), but her vicious great dane wards off the attacker. Carey, a columnist whose curiously broad beat includes night clubs and crime in the night, grows intrigued, and stumbles onto the fact that both Ekberg and an earlier victim possessed strange statuettes called Screaming Mimis....

It's a jumble, all right, but it manages to hold some interest. A large part of the credit must, by default, fall to top-notch cinematographer Burnett Guffey, by far the most talented factor in the movie. (He films one scene in the light from a flashing neon sign, alternating between a two-shot and daringly long intervals of pitch blackness.) The movie shares a restive, oneiric quality with certain low-budget noirs from a decade earlier, that again compelled more attention than they deserved. Go figure.


One of the 1950s strangest noir films, Gerd Oswald's sensational and twisted 1958 psycho- shocker SCREAMING MIMI was based on a pulp novel by the great Fredric Brown. This is one film that devotees of the truly bizarre cannot afford to miss.

Alcoholic newspaper columnist Bill Sweeney (Philip Carey) becomes entwined in a string of grisly murders that seem to revolve around exotic stripper Yolanda Lange (Anita Ekberg!!). Seems that Yolanda killed a man a couple of years earlier who tried to attack her while she showered. Traumatized by this event, she spends some time in a sanitarium and, upon her release, seeks out the help of psychiatrist Dr. Greenwood (the ever creepy Harry Townes) for some quick and dirty therapy. This "poor man's Svengali" falls in love with her (natch!) and soon insinuates himself into her life, even going so far as managing her career by getting her a job at the El Madhouse, a seedy nightclub run by "Gypsy" Mapes ("Gypsy" Rose Lee!). But before long a series of brutal murders begin to occur and poor Yolanda appears to be the prime suspect. (I won't bother to go into the reasons why; it would probably take longer than the running time of the film.)

Anyone looking for or concerned with conventional logic might likely be put off by this wildly lurid and threadbare melodrama as nothing quite makes sense in this demented Fulleresque nether world. But those hungry for the wonderful cheap thrills only to be found in nightmare B movies of the fringe variety will probably come away from the table more than satisfied. Artfully photographed by Burnett Guffey, SCREAMING MIMI probably looks a lot better than it deserves to, and Gerd Oswald's eccentric direction doesn't hurt either. Oswald, as many might recall, later went on to produce and direct many of the more stellar episodes of TV's "Outer Limits" in the early 60s. SCREAMING MIMI provided him with the most stunningly perfect testing ground imaginable.

Of note to jazz fans: the incredible Red Norvo Trio is featured as the house band at the El Madhouse.


Murder and madness hound an exotic dancer (Anita Ekberg), her dog Devil, and a macabre statuette she fetishizes...

I love this sordid little Columbia "B" which plays a key role in the evolution of the American Film Noir into the Italian Giallo cycle and helped (along with 1957's THE GIRL IN BLACK STOCKINGS) pave the way for Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO a few years later. The Hitchcock also has a surprise ending concerning the star and his shower stabbing isn't so new, after all. SCREAMING MIMI has the gritty, B&W, low-budget look Hitchcock consciously sought for his film and the MIMI's director, Gerd Oswald, helmed a number of ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS TV episodes and was an uncredited second unit director on Billy Wilder's macabre SUNSET BLVD. Like Oswald and his film, Dario Argento used the same lurid Fredric Brown pulp novel as source for his THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE and was actually more faithful (in spirit) to the novel: MIMI grabs the viewer by the throat in the opening scene but the movie would have been more shocking if it hadn't been told in linear fashion. The fact Yolanda was attacked by a maniac years before was one of many surprises and revealed half-way through the novel (as it is in the Argento). Here's how Brown's novel opens:

"The protagonist of Brown's novel, William Sweeney, is also a writer, a newspaperman. Walking the streets of nighttime Chicago in the grip of an alcoholic binge, Sweeney sees an amazing thing. Trapped by a giant dog between the double glass doors of her apartment building, a beautiful woman writhes; she has been stabbed by an unknown assailant. She appears to be the fourth victim of a ripper (as Sweeney's paper has dubbed the killer), and she is the only one to have survived. Bewitched by the beautiful victim Yolanda Lang -a stripper who's act includes the dog, Devil -Sweeney begins his own investigation of the crimes. His first lead is a mass-market statuette of a terrified woman, the screaming mimi, sold by the first victim the day she was murdered... Argento changed many details in the process of turning "The Screaming Mimi" into The Bird With The Crystal Plumage, but the most important is this: flawed and weak though he may be, Brown's protagonist is afraid of the universe of madness glimpsed when he gets close to Yolanda Lang. Argento's is drawn to it like a moth to the flame. The American pulp novel "The Screaming Mimi" was passed along to Argento for an opinion by Bertolucci, who intended to buy the rights for himself. Captivated by the novel's central idea, Argento resolved to borrow it and spin off a new story. In fact, he borrowed quite a bit more..."

I saw SCREAMING MIMI as a kid on daytime TV and it reely scared the pants off me! I was very upset over the way Ekberg's dog got killed and found the crime scene photos of the other murdered strippers frightening. There was a lot of "adult content" that didn't get by my young mind, either: fetishes, an intense relationship between Yolanda and her dog ...along with lesbianism and dope! When Phil Carey tries to barge in on nightclub owner Gypsy Rose Lee and a young chick, their repartee ("Sorry, I didn't know it was tea for two") leaves no doubt that Gypsy is a dyke and marijuana, in the 50's, was called "tea". I love the "El Madhouse" nightclub -if the Red Norvo Trio's xylophone doesn't drive you nuts, nothing will and sex goddess Anita Ekberg's somnambulistic acting style perfectly suits a stripper with a couple of mental screws loose. Fetish-driven Yolanda Lang, writhing around in rags on ropes (in chains!), caters to the S&M in all of us and I wish there were more films like SCREAMING MIMI and THE GIRL IN BLACK STOCKINGS from the schizophrenic 1950's. I didn't have long to wait, tho: PSYCHO (and later the giallo) were just around the corner! In between were THE NAKED KISS, WHO KILLED TEDDY BEAR?, and...


I remember this movie only because my sister and I were the original latch key kids. My older sister and I used to watch TV from the old channel 5 ( pre- Fox network ) TV out of Washington DC. They ran great late afternoon movies and reruns I watched for years before cable. Anyone who grew up in the channel 5 area during the late 60's knows hows what I mean. The Untouchables, Highway Patrol, The Big Valley, Dear Lord where are these great reruns today?? But I digress.. This movie scared the living crap out of me, and I remember my sister teasing me for months. I remember so little about this movie, but it scared me bad enough I've never forgotten the title. Netflix doesn't have this..anyone know where to get a copy of it? I want to face my fear!!


It starts off with Anita Ekberg being attacked by an escaped lunatic. She survives but is institutionalized. A Dr. Greene (Harry Townes) becomes obsessed with her. Next thing we know she's playing a "stripper" called Yolanda. Crime reporter Bill Sweeney (Philip Carey) falls for her and Greene doesn't like that. Also there's a murderer around and it seems Yolanda may be his next victim...If that sounds disjointed you should see the movie! Hopelessly confusing and extremely dull piece of work. Ekberg is certainly gorgeous but no actress. Also her "stripping" has her not taking off anything! Then there's Gypsy Rose Lee as the owner of the "strip" club. At one point she gets on stage and sings (and "dances") to "Put the Blame on Mame"! Rita Hayworth has nothing to fear. There's also a hint of lesbianism (very daring for 1958) and a constantly barking dog named Devil! I'm probably making this sound more fun than it is. It's slow, confusing and dull with bad acting (except for Carey) and pointless musical numbers in the club to pad out the movie. This might be worth watching if you're an Ekberg fan or you want to see Gypsy Rose Lee--but it's rough going. A 1 all the way.


An aspiring film-maker finds a notorious snuff film director and begins interviewing him. His interest quickly turns to fascination and obsession, getting closer and closer to direct involvement in the productions, including cleaning up the bloody remains. But murder isn't the only thing to be worried about... the ghosts of the dead are turning up on film and will not suffer quietly.

I entered this film with mixed expectations. The few reviews that had surfaced seemed to be polar opposites: one batch praised the film as one of the best unsung films, while the other accused the praisers of being a part of the crew and puffing up the film with false reviews and ratings. Needless to say, this left the impression in my mind that this might not be the best film I'd seen in a while. My fears were squashed, thankfully, within five minutes of putting in the disc. It's no surprise this movie was nominated for Best Feature, Best Screenplay, and Best Supporting Actor (John Savage)at the Terror Film Fest.

Set to a heavy soundtrack, this film is packed with plenty of quality murder, and a chilling performance from veteran actor John Savage, playing the snuff director, Vic. As soon as he speaks, we're sucked in, perhaps horrified but also morbidly curious... murder for profit... on film? Tell us more, Vic.

While not flawless by any means, this film shows a strong sense of vision and direction from director Doug Raine, and I expect we'll be seeing more of him and 110 in the Shade Productions. With an interesting third act with Bronson Pinchot (Cousin Balki from "Perfect Strangers", or "The Langoliers")... you must see this film.


I just watched this movie and it wasn't worth the time. Admittedly the idea behind it is somehow creepy, but the actors (and most of all the actresses) did an unconvincing job. The dialogs were stiff and sometimes the story wasn't really conclusive. Besides that one gotta have a sick mind to get a kick out of snuff you gotta be truly patient to watch this movie straight from the beginning to the end. The cuts were a la mode - sometimes they reminded me of some of those FBI TV series, but they didn't help building up tension. Considering the fact this was the first appearance of Douglas A. Raine as director, there's still a chance of improvement. If you're looking for a movie that deals with the snuff topic, you better watch "8mm" but don't waste your time with "From a place of darkness".


I saw a screening of this movie in Tucson, Arizona, and have been watching Amazon to see when I would be able to buy it. Already reserved my copy! The subject matter (snuff films) is totally sick, but what better vehicle to launch a horror/suspense film.

John Savage did a great job as the totally creep guy, especially in his first scene where he describes what he does, but I won't spoil you by saying more. Pinchot conveys how slimy he is so well that you want to shower after his scenes. For an independent film, the quality of the acting is a pleasant surprise.

What I really liked is that Raine (director/co-writer) doesn't dumb it down, but he plays the story out, making the viewer figure out what's going on. The direction is downright creepy, and the shots and angles keep you on edge until the last minute. The idea of shooting a shot through another camera was brilliant, and made it even more unsettling. This is one of those movies where the second time through will be better than the first.

Best part - the very last line is worth the wait!


Had a chance to see this film at a screening. This is the kind of film that just plain creeps you out,and lingers with you. I can't even tell you how many times I had to look away. It's dark, suspenseful and shocking. The story is very thought provoked (yes you have to use your brain) the ending forces you to ask questions and the acting across the board is solid, especially Conor Duffy and Travis Schuldt, and as far as Savage goes well, he comes across in a way that I have not seen him in years, like he was made for the role. Can't wait to see it on BluRay as it should jump off the screen and make one go screaming even farther into the dark.


I was fortunate enough to see this movie last spring at a screening at Northern Arizona University. I was a film student at the time, and Doug Raines played it for a few of the students in a small auditorium in Flagstaff, Arizona, where he is an alum.

I had a good time watching this film. I can't comment on the score or soundtrack, because it was still incomplete when I saw it, but Mr. Savage does a superb job, and the story and writing are both well thought out and interesting.

This is the first film from Douglas Raines' production company, 110 In The Shade, based out of Tuscon, Arizona. I sincerely hope that his business does well and he continues to write and direct fresh material.


I've tried to get my hands on and view every possible movie on DVD in which Monica Vitti is the star. She became famous from starring in Antonioni's films and became a sex symbol during her youthful days in cinema. She attempted to capitalize on her sex appeal with various movies particularly "Modesty Blaise" a sexy action film in the 007 vein.

The film starts off with a rather hokey plot setting up a woman and her boyfriend against one another regarding a multi-million dollar company. By our standards it's obvious no one could pull off the crime the film starts off with but hey it's just a movie.

Billed as a comedy on it's IMDb page I found it cover the gamut of emotions of a person betrayed heavily by a loved one. The film has playful aspects of a woman who is planning a revenge on her boyfriend a week when he returns back to Paris. She experiences an extravagant week handing out big tips to bellboys, buying expensive cars on a whim, and ordering elegant meals at fine upscale restaurants. The film captures the 60s in the mock band appearing in the movie dressed up in bell bottoms, shaggy haircuts, and shirts with fringe. Vitti appears in at least 8 different outfits with lush color and dresses that worn nowadays would still be impressive.

Along with the casual fun she participates in the film has a serious side. We find out within the first 15 minutes she plans to kill herself the day her boyfriend returns. She experiences an existential dilemma much like her famous Italian films and tries to regain a sense of self through the antics I previously mentioned and more.

I half expected a romantic comedy but I got a film that takes a look at someone on a downswing in life but gets a new outlook on life through deviant acts and healthy ones as well. Light hearted in her fun encounters. Tension filled in her darker moments. Much better than I ever expected.


"The Scarlet Lady" is a film that steers the viewer into every territory, from fanciful comedy to some silly animation sequences to very serious drama. The beautiful Monica Vitti is well cast as an outrageously rich woman who loses her fortune to her snake-in-the-grass boyfriend, who tells her in bed that he has stolen her blind. After the initial shock, Ms. Vitti decides to kill both herself and her now ex-boyfriend, but before doing so she gives herself a week to live it up, so she sells all of her jewels, checks into a reasonably swank hotel, though probably below her usual standards, and parades around Paris in some very eye-catching outfits. She manages to catch the eye of Maurice Ronet and buys him lunch, then leaves the restaurant without saying goodbye, causing him to go through a series of both funny and sad adventures in his efforts to find her. Meanwhile, Ms. Vitti also has experiences that are quite fun, such as pretending to be a reporter and becoming a groupie of a famous rock band, and she has some terribly sobering experiences, such as saving the life of an elderly man who is attempting suicide, only to have him curse her for being a rich lady who has everything while he has nothing. Meanwhile Ronet races against the clock to save Vitti from killing herself. Will he succeed?

Of course I will never give the ending away, but needless to say this is a very well-made film that is often more serious than meets the eye. The entire cast is outstanding and the chemistry between Ronet and Vitti is there and is very obvious. These are two people the viewer ends up caring about, despite the fact that most viewers will never encounter such fanciful folks in real life, and a lot of this film is way-above-the-clouds in terms of reality, but enough of it is grounded to the point that it is a credible, satisfying film experience. Again, it is hard to categorize this as comedy or drama because both genres are both successfully represented herein.


The film is a delightful comedy giving Monica Vitti the chance to do what she does best. She has a twinkle in her eye as she handles men. She isn't lost for long when things don't work out.

They don't make stars like her anymore. She plays a confident sexy woman on her own in Paris while keeping her chic Dior clothes on. She is not a bimbo or a teenager but a free spirited woman enjoying herself. Look at her dance on the nightclub. She is gorgeous!

The film is typical of European movies of the time. Not much happening but plenty of style and with all the games grown up men and women played. It's a kind of a sophisticated comedy they don't make any longer.


Ok...nothing really to "upset" you in anyway here...but the atmosphere...colors...Paris...clothes.....music....everything just makes me wanna travel back in time and be a part of this filmproduction. Easy viewing film you can "easily"(!!) label this little Euro gem. Monica Vitti looks wonderful...a bit like Elke Sommer in Mario bava's Lisa And The Devil. But it's lightweight context here...nothing to worry about. No violence...sex....creepiness....just a charming experience which I recommend you check up on any day. I saw the extremely rare danish x-rental version...83.02 mins... letterboxed....english language. Best of all...I'll add it to my collection...no other collector buys this off'a me...nope.


ASSAULT! JACK THE RIPPER is one of those films that just ain't gonna be everyone's cup of tea. It's brutal in it's depiction of rape and murder and has pretty much no redeeming value in terms of "entertaining" cinema - and that's exactly why it is such a "classic" of the pinky genre. At a time when many other pinky films dealt with sleazy subject matter in a more "fun" and tongue-in-cheek manner, ASSAULT! went straight for the jugular, or more appropriately, crotch...

Two restaurant co-workers realize their penchant for brutal rape and murder after a mishap with a whacked-out hitch-hiker. As the two find that murder is their only aphrodisiac - things get out of hand. They continue to "feed" off of each other and pick up random strangers to do their "business" with. Homeboy finds that he has a thing for stabbing the victims in the cooch - this appears to be his major "turn-on". Homegirl starts to get a little to clingy and jealous when she realizes that he's been doing some "moonlighting" on his own. This all results in the end of their relationship, among other things...

There's nothing really comical or fun about ASSAULT! (except for the strange disco soundtrack...). It appears that the main goal of this film is to shock and disgust, which it does appropriately enough - especially for it's 1976 time-stamp. Although the crotch-gouging is not "graphically" shown, the sound FX and inference of what's going on is enough to be disturbing. This is a rare film as it predates a lot of more sadistic films that became notorious throughout the late 70's through today. Again, not a film for all tastes, but for those that are looking for something a little "rougher"...this may be the one. 9/10


Yasuhara Hasebe's violent Nikkatsu pinker Assault! Jack The Ripper is a sleaze classic that's about as rough as you're gonna find 'em--and it's easily better than the XXX Forced Entry and its ilk. At different turns, it dips into humor, eroticism, sadistic violence, misogyny, and drama and it plays out perfectly.

What we got here is the story of a cake decorator and a waitress who work together and kill women to get off. The twist on this one is that the oversexed gal is the one who encourages the limp-dicked guy's spree of pastry-knife-in-vagina stabbings after an accidental killing gets him excited enough in the sack to please her. Great play between characters and straight up smuttyness make Assault! a real winner.

Assault! Jack The Ripper is a new favorite of mine. Not as graphic in the vag-stabbing department as I would've liked but God bless the Nipponese and Hasebe in particular for consistently bringing the best sleazy rape films to the table. You already know if you need to see this one--9.5/10.


Yasuharu Hasebe's BOKO KIRISAKI JACK (aka ASSAULT: JACK THE RIPPER) is as mean as they come and twice as effective.

I have no moral objections to this material because it is what it is, and what it is is a tour de force of violent cinema with not a single cell of poltical correctness to muddy its intentions.

A strong-willed woman coerces a weak man to rape and kill with her.

The man's obsession leads to the downfall of the relationship.

The sexual violence is on a level you haven't seen before if you haven't seen any Japanese Violent Pink films, the production values are high, the performances are amazing and the jazz score is exceptional.

Director Hasebe also directed the excellent RAPE, the satire RAPING!, the solid RAPE 13TH HOUR and the more well known BLACK TIGHT KILLERS.

BOKO KIRISAKI JACK is his crowning achievement, a film that is violent, erotic, funny, perceptive and always entertaining.

The best Violent Pink film ever made.


During the mid-1970s and early 80's,Nikkatsu-the most important of the pinku eiga studios-launched a series of pink films which were progressively more extreme in their level of sexual violence."Assault!Jack the Ripper" is certainly one of the nastiest pink films I have ever came across.It tells the story of a young waitress and a cook,who after incidentally killing a young woman on a street ends up sadistically raping and murdering women via stabbing them in the crotch.The scenes of rape and sexual violence are truly unsettling,but the film is well-made and acted.Yasuharu Hasebe directed a series of very extreme Nikkatsu pink movies including brutal "Rape!" and horrendously offensive "Rape!13th Hour".In 1979 came Koyu Ohara's "Zoom Up:Rape Site",notorious for a scene in which a rapist shoves a light bulb inside a woman's vagina,then stomps on her stomach until it breaks."Assault!Jack the Ripper" is not easy to find,but for fans of misogynistic Japanese exploitation this sleazy sickie is a must-see.10 out of 10.


Assault! Jack the Ripper! is a movie the average person will never forget, or actually, will never see. It's a rare, brutal Japanese film that includes rape, sex and murder. For fans of pinky films it's a leader in the genre. And I can see why. It's a well made film with very nice acting from all members of the cast. For anyone who's into video games, there is some great music in this that is very similar to a game called Katamari Damacy. Which is a fantastic game by the way.

The movie is about two restaurant workers who realize that the only way they can have hot sex is through killing someone. Good enough reason for me. But things begin to go seriously wrong for this Japanese Mickey and Mallory.

AJR! is definitely not for everyone. It's a very sexual and violent flick that will most likely only appeal to extreme cinema fans and brave souls willing to widen their horizons. I personally think this film kicks ass in it's depiction of no holds barred sex, violence and mayhem.


Fine bravura tour de force from Mr Hasebe. A young nerdy cake decorator and a waitress misfit work in the same tea-shop. She makes a play for him and they end up on the road, in the rain picking up a near naked hitch-hiker who gleefully rips off her wet clothes and more. This delirious movie begins almost as a comedy, although there is always an edge. The scenes preceding the hitch-hiker's demise are almost dreamlike and it is unclear quite what the tone is to be. But gradually the waitress, desperate to get her pal to get hot enough in bed to get her hot, hits on the connection between the blood and violence and his erection/performance. Once the direct correlation between killing and f***ing is established there is no holding this kid back. Inevitably, in the end he seems content just to kill and the film builds to the most amazing and bloody climaxes. Very well made with loads of s & v.


With a title like that, you know you're dealing with something special. No Retreat, No Surrender II (NRNS2), is a magical pastiche of poor dialogue, bad acting and frenetic martial arts action. NRNS2 is, verily, one of the ultimate Bad Movies for Bad Movie fans everywhere. On the one hand, the movie is entirely watchable -- due primarily to the entertaining fight and action sequences (very reminiscent of early/mid 80s, Hong Kong produced, kung-fu movies). On the other hand, it's chock full of cringe worthy dialogue -- delivered in the most hilariously stilted manner possible. This is generally the case when you cast martial artists as opposed to actors.

Our story begins with fresh-faced Scott Wylde (Loren Avedon) arriving in Vietnam. For reasons obscure to me and my Bad Movie buddies, Mr. Wylde is obsessed with finding his friend, Mac Jarvis (Max Thayer). Apparently, Mr. Wylde thought the best course of action for finding his friend was to run around Vietnam yelling, "Mac! Mac Jarvis!" Mr. Wylde bumps into Terry (Cynthia Rothrock), who -- as it turns out -- is an ex-girlfriend of Mac. If memory serves correctly, she informs Scott of the present whereabouts of Mr. Jarvis.

At this point, things turn sour for Mr. Wylde. His Vietnamese girlfriend, Sulin (Patra Wanthivanond), is kidnapped by the nefarious Vietcong -- because her father just happens to be a local bigwig. This sets the stage for Scott to rescue his girlfriend, and beat-down a whole mess of Bad Guys in the process.

Mr. Wylde eventually joins forces with cigar (and scenery) chomping Mac Jarvis. Together they make their way to Cambodia (IIRC). As you can imagine, their travels are beset by a host of enraged Vietcong. In addition to the VC, Scott and Mac must administer an Country Ass Whopping' on the local Buddhists (who, unbelievably, favor ropes as their primary weapon of choice).

Sulin, meanwhile, is introduced to her primary captor, Yuri (Matthias Hues) -- a monstrous Russian with an undeniable German accent (Matthias Hues is German). Yuri demonstrates his brutality by summarily executing a couple malcontents. One of them is forced into a large pool teeming with hungry alligators (or is it crocodiles?). Oh, the horror! From here the plot develops in a thoroughly predictable manner -- Scott and Mac hewing their way through jungle and assailant until they reach Yuri's compound. During their journey, they join forces with Terry -- who, for reasons incomprehensible to me, insists on wearing a large yellow sweatshirt over her workout gear. We found the interplay between Scott, Mac and Terry to be eerily similar to Star Wars. Specifically: Mac is Han Solo, Scott is Luke and Terry is Princess Leia. It might sound strange, but watch the movie and tell me I'm not right! Mac and Scott develop a truly bizarre plan to attack the compound. The (hilarious) centerpiece of their attack features M60s being "auto fired" via the aid of several Budweiser cans (that Mac had the foresight to pack through the Vietnamese/Cambodian jungle). Anyway, our heroes launch their attack. The VC come running out of their barracks, into a hail of enfilading M60 fire (featuring empty beer can technology). The VC keep charging, and the M60s keep firing. The end result is a whole mess of dead VC.

Eventually Mac, Scott and Terry encounter Yuri. As you can imagine, a serious kung-fu fest ensues. Ultimately, however, Yuri is bested by the combined might of his three assailants. His demise is, perhaps, the Greatest Bad Movie Death of All Time. Get this: Yuri is dragged, by his neck, in a Jeep being driven by Scott. Scott slingshots Yuri into the pool of alligators. Yuri, not one to be intimidated by enraged reptiles, begins pulling the jeep towards the pool. Scott, sensing his impending doom, leaps from the jeep -- first making sure that the gas tank is full. Yuri then pulls the jeep on top of himself, while being gnawed on by alligators. Scott, for the coup de grace, shoots the gas tank which causes the jeep to explode! Poor Yuri becomes food for worms. This is probably the only movie in cinema history that makes the attempt to explain why a jeep would explode! Normally, any vehicle, in any movie, can explode for any reason whatsoever. We found this particularly amusing since, a half-hour previous to this point, the movie depicted several dozen canvas tents exploding. Were they full of gas as well? Oh well. The end result is totally hilarious and totally awesome. I highly recommend this movie to anyone with a predilection for terrible movies.

Bad Movie Score: 8/10 Good Movie Score: 6/10


Despite being a sequel, this has nothing to do with the first movie. There's a whole new cast, and a brand new plot. A quite good one, actually. No Retreat, No Surrender 2 is the perfect example of pure 80's fun. It has lots of really cool fighting, fun background music and almost everything else we all know as bad (but really entertaining) 80's action stuff. The last fifteen minutes of the movie are excellent. Movies with totally evil Soviet military bases are always fun! And Matthias Hues is perfect as an evil Soviet military. The last fight between him and Loren Avedon must be considered as a classic.

Same score as the first movie: 7 out of 10!


No Retreat, No Surrender 2: Raging Thunder (1989) was a sequel only in name to the first film. Corey Yuen is back, Seasonal Films decided to make another film to the series. This time the movie's featured star is Cynthia Rothrock. The action is also co-directed by Hoi Meng.

The movie takes place in Southeast Asia. A couple of commandos along with a female agent are sent on a deep cover assignment. Their mission is to take out a suspected Soviet clandestine operation. Whilst in Thailand they discover that their mission has become a whole lot more complicated than they could have ever imagined.

The acting is not that great but it's adequate. Who's kidding themselves. Who goes to a movie like this and expect a cast full of thespians. The action set pieces are what we expect from the team of Hoi Meng and Corey Yuen, bone breaking action with a fair amount of blood letting. Cynthia Rothtock is phenomenal in her role. More action and less gabbing from her.

If you like no nonsense action films then this one's for you. Others need not apply because you'll be turned away from the nonsensical plot and pedestrian acting. But the action scenes are excellent and fun to watch.


Another Ng See Yuen produced Seasonal production (his production company) that puts a Western cast in basically a Hong Kong style action film. Its low budget attempts an epic quite successfully. Loren Avedon stars as an American in trouble in Thailand eventually waging a small war against some Russians to get his girlfriend back.

Loren Avedons first starring role. He performs all the martial arts really well and these Seasonal films have given him a cult following around the world. Review after review will tell you this guy is a great performer. His acting is likable but his martial arts is among the best on screen from a westerner. Like all the other reviews I believe its a shame he never went to Hong Kong to make films but at least people continue to give him credit. One of the best screen fighters I have seen.

Cynthia Rothrock gets in the story as a cocky chopper pilot and has some great martial arts scenes of her own. She did go to Hong Kong and made some pictures there. Yes Madam is a classic film that was also directed by Corey Yuen.

Matthias Hughes stars as the Bad-ass Russian who apparently learned to fight for the screen during the films production. They kept his choreography to late in the shoot and I couldn't tell this was a first for him. It really is quite good. Having the end fight scene against Loren Avedon is enough of a physical spectacle. Hughes went on to appear in Hollywood films.

The other supporting player is Max Thayer a wheeling dealing Viet Nam vet. He ads some actual acting to the mix and performs some action of his own. I don't think he is a martial artist but they give him some moments to perform less demanding violence like burning faces with his cigar or throwing snakes! He also drinks snake blood which is shot in a single tracking shot from the snakes drained gizards to it being drunk out of a shot glass.

Its a cool picture in the greatest Hong Kong/American crossover series ever made. Its complete trash and enjoyable all the way. I don't know how these cheap films get away with their comedy but all three films in the series have some great goofy moments. They have tried to pack quite a lot into this film for the budget.

The films director, martial arts choreographer is Corey Yuen and the action scenes are pretty top- notch. There is a high impact quality to all the blows. Lots of flips and spirals to the ground. Very much in the Hong Kong style, the set pieces are quite creative. Not over edited. The choreography is really enjoyable to watch with multiple attackers at times. I think the evening fight at the open air market/eatery is the best. There could have been a little more fighting in the film but what there is doesn't disappoint.

The transfer I have isn't the best print and the audio was probably never great on this picture but if you are familiar with this genre, like chop-socky films from Hong Kong and American kick-boxing strait to video titles it's going to be up your ally. The production is fascinating. Such a multicultural cast and crew on a limited budget. The cheesiest story and most blatant use of Russian bad guys except for the first film topped off with expert martial arts choreography.

I think these Seasonal pictures, produced by Ng See Yuen are great. They are rough and cheap but they deliver the goods.


This is one of the most amazing films you will ever see. It has some of the most marvelous directing and cinematography of action scenes ever recorded on film. Loren Avedon is simply matchless as a young humble American hero in his first movie. The story line is equally captivating and engrosses the viewer. The characters are straight out of a comic book with fantastic screen presence, dialogue and charisma that makes it impossible to take one's eyes of them.

However where the film really succeeds, is in the technical aspect. The editing and pacing of the film is like none other. It is magnificently fused with a perfect film score that was works superbly and fuses so well with the film that it almost gives you goosebumps that something can be made so precisely and accurately to fit the emotions on the screen. Karate Tiger II proves that just because a movie is low budget, it doesn't mean that the people working on it aren't incredibly gifted and talented at their craft.

As a regular avid film viewer, I feel very fortunate that I was able to view and experience this film. It is a sheer delight and should not be missed by anyone. One of the very best films out of the tens of thousands I've seen.


After watching the first one, me and my friends were in the mood to watch another comedy, so we headed out to find the second "No Retreat, No Surrender."

Unfortunately, we rented it.

Since Bruce Lee's ghost starred in the first one, I figured Chuck Norris' ghost would make an appearance. We found out, however, that Chuck Norris' isn't dead.

Therefore, this movie was destined from the very beginning to suck hard. It didn't disappoint. From the horrible acting down to the flawed logic (Why is TKD dominating every other martial arts style?), this movie had no upside, unless, like us, you feel like watching a really bad movie to laugh. Then it achieves its goal. Depending on how you approach this movie will determine whether you have a good time, or if you brutally castrate yourself with electric eels and hand saws.

Either way, I really recommend this movie. Five (5) stars out of One (1) Million.


Seriously this is in my top 10 worst movies of all time its position would probably be around 4. I think this movie is like pointing a gun at a child's face watching them scream moving the gun away from them then pointing the gun over and over again at their face disturbingly funny yet immorally wrong, why don't these actors think am i actually in a movie like this or why Michael Dudikoff is in any film for that matter. Overall this movie was a complete toss fest and should be watched by anyone who loves action movies that are never suppose to have been made..................................I needed an exorcism after this movie


Having really loved the first two films I was really looking forward to the third part. I knew going in that the Pang Brother's were going to have something different for me with this one. I knew that the brothers wanted to make each episode in the Eye films to be completely different but still stay true to the heart of the films and I very much welcomed that. The Eye was more of a classic ghost story, The Eye 2 was more of a drama and The Eye 10 I knew was going to be more of a teen movie. Sounded good to me. So what did I think of the film. I loved it a lot...it wasn't as bad as everyone said it was, in fact it was everything I hoped it would be...but was it better than the first 2? Short answer no with a but. This film doesn't try to be like the first two, it's is own film just like the second was to the first. It has it's own story to tell in it's own way and does a great job of staying on it's own. When a lot of people talked about this film they said it was wanna be Scream and tried to be all funny and stuff and truth is...it's nothing like Scream. I consider this film more like a throw back to classic 80's horror stuff like Night of the Demons or even Sleepaway Camp 2...meaning it's suppose to be fun then a straight forward horror movie. That's what I liked best of the film, I loved it's modern feel...a lot of ghost movies are always told in that classic kind of way you know and it was just great seeing it done with that 80's feel but still feeling modern. I liked the new take, I loved the faster pace, I loved the directing and I loved how the film still keep a lot of it's religious sub plots. I loved the new takes on how to see ghost and I loved what happened due to that. The movie still had a lot of scares and never once did it let up. I also loved some of the humor thrown into the film that just had a smile on my face. I just loved the whole feel and vibe to the film.Once again the Pang Brothers are masters behind the camera and the kick ass shot. They handle the acting and the scares very well. While this film isn't perfect, I liked the 3 rd act but just wished they would have done it differently and I could have really done without the fart joke...this film is a real great watch and just plain fun. I'm sure some fans of the first film aren't going to buy into this one much but if you watch it as it's own film...it's a real treat. In a world where every other ghost story is a wannabe The Ring, it's nice feeling a fun just have fun with it's self and still be smart and cool as can be. All in all...a great show. Bring on the next one.What a great series of films.


We expected a horror movie, but it is more like a horror-comedy. The actors are good, special effects also good. The Eye 10 has nothing to do with The Eye 1 and 2, other than the same directors/film-makers.

Some teenagers are trying 8 methods of contacting/seeing ghosts. A few of those ways are really funny, its a long time since we have laughed as much as we did seeing this movie.

I recommend this movie as a horror/comedy, not if you are looking for a scary horror flick. Guess that those who gave this movie low scores was expecting something else. There is not much blood and gore in this movie.

Liked the ending too.


This is my first time watching one of the series of 'The Eyes' by the Pang brothers. I must say this movie spooked the hell out of me. It's set in Thailand after the foursome went for a holiday trip to Genting Highlands. I guess Thailand has Asia's most amazing stories of the supernaturals. The movie is based on 'The Ten Encounters', which are 10 ways you can see or communicate with the dead. The spookiest must be the 'bend down and you'll see the spirit's face'. This, in my opinion is true because my late Grandfather used to experience this himself. Other than that, great use of CGI and stuffs. Many people, however, dislike the way the movie ended. Climax died, just like that. Argh. But don't give this movie a miss - a must see!


I've seen "The Eye" and "The Eye 2" and enjoyed them both, so when I heard about this one I got my hopes up that I could watch another scary horror movie.

I settled down, and at the start it seemed as though that was exactly what we were going to be treated to ... but then it all went downhill. I found myself wondering whether the film was supposed to be a horror film or a comedy film. To me it was neither. There were some great scary moments in it, but then you'd get an attempt at some at comedy. Notice I said "attempt". I don't think I found any of it that funny at all, and all it did was ruin the suspense and horror aspect of the rest of the movie.

The actors didn't really seem to know what to do or act in a lot of the scenes - and that didn't help either. The only saving grace is the length of the film - it's short!

I've given it 3/10 only because some of the scary bits were quite well done, but don't take that as any sort of recommendation. My advice - give it a miss, especially if you've seen the first 2 and expect this to be anything like them.


Most people will wonder why I'm giving this movie a ten out of ten. It's because it is great for what it is. It's a spoof of the Pang brothers' "Eye" films. The best part is that it's being done by the Pang brothers themselves. It's not often that filmmakers so wantonly make fun of themselves.

Many people gave this movie a bad review because they thought it was supposed to be scary movie like the first "Eye" and they didn't realize what was going on. It's got plenty of ghosts and creepiness, but it is not a genuine horror movie. It's a silly version of a horror movie.

I say that if you liked the first two movies you should see this one, because you'll probably get a chuckle or two. Also, you should see the first two before watching this one, if you haven't already.


How dare Pang brothers make out such a stupid movie!!!!!!!!!!! I am disappointed !!

The first The Eye of the series was very creative and all the cast and crews did very good work. The second one was not as good as the first one. But Shu Qi's acting and the whole story is at least a horror film. But the third one....how to say, I think they can stop making the series.

Stupid lines, dull acting, dated horrors, the film contains all the bad parts of a awful hong kong horror film. I don't know Pang brothers want to make the film a horror or a comedy.

I guess the Pang brothers may have been affected by some stupid company bosses. The whole film is not their type. If you love the Eye series,don't watch this one.


Chongkwai(Ray MacDonald) purchases a "cursed" book which depicts various methods of seeing and encountering ghosts from the spiritual world. He invites a group of friends from Hong Kong to his home in Thailand and they decide to see if the book can actually perform the tasks it represents. In doing so, one of the group, Kofei(Yu Gu)comes up missing during their forest hide-n-seek game using a cat thanks in part to a ghost who "masks" him from them. Haunted by his disappearance, upon returning to Hong Kong, May(Kate Yeung) & Teddy(Bo-lin Chen)begin experiencing ghostly apparitions popping up throughout the city with a grief-stricken April(Isabelle Leong)making a drastic decision in order to find Kofei, for whom she believes is dead. May & Teddy will accept a dangerous mission, entering the spirit world as if dead(..another method in the book is sleeping while dressed in burial clothes)to find Kofei..and April who has become missing as well.

The Pang Bros take the franchise into a completely different direction, sacrificing some genuine scares, adopting an almost entirely light-hearted approach to those scary spirits who walk amongst the living. Even the title opening credits are played out in a colorfully jokey manner. But, when the gang play around with the spiritual world, the tone shifts somewhat, but the Pang Brothers always implement some tongue-in-cheek gag that removes the sheer horror of the situation. An example being when Teddy is temporarily taken over by a spirit who has him break-dancing in a contest with a couple of clowns. It's hard to really be scared of an umbrella floating in the air, although May certainly is terrified. Who would've ever thought a basketball could be used as a scare device? And, most of the book's methods of contacting the spirit world are rather silly such as tapping on bowls at Midnight with chopsticks awaiting hungry spirits, or looking between your legs for a spirit. I did love this one developed sub-plot regarding a dead girl who had no idea she was deceased, discovering this only after finding her corpse video-recorded at a crime scene thanks to Teddy's morbid voyeurism;she even tries to stop the camcorder with her hand going through the object. The special effects are impressive. I thought the spirits were creepy enough when they expose themselves. I found the twist at the end regarding May and Teddy's fate rather amusing and it fits in with the overall mood of this film. If you are looking for an Asian terror tale, look elsewhere, because The Bros Pang just weren't in the mood this time around. I think the comedic tone will repel some viewers because the cover of the DVD I rented promised something terrifying. But, to be honest, the first two films were full of such despair and angst, it was refreshing to see the third film a bit more cheerful and playful.


alright well i am still wiping the tears from my eyes, from practically one of the funniest films i have seen that meant to be a horror.

From peeing on ghost to kicking kids, this move has a wide variety of funny moments. It has some great special effects for the ghost and it can still send a nice chill down the old spine, but nothing that can scare you i believe.

I cant see how this movie is related to the eye series and the story seems decent towards the start but just drops from there, but overall a fairly entertaining movie and worth a watch.

6/10


Of course the previous versions are better, i have to agree with that. But even if it wasn't what i expected it to be, it still is a good movie. It's another genre that doesn't fit into a trilogy with the first 2 ones and yes it becomes a (lightweight) comedy at some moments but that doesn't mean its a bad movie. So i gave it a 7 in his kind, not comparing it with the previous movies of "the eye".

For people who think comedy and thriller/horror in one movie is bad, then you certainly don't like this one and you don't like the American's "scary movie's" also.

greetz


I expected this movie to be a lot worse than it was. But maybe that was because I watched "Ghost Delivery" before it. (Anything is better than that movie.) This movie could have been so much better.I think it is suppose to be a little bit of a comedy, but it falls way short. It starts serious enough and it was going in a good direction, then I don't know what happens. The break dance scene and the fart scene just totally screwed up the whole creepy effect. I do not recommend watching this movie if you are wanting a good scare. It could have been a good scary, creepy film but like I said, I think towards the end the Pang's got tired of their own movie and just released a major brain fart. Would i say the movie is terrible...No. Will I watch it again....Probably Not.I recommend sticking with "Eye" or "The Eye 2"( I liked "The Eye 2" better than 1)If you are a fan of "The Eye" movies this movie will only disappoint you.


The Pang Brothers should have developed a decent script before churning out yet another disappointing sequel. The Eye 2 wasn't THAT bad but unfortunately Shu Qi's horrible acting had ruined the otherwise good effort. The Eye 10 is simply horrible. Besides casting new actors and actresses who couldn't act at all, the storyline was just downright terrible. I guess the producers were just trying to ride on their success of the first film and trying to produce as many films as possible so as to cash in on them before the steam runs off. Well, the steam definitely had run off with the ending of the first film. Pang Brothers, stop making another THE EYE 100 or The EYE 1000. Come up with something more substantial, please!


I read some of these reviews last night before I watched this film, and now I find it hard to believe that some people were actually unsure as to whether this is a comedy or a horror. Firstly, does it have to be one or the other? It is clearly both. And more importantly, who cares? It is what it is to you, it shouldn't matter what others classify it as, you either like it or you don't. I hate it when reviewers say things like "it's probably supposed to be funny but it just fails." YOU might find it funny, it's one of those things, like some people hate ben stiller, some don't. I was unsure about whether it would be any good after reading some of the negative reviews, but ended up disagreeing with them. It's a mostly horror-comedy, there's not that many bits meant to be funny, but if you like that kind of thing, you'll probably like it. It's about teens which might put some people off, but I didn't see anything wrong with the acting and the story line left room for some mick-taking of this kind of film, Asian and elsewhere (mostly America). I dunno what everyone's problem is about girls with long black hair now, I expect there are many stories of female ghosts in Asia and most Asian women have black hair, just don't watch them if they bore you, at least they're better at telling ghost stories than the Americans! Anyway this film has all kinds of ghosts. And is much more psych than gore like the others.

The things I like most about this film are that its more realistic than most. You know the times when you feel cold towards the characters because they don't act human, especially when they're too brave, and in real life, comedy is a massive element. There'd be scary moments if you and some mates went to an abandoned hospital, but there'd be funny ones too. And I don't know what you think but I reckon duvets are definitely monster-proof. That's not to say I want to watch this kind of horror all the time, but someone's gotta make one, and I'm glad they did it well. Also, it's still pretty scary in parts but in a more lighthearted way when comedy arises, and it still looks great. I thought it was scarier than the first 2 which I thought were quite heart warming. I thought the report card kid bit and the breakdance bit were ace, and I didn't notice any annoying techno.


Weird tech no soundtrack. The real horrifying thing about this movie is the acting and the script. I think the Pang brothers are out of ideas. So they rip off ideas from other movies like the "Exorcist" and the "Blair Witch Project". Their other effort "Tesseract" rips off the "Matrix". What a disappointment from the previous "Eye" movies. I wasn't too crazy about the second movie. This movie makes "Eye 2" look like freaking "Lawrence of Arabia" The only really good thing about this movie is this one is only 80 minutes long. I really hope the Pang brothers put an end to this series of movies before its too late. Imagine them making more sequels like Friday the 13th ? Or making Eye movies until it really hits the 10th ? Scary thought.


I couldn't really tell if this movie was suppose to be a serious horror or a comedy? The first opening scene, I figured this movie was going to be a weird horror film... and then it just ventured off into an incoherent teen horror. In which we did not get any character information, it just jumped into the movie and jumped into multiple curses.

I must say, some of the starting scenes were creepy, but then they just totally missed the mark and put in unnecessary techno music.

After about 45 minutes, I realized that the film was a really bad horror film or a really unfunny comedy.

Best scene in the movie was a reference to the original Eye. I laughed pretty hard. Then the rest of the film is just really bad. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!


it's cheesy, it's funny, some parts are badly acted.

the eye talks about these teenagers trying to see ghosts by following this thai rule book one of the main characters found. The book mentions that there are 10 ways too see ghosts so the 5 people venture off to see these ghosts then one day after they played about 3-4 of them there friend disappears when playing one of the games. So they go to HK trying to escape these ghosts but yet there still hunted, so they have to finish the last one in order to not see ghosts.

The story is disjointed near the end, and in a lot of ways did not make sense for a fact that they never really mentioned how they can stop seeing ghosts. It would of made much more sense if they had rules in the book saying that you must all complete these 10 tasks in order not too see ghosts or something or hinted in some way how not to see ghosts.

They also never really resolve the problem since one of the main characters for some reason has the power to stop seeing ghosts bought the book then his grandmother figured out that somebody is putting a spell on them.

What was the spell casters motive? why them? is he there just to mess around with kids? you see it's very disjointed but yet i still enjoyed the movies and some of it's ideas it had. it's a cheesy horror movie with some decent ideas into it that should of been thought about a lot harder if it wanted to be taken seriously.

but since you see breakdancers in the movie break dancing with a guy who is possessed i don't think this movie was really made to be that much of a serious horror flick.

I personally liked the setup a lot more then the execution of the rest of the movie.the beginning started out pretty well with some interesting team ghost seeing but ultimately failed due to disjointed story telling, and decent CG effects. Nothing really scared me much in the movie but i'm still giving it a 7/10 why? because i enjoyed this average horror movie for it's cheesiness and interesting ideas and cool dancing lol.


well i just end up seeing this 3 part of the eye franchise.i start liking this pang brothers and i get some of theme earlier movies,the eye was really surprising me for the power of scaring you and after giving you chill-out feeling.but the eye 10 make me disappointed but be cause of the willing to get scared.it was making sense until it start turning to looks like scary movie ,so if you like parodies this is your movie and if you wanna scare your self try french HIGH TENSION.i hope so they will go back to were they start , with the next movie.but don't call it the eye don't know witch number.give it other name so don't make the first eye be refused by those who never seen it.i give 3 of 10 for the break dance and for the good looking girls.make me remind me of the 80'is.


In 1965, in Northern Spain, a dam will be built to bring progress to the location of Desbaria and the town of Marienbad is near to be completely flooded. Two boys, Teo and Luis, cross the security boundary to play in the evacuated town and Teo listen to voices in the abandoned church. They find a group of strange people chained in the watered basement, Teo releases their leader Mordecai Salas (Patrick Gordon) and is killed by him. Forty years later, in the celebration of the fortieth anniversary of Debaria Dam, the teenager Antonio (Damià Plensa) vanishes in the lake while swimming with his girlfriend Susana (Pilar Soto) and their friend Clara Borgia (Charlotte Salt). The police divers, with the support of the outsider photo journalist Dan Quarry (Michael McKell) that is filming the submerged Marienbad to write a matter about the town, try unsuccessfully to find the body. When eerie things happen in the spot, Dan and the local journalist and daughter of the builder of the dam Teresa Borgia (Raquel Meroño) disclose dark secrets about Marienbad, Salas and his evil cult of the power of the flame.

I am a big fan of Brian Yuzna, but "Beneath Still Waters" is a huge deception. The screenplay is a complete and flawed mess, with terrible development of characters and situations and many shameful lines. The acting in general is not good, and the lead pair shows no chemistry. The special effects are very reasonable, and I believe many actors and actresses have been dubbed in English. The sequence of the bacchanal recalls the disturbing cult "Society" in the debut of this great director. Unfortunately his two last works ("Rottweiler" and "Beneath Still Waters") are very disappointing. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Mistério no Lago" ("Mystery in the Lake")


This movie is terrible. I don't know what the director was doing and I'm sure he felt the same way. The acting was terrible. There were characters with American, Spanish, British and what sounded like dutch, accents. I guess realism wasn't the number 1 priority. The acting was terrible, at best. That is more than I can say for the 'special effects' which comprised mainly of slow-motion(how 80s) and painfully clumsy green screen work. The monsters were about as scary as something out of an Ed Wood movie. I've seen toddlers make scarier monsters from play-dough. The plot was neither going here nor there. It was clichéd and methodical, yet still managed to be quite unfathomnnable. It seems the director was writing the script spontaneously and whatever popped into his head was hastily squeezed in. This movie is an insult to anyone who may have the misfortune to endure 92 minutes of unprofessional directing, poor special effects, poorer acting and an altogether mediocre performance and story line. I am still very surprised that this even made it to a theater and even more surprised I didn't walk out of it halfway. I guess it's like a gruesome car-crash where you cannot divert your eyes away even though you should. But in this case I'd rather be in the car crash and be spared the movie.


After years producing and directing in the US, Brian Yuzna eventually left the States to set up shop in Spain; judging by the awful Beneath Still Waters, he's either been overdoing the Sangria or not taking enough siestas. Whatever the reason, it's hard to believe that this mess was directed by the same guy that gave us the twisted classic Society and the delightfully gory Return Of The Living Dead 3.

Yuzna's watery waste-of-time starts in the abandoned Spanish town of Marienbad, with two boys freeing Mordecai Salas, the leader of a Satanic cult, just as the area is about to be flooded by a new dam. Forty years later, as the locals prepare to mark the anniversary of Desbaria, the town that was built to replace Marienbad, a series of strange deaths occur which suggest that Salas, trapped deep beneath the water for so long, is about to surface. In order to save Desbaria, a photojournalist named Dan (Michael McKell), a TV news reporter, Teresa (Raquel Meroño), and her pretty daughter Clara (Charlotte Salt) must do battle with the supernatural forces that are intent on destroying the town.

Featuring a European cast who, with the exception of a couple of Brits, struggle with the English dialogue, Beneath Still Waters is a badly scripted, poorly acted and dreary piece of nonsense that is enlivened occasionally by some fairly decent gore and loads of nudity. Yuzna's direction is uninspired, there is far too much reliance on cheap digital effects during the many underwater scenes, and the story often makes little or no sense (eg. why does Salas wait for forty years under the lake before emerging?).

To be fair, Yuzna does manage one or two inspired momentsthe best being the town's celebration, which turns into a debauched orgybut with so much mundane drivel between the few high points, Beneath Still Waters deserves to sink without a trace.


As a longtime Yuzna fan, I was absolutely delighted when I heard of this project. I happened upon the novel on which this film is based many years ago, and it's always stuck with me - there are some genuinely creepy ideas (and moments) in there. Great director, good source material... what could possibly go wrong?

A great many things, apparently.

The acting and dialogue are stilted, the atmosphere (which should just create itself, given the setting) simply isn't there, and the dreadful scene-chewing performance of Patrick Gordon as the villain of the piece deflates any sense of dread one may have had. Even the one decent monster effect is wasted in a brief and poorly-sequenced shot. As much as it pains me to say, Mr. Yuzna seems to have hit a bit of a slump. Do yourself a favour - skip this one and watch "Beyond Re-Animator" instead.


This is simply a horrific film - not because it was a scary movie, but in how very truly bad it was in every department.

Acting was mostly hammy, especially the Spanish cast. The boy whose mother leaves in the care of Clara the baby sitter, cannot decide whether or not he is supposed to be scared to death or be slightly amused when unmentionable things happen to his mother. Only the hero (played by B list English actor Michael Mckell) seems to be able to cope with a horrendously bad script. This however is slightly tarnished by his admission - in the "Bonus Features" interviews - that he has never performed a screen kiss before. The other cast interviews are really sad - all of them pretending they are in the best horror movie of all time.

Worst scene of the movie: The extended orgy scene wins hands down, with the climatic re- animation of the drowned baddies (can't reveal more than this) coming a close second.

The story itself is hardly original and is based on the novel by Matthew Costello. I certainly won't bother to read it now. However if the novel was a good one at all, the screenplay has certainly managed to mangle it.

The only moment in the special effects department that lives up to schlock director, Brian - The Re-animator - Yuzna's reputation is a gleefully monstrous scene when the local constable is discovered hysterically self-dismembering! Thank you, but even that did not make the movie worth wasting 90 minutes on.

AVOID THIS LIKE THE PLAGUE.


Easily a movie with no redeemable qualities to it. The acting was bad if they were even trying, the story was carbon copy: people stumble into evil and must stop it, and the action and horror was FEW and far between. I honestly could not finish what is with out a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, I made it to 1 hour 16 minutes and I could not stand any more of it. The previews of it mad me so excited, but the actually movie was a let down. Save your self the time and don't watch it.

Everything could have been fine if it chose a side. Horror or Suspense: pick one. The few moment of terror were cool, but they happened only a few times. There was a TON of story build up and character development, perfect for a suspense movie.


I'd heard nothing but bad things about this film; but decided to track it down anyway simply because it has so much promise. For a start it was directed by Brian Yuzna' part of the creative genius behind Re-Animator and director of horror masterpieces Society and Return of the Living Dead 3; and secondly, the plot; which is based on a book by Matthew Costello, sounded like a great base for a horror movie. I figured that with these two elements in place, things couldn't possibly be as bad as I'd heard. Well...to say things went wrong would be an understatement. The plot focuses on a Spanish village named Marienbad; a place where the locals are gradually succumbing to a Satanic cult lead by a man named Mordecai Salas. Someone or other has hatched a plan involving building a dam to flood the town and it's inhabitants; but the plan fails when a couple of no good kids end up freeing the cult leader before the town is engulfed in water. Fast forward forty years and the village of Desbaria stands in its place; though the cult leader is waiting for his revenge.

The film gets off to a really good start as we watch a couple of kids traverse across a flooded town and into a brilliantly realised Satanic church where they are greeted by a group of bewitched locals. But once this is over and we move into the present day, things start to go downhill. The main problem with the film is that it's a mess. There are a handful of good ideas but they haven't been put together coherently which takes most of the credibility away from the film. The film also feels very cheap; the poor acting doesn't help in this respect, and neither does the turgid script which is littered with trite lines of dialogue. The film does feature some nice locations, which is nice, but that's really the only good thing I have to say about it. Anyone who has seen more than a few Brian Yuzna films will know that the director likes to let things descend into chaos so he can show a wave of graphic images; and that happens here, but it's not as good as it was in the likes of Society and really just caps off a very disappointing effort. I wouldn't hesitate to name this as Yuzna's worst alongside Faust: Love of the Damned, and only hardcore fans need apply.


Brian Yuzna was already responsible for some really crazy and unusual horror projects in the past; some of them refreshing and original ("Society", "The Dentist") and other ones unspeakably terrible ("Rottweiler"), but "Beneath Still Waters" is undoubtedly the most discouraging effort he was ever involved in. This film certainly doesn't look as if it were directed by someone with over twenty years of experience in the genre, because the wholesome simply feels amateurish and unfinished. How can a concept holding so much horrific potential result in such a boring and incoherent mess? How can one film feature so many exquisite filming locations, nauseating make-up effects and thoroughly depraved themes and still turn out a complete failure? I love macabre tales handling about sunken villages and the dark secrets that drowned with them. There are way too few films like this in the horror genre and of the two I encountered during the past year, one is obscure as hell and remains unreleased on DVD to this date (the modest Swiss production entitled "Marmorera") and the other one - this particular film - is a missed opportunity. There are a lot of things going on in "Beneath Still Waters", but only very little of them make sense and it seems as if Yuzna doesn't want you to care about any of the characters and the grim ordeals they are facing. The events take place in a remote Spanish village, days before the great 40th anniversary celebration of the dam that prevented the area from flooding and the subsequent foundation of a brand new town called Desbaria. Few people know, however, the dam initially served to deliberately drown the entire town of Marienbad, because all the inhabitants were gradually joining the satanic cult led by Mordecai Salas. Two ruthless boys accidentally saved Salas from a watery death right before the town sunk entirely, and he has been waiting forty years now to seek revenge on the descendants of the previous mayor. So  what we have here is, without exaggerating, one of the most promising horror premises of the past two decades AND you can also add several dynamite sub themes like nudity, child-kill, underwater zombies and even a totally gratuitous orgy complete with nuns and chickens! Can someone please tell me where exactly this idea went wrong? Yuzna leaps from one subject to another without paying attention to continuity and for some reason he also inserts numerous tedious elements. All the main characters are bland and of course the really wooden acting performances of the ensemble cast don't help. Most of the players appear to be dead long before their characters drown in the lake or become "consumed" by the living mucus & seaweed. Such a dam(n) shame, because the Spanish filming locations are genuinely ominous! For the proper grim use of picturesque Spanish villages, please check out "Dagon" and "The Nun", which are both films Yuzna produced but not directed himself.


I'm a fan of Yuzna, but this movie sucked. It was boring. That's all I can really say. I didn't even see the ending. I had to pause the movie and upon coming back decided it wasn't worth another 15 minutes of my life. I kept expecting it would get good. I kept expecting something profound or neat to happen. But nope. Just some of the worst zombies I've ever seen and some dark satanic figure with bad lines. And a lot of pointless dialogue that almost put me to sleep. Yuzna should stick to Lovecraft adaptions. He is much more inspired when dealing with them. A movie like this should get more interesting as the plot advances, not less so. I never read the book, but I have to imagine it's better than this movie turned out. It seemed to me more poorly carried out than poorly plotted.


"Beneath Still Waters" has an interesting premise, but fails miserably on all levels, making it in effect, terribly boring. While the three leads give decent attempts of depicting characters you care about, their attempts do not pay off. The story plods along at an unbelievably slow pace, and the film is plagued by a terrible score and bad computer generated images. "Beneath Still Waters", with its misleading tag-line of 'Fear Rises' should not even be classified as a horror (or b-grade horror) because it is simply not scary. Oh, and the film is majorly distracting because there are an unbelievable amount of different accents in the film when really there is no need for that many.


The reason I am saying this, is simply because I don't understand the thought and the planing behind this movie.

The story is really thin! The acting is horrible! The monsters are just plain stupid! This would be, to keep it short, a really bad movie, but..., (and this is what makes me confused) the effects are not that bad! The score is also quite good and the directing is not to bad either! Maybe the negative aspects of the movie, makes the positive ones seem REALLY good and vice versa, but there was something that kept me watching this film.

I thought that it had to be some professional and experienced people that where part of the team behind this movie, since the sound, the directing and the effects where above average, but why would these people accept such terrible acting and bad storyline? I hoped that they just had to have taken some action and made a difference sooner or later before the movie ended! Something had to come up, that would make this movie worth watching before the end credits started! The movie just kept going and finally it ended!

Nothing, of what I thought would happen, happened! This movie SUCKED and all I can think about afterwords is how some aspects of this movie where really good and some where terrible?!? Why not pay to get better actors and a better story and rather cut the budget a little on the effects and the score? That would have made this movie at least average, instead of "rock bottom"! Or, to put it this way, how can a director that can direct and a good special effects team, settle for all this other crap that this movie contains? Did they not see it?

If everything in this movie was bad, I would understand, that would make sense, but this mix of top and bottom, I do not understand! Let this director, this composer and this special effects -team make a movie another time and hire new people fill in the rest of the staff! Then maybe, just maybe, they can make a movie that don't waste 92 min. of my life!


The concept for this is total greatness, and pretty much original (it's based on a novel that I'll be looking for in used book stores). Forty years ago a town in Spain was abandoned so that a dam could be built to create a lake. Evil things are happening under the water as the 40th anniversary of the dam's construction approaches. There is evidence that the dam itself is unsafe, but the mayor insists the festivities must go on (I'll be generous and call this a tribute to JAWS and not copying).

Good idea. Nice photography on locations in Spain.

Limp direction. Uninspired writing. And, worst of all, terrible actors. For some reason it was decided that actors whose native language was Spanish could deliver dialog in English. Oh, no, they couldn't.

The story goes from one predictable crisis to another. An warlock returns to the town to take control, only to be sort of thwarted by the granddaughter of the town's former mayor.

Meanwhile, down in the town, the celebration is turning into an orgy.

The warlock is vanquished. The granddaughter is saved and it looks like things will be all right. Then a little boy the granddaughter was babysitting gets a crazy look and tells her he hates her as strange lights shine on his face, thus setting up a sequel...

...if anyone should ever want to make a sequel to this. If, however, Michael Bay should ever decide to spend several million bucks remaking this through Platinum Dune's I'll be there for the 7 PM show opening weekend. It's a good story. But telling it takes talent on both sides of the camera, something very much lacking here.


There after it gets worse for every minute.

The actors are most likely better in an ordinary high schools drama class, than the ones they cast for this movie. The children was alright though, but the adult actors.......

The actions of the characters are so stupid that you think a 5 year old have scripted it.

Well you can say it started so well and ended very bad. I hope this instructor never makes a movie again.

In many really bad horror movies you at least ends up getting some good laughs. Even this failed here.


Some films are often a collection of associated scenes that are loosely tied together to advance the plot. The film story can be followed, but one has to pay attention to sort out the relevant stuff.

In 1965, the story starts, two little boys explore a deserted town that is to be flooded. They find some strange goings-on at a church building, and -- spoiler-- one of them gets killed after freeing someone who's been bound. The other boy gets away.

Then, there's a jump of 40 years. The "current" story starts with a TV reporter and a photojournalist (working on spec) covering the 40th anniversary of the completion of the dam that caused waters to inundate the abandoned town.

The mayor of the town wants to use the 40th anniversary as a means to attract tourists, and sets a celebratory party for a few days after the action opens. So, as strange things start to happen, he wants them covered up with plausible cover stories.

Strange happenings are followed by stranger things. The daughter of the lady TV person seems to be a focus of what's happening, and we slowly understand that she's been targeted by Mordecai Salas, the strange person that the one young boy freed. Salas, we learn, was an acolyte of Aleister Crowly, a notorious black magician of the first half of the 20th Century. He apparently learned the secret of a form of immortality, but his great drive is to bring back the evil practices that the flooding of his town had suppressed.

The freelance photojournalist, Dan Quarry, eventually figures out what can stop Salas' program. He then takes action.

The film story could better have been tightened a bit. I don't recommend this for the casual viewer.


Shame on you!If you haven't seen this movie yet, and you're thinking it would be a good film to watch, I might have lost some respect for you.Overall, this was a terrible movie.The acting was horrendous, the special effects were complete crap, and the whole story line is absolutely ridiculous and quite laughable even.The "SCARY" parts are as bout as scary a cute little puppy dog, and the characters are as bout as believable as a magical wonderland full of fairies, goblins, and dragons.The only thing good about it, was that it was ACTUALLY entertaining, and it kept my interest, but don't think that means I'm telling you to watch it.By all means, avoid this film for as long as you can, and I'm sure you won't suffer TOO much of a loss.


More typically barmy brilliant fun from Brian Yuzna in this movie about a flooded town, the curse contained within it and the effect it starts to have on the poor, unsuspecting locals trying to get on with their lives and one particular celebratory day.

There's really too much nonsense and ridiculousness to detail here so let me skip the in-depth analysis and get straight to the important stuff for genre fans. The cast is a very mixed bag (including, bizarrely enough, a minor British soap star in the male "hero" role) and the acting is generally quite bad but, if you're male, this is outweighed by the highly attractive women on screen most of the time. I was especially taken with Charlotte Salt as Clara, the young woman at the centre of a lot of unwanted attention. Then we have the FX work, which is excellent most of the time (well . . . . the practical work is, not so much the computer effects), supplying plenty of inventive gore and eye-popping atrocities. There's also some good underwater photography and a finale that throws in a number of bizarre horrors and even more bizarre sexual fetishes.

All in all, I really enjoyed it. Fans of Yuzna's work should definitely check this mad movie out.

See this if you like: Brian Yuzna, H.P. Lovecraft, Dagon.


...why, it's almost criminal, I think! Brian "Bride of Re-Animator" Yuzna is at least a genre demi-god, far as I'm concerned, but if so, his powers have seemingly all but evaporated. "BSW" (and I like the acronym because it emphasizes the nature of this mess of a film) has none of the vigor or playfulness of his earlier films. Methinks he is suffering from encroaching ennui. The leads are mostly European teevee actors, no doubt appealing in that medium, with varying and mostly limited intensities of screen presence. It doesn't help that a good number of them were speaking a second language, and at that knowing they're going to be overdubbed anyway. It shows in the performances, which are often stilted, almost unnatural. Worse, of course, is the script, about which the less said the better; Sturgeon was right, as always. Things start off fairly well for a low-budget adaptation of some pulp-horror bus ride throwaway, and then the whole affair sinks beneath the weight of a tired plot, at times horrendous dialogue, problematic acting, disappointing production values at key junctures, seemingly indifferent direction--even the obligatory bare boobies and revolting gore couldn't save this turkey. Strictly desperation viewing only, sorry to say. Mr. Yuzna should stick to producing.


Hell no, damn it! Okay, this very well might not be a very good movie. For one thing, the acting certainly is below par. Another thing is that the story-line has a lot of loose ends and the screenplay just rattles. But this really is a typical Yuzna-production, featuring all his well-known ingredients and, to round it up: he knows how to deliver the goods. The special effects are pretty good considering the obvious low budget. There's gore. Gratuitous nudity. An orgy-scene. A little kid gets his face completely torn in half. A cop hacks off is own limbs and enjoys it. And the main villain is creepy and scary, very reminiscent of PHANTASM's The Tall Man. Why the hell should anybody nag about an incoherent story or bad acting if you got all of the above? I for one know what to expect from a Brian Yuzna-movie, and this time he delivers. So maybe, yes, this movie doesn't really deserve 7/10, because, well, it's not as good as THE NUN, to name another Fantastic Factory production. But it still is fun and I'm rating this on an enjoyment level solely. I'd say: if you enjoyed FAUST: LOVE OF THE DAMNED, then you'll probably like BENEATH STILL WATERS too. It's just more of that lovable Yuzna-madness. And if you don't dig it, then you probably didn't like much about his other films either. Or maybe you've just outgrown his stuff. I say it's about time he directed another movie.