Worst Animated Movie Ever. It was a good idea, with good charachters poorly executed. Charachters had absolutely nothing to do. The 7 female "dwarfs" was an interesting idea, but unfortunately the talent was wasted by a horrendous script. The animation was elementary school quality. The final scenes were probably the worst animated sequence I have ever seen. They looked like early Hannah - Barbera cartoons. Such a waste!


Since Filmation was given a hard time making this movie by Disney, they should have just given up. It REALLY is THAT bad. NO adult can sit through more than a few minutes, and you end up wondering if it's doing any permanent damage to your kid's minds. Make them watch something good - if you're anti-Disney, try the "Iron Giant" - but NEVER let this into your home. The script, the animation, it's all REALLY that bad. Every actor on the project should have sued to block it's release. Really. This is the darker side of film-making - a good idea gone very bad. I never told my kids they couldn't watch it, but I could never sit with them when they did. To me, that's the worst possible scenario.


Take a look at Mastorakis's amazing profile to top-notch films. he's right up there with Spielberg and QT. A whole 5/15 films have received an IMDB rating of above 4/10. thats just amazing.

dont rent this movie. its not even worth the $.50 that a CDR costs and the 1/2 hour it'll take to download it off the net. Mastorakis is a shining example of someone who doesnt deserve to be in any film industry. however, he does make a great target for self-respecting movie goers who can all come together to attack one person, instead of fighting over who hates kevin smith and roger ebert.

the people who gave this movie anything higher than a 3/10 must have either thought it was another ron jeremy epic. i laughed harder when bambi's mother died than i did at this movie. 1/10 because i cant give 0.


This movie is by far the worst I have ever seen. Don't get me wrong, I love slapstick, I can even confess liking Police Academy. But this?

The basic story, some kids join a "Dojo" to become marshall arts masters. Of course they mess up. The director's been following the blueprint on how to make a slapstick comedy.

don't see it, never, noway, nohow...please..


this movie sucks. i remember watching it when i was about 12 years old, and i didnt like it then. i thought that it'd be like the 3 ninjas movies - which kept me entertained as a kid. but it didnt deliver.

my fondest memory of this movie was when one of the ninjas is stumbling in the bushes doing some bad acting, when he looks to his side and sees the neighbours - a nudist colony. there were naked breasts bouncing all over the screen - the women were playing volleyball. hey, i was a 12 year old. but i remember that it had a PG rating, and my mom was shocked to see what i was watching. har har: she should see the stuff i watch now.

the plan: go to all rental stores, purchase their copy and melt it away. that is, if they haven't already sold it for $1.50 to get some space for a movie someone will rent.


Hoffman is an okay actor but he was not up to this role. He comes across simply as a nerdish failure of man and the film misses Miller's point entirely. Possibly the director deserves the blame but the film is a great disappointment. It's not worth seeing.

Compare his performance to Lee J. Cobb's tour de force in '66. Cobb breathes life and spirit into this tragic man. And the supporting cast is flawless. Frederick March did a good job back in the '51 film but Cobb IS Willie Loman. He owns the role and trying to replace him is like Steve Martin trying to be Peter Sellars. Some actors just own certain roles and Cobb owns SALESMAN.

If you're interesting in seeing this film, get the Lee J. Cobb version. It's the real thing!


I am typing these comments while consuming a can of beer. Well suitable for a film which had 'Beer is life' for a motto :-) Thinking back to that memorable evening at the International Filmfestival Rotterdam, where Chris Doyle himself treated everyone who was left in the audience after the screening of 'Away with words', to a beer. I must admit the after screening Q&A made up for the fact that I found the film totally unintelligible. Brilliant cinematography at times (of course). Weird, but intriguing dialogues. Loveable characters. Extremely funny scenes THIS MIGHT QUALIFY AS A SPOILER? (the rapping granny was a gem!). But all thrown together, a story which for me had no beginning and no ending without the director's comment. From him I understood we should view the film as a collection of words and images, like many music videos. But unfortunately this is not what I look for in a feature film.


This film is a surprise from many points of view - the greatest is that the cast is virtually all over 65 as am I. I was appalled to see how most of them have aged. Especially Cannon who seems to be plastic surgeon-ed out of her face - but that is beside the point. They all do a good acting job and I still - the next day - feel quite a bit about the film, as you can see. It is worth the price and the story line is not bad at all but there are a few empty spots without explanation, which might have been avoided. There is a little silliness - but that's OK. Growing old, as they say, is not for sissies and this film shows how much effort goes into just keeping a simple romantic relationship aflame after a certain age. I liked the film but did not love it. I did love the age of the actors. More, please.


I'm only 23 but I know a good deal about movies. How could someone sit down and write this screenplay? I'd be so ashamed of myself. I don't know where they found these actors either. I thought this was a parody or something when I watched it. I almost felt bad for the people who helped make this movie. I can't believe someone would put their name on the credits. And why is this rated R? I watched it on encore, I don't think they swear or anything.

This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I wouldn't recommend this cheesy movie to anybody. DON"T WATCH IT!

- BriStanley


The East Side Kids vs. Bela Lugosi. The East Side Kids a group of "lovable and funny" juvenile delinquents are sent to a camp to help straighten them out. There also happens to be a killer roaming the country (called "The Monster") right near where the camp is. Around this time Bela with his companion (midget Angelo Rossitto) move into a spooky old house near the camp. The Kids end up in the house and strange things start to happen. Could Bela be the Monster?

Pathetic. There's no real story and things are never fully explained at the end. Lugosi gives this his all but there's nothing for the poor guy to work with. It's real sad to see him reduced to doing crap like this. The East Side Kids aren't as annoying as I thought they would be but none of their jokes are funny (I groaned aloud at a few of them). Nice to see Rossitto but there's no reason for him to be in this--he doesn't even have a word of dialogue! Running about 60 minutes this is at least an hour too long. Boring, senseless and unfunny.

I give it a 4 for Lugosi and some of the East Side Kids WERE kind of engaging.


Although the Bowery Boys are (say it isn't true!) starting to grow on me, and I had somewhat high hopes for Spooks Run Wild, because you never know what will happen when Bela Lugosi is on the scene. Unfortunately the 'Running Wild' portion of the title can be aptly used to describe the movie, because this just goes all over the place, and uses weak excuses to justify it's actions. When the boys are on their way to Juvvie camp for getting into trouble, they stop in a town overnight. Also happening to be in this town are a mysterious stranger (Lugosi) and his, uh, midget friend, who everyone is convinced is some sort of monster killer but don't bother to do anything about it. The kids are stuck in Lugosi's creepy house, and basically silly situation after silly situation transpires, without any logic or reasoning building up to a ridiculous conclusion that, if you were casually paying attention, you could have easily picked up from the start.


In a plot patterned after 1940's "Boys of the City"; Leo Gorcey (as Muggs), Bobby Jordan (as Danny), Huntz Hall (as Glimpy), Ernest "Sunshine Sammy" Morrison (as Scruno), Donald Haines (as Skinny), and David Gorcey (as Peewee) slip away to a spooky old country estate, after getting in trouble with the law. This time "The East Side Kids" meet a Dracula-like host - menacing Bela Lugosi (as Nardo). Naturally, the "Kids" think Mr. Lugosi is the "The Monster Killer" threatening the area. And, if you saw him dematerialize, you'd think so, too

*** Spooks Run Wild (10/24/41) Phil Rosen ~ Leo Gorcey, Bobby Jordan, Bela Lugosi


I've often joked in the past about some people's boundless (my words) affection for the later incarnations of The Dead End Kids but, actually, this and GHOST ON THE LOOSE (1943) are my first encounters with them. So, what's the verdict, then? Simple: their shtick is more tolerable when taken in smaller doses as was the case in DEAD END (1937) and ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES (1938).

This is instantly forgettable stuff and I can't see it having much rewatchability value in the future...especially since Bela Lugosi turns out to be a good guy after all! Didn't he learn his lesson with MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (1935)?


I just couldn't find it in myself to be even the slightest bit touched or intrigued by this movie.It's plain ridiculous,poorly made(no one has to add it had a tight budget,that's pretty obvious) and lacks nerve. The basic plot is based on the average conspiracy theory,a man living a seemingly good and fulfilling life with a well-paid job,pretty wife and a roomy,probably pricey apartment suddenly realize nothing is what he believed it was. After a particularly traumatic incident at work,he takes the day after off to recuperate. Then things happen,in short.He must solve the mystery,do something,escape,find out what's going on.Voices appear to be talking to him from inside his head,manipulating him to consider actions he never dreamed of performing.Who's behind this? Or is he just becoming mentally ill?Well...I don't know what else to say about it.I just found myself sneering when watching it,no shivers,tension or excitement whatsoever. Can't recommend it to anyone looking for something else than a good laugh,well maybe if you're suffering from insomnia and the pills your doc prescribed won't work.I can appreciate a good B-movie,but this just isn't.


Director Barry Levinson would have done well to heed the old line that if you are going to go up to the bell, ring it. Levinson flirts many times with themes much larger than this small film, but he never stays with them.

The vapidity of celebrity, the seedy death of Hollywood, even indications of the descent into madness all are brought up but are not followed through. And flashes of brilliance throughout the film are forgotten as the credits roll because of the cheap Hollywood ending.

Levinson certainly had a capable cast. Joe Pesci, Victoria Abril (in a rare English-first roll), and an astonishingly effective performance by Christian Slater are wasted as this film runs from theme to theme but never focuses long enough to flesh out the thoughts. Even the comedy becomes sporadic in the latter half of the film.

This is worth a rental just to see how a potentially good movie about Hollywood is damaged by its conventions.


This is the type of movie actors appear in when they're trying to revive their dead in the water "career". Something Joe Pesci and Christian Slater should not have to resort to.

Pesci and Slater are outstanding actors and should have known better than to accept these roles. This film takes away from their real talent. The script is too reminiscent of Slaters' film "Pump Up the Volume." I was grateful to see this film for free on local television rather than renting it or God forbid, paying to sit in a theater with no hope of escape.

If IMDb doesn't like these type of reviews- then maybe they shouldn't have this option available -after reading guidelines-.


I have to wonder if the folks who are praising this film to the skies have ever read the book. I am not a Jane Austen purist - if I were, I could not say that the Root/Hinds version of Persuasion was my favorite Austen adaptation, which it is. This is Patricia Rozema's Mansfield Park, NOT Jane Austen's.

First, Rozema gives us a feisty, spirited Fanny Price, who tells off Aunt Norris and Sir Thomas, who accepts Henry Crawford's proposal, and then rejects it the next day (a la JA herself with Harris Bigg-Wither). In this MP, Sir Thomas deserves to be "told off." He is portrayed as a lecherous "dirty old man," who leers at Fanny and Mary Crawford throughout the film.

We have all heard about the additions Rozema made to the film. She deals with the slavery issue in a very heavy-handed way, beating us over the head with it whenever possible. Tom Bertram is not the empty-headed fop he is in JA's book; here he is just as much an abolitionist as Fanny, and it is his sketchbook filled with incriminating drawings of Sir Thomas abusing the slaves in Antigua that Fanny finds. In fact, Rozema's take on Tom is rather bizarre; in the book, his arguments with his father center around his irresponsibility and his profligacy. In the film, while Sir Thomas tries to scold his son for these faults, Tom takes him to task for his activities in Antigua. What I found odd was that, if Tom is such an abolitionist, why would he be so free and easy with money tainted by the slave trade?

Rozema left out what I consider to be some very important people and scenes. William Price and the Grants are nowhere to be seen; as a result, there is no amber cross bought with prize money, no distress over which chain to wear to the ball, no one to accompany Fanny to Portsmouth. Fanny's dislike and distrust of Henry are never fully explained. We never get to see the outing to Sotherton and, while we do see Maria flirting relentlessly with Henry, we never see him playing one sister off against the other. Fanny's disapproval of the theatricals is never explained either. In Rozema's version, it seemed as if Fanny was simply not invited to be in the play, instead of being unalterably opposed to it. The scene with Fanny playing Anhalt to help Mary Crawford rehearse is also completely wrong. Mary starts caressing Fanny, while Edmund watches with his eyes almost popping out of his head. So, instead of Edmund giving in and joining the play in order to spare his family the embarrassment of publicity, we are left with the impression that he takes on the role of Anhalt just so that he can justify having Mary run her hands all over him.

Next, we have the scenes at Portsmouth. Here, we have Henry sending Fanny a display of fireworks and doves, and then we see her accepting his proposal and sealing the bargain with some less-than-chaste kisses - in public, no less! The (in)famous sex scene between Maria and Henry takes place at Mansfield Park rather than in London and, because Rozema has played with JA's chronology of events, Fanny is already back from Portsmouth, and it is she who catches them in the act. Edmund is present for the aftermath, where Maria tries to defend her actions.

Another thing that galled me no end is that Mary Crawford's defense of her brother's actions is done in person, at Mansfield Park. She is patronizing towards all concerned, including Sir Thomas, who has finally stopped leering by this point. The newspaper item announcing Maria and Henry's behavior to the world is read by Fanny, and the culprits' full names are used, which is also not the way it happened in the book.

A couple of people walked out about 1/3 of the way through the screening I attended, and several others walked out just as the credits began. The Wishbone versions of Pride & Prejudice and Northanger Abbey resemble the source material more than this trash does. Shame on you Ms. Rozema, shame on you!


As a romantic comedy, this is a good film. The acting is fairly good - particularly Johnny Lee Miller, who makes an excellent Edmund. But the story is not that of Jane Austen's wonderful novel. The Fanny Price of the novel is a delicate wallflower, intelligent and warm but extremely timid. In the film, she's feisty and strong-willed, independent and almost rebellious. Fanny Price is not confident and witty; she is shy and thoughtful. This "new" Fanny may fit modern sensibilities, but I was severely disappointed; by completely altering the main character, the whole story seems different. I should very much like to see an adaptation of the novel that remains as faithful to the book as the BBC's excellent mini-series version of Pride and Prejudice (the Colin Firth / Jennifer Ehle version) or Emma (with Kate Beckinsale, not the Gwynneth Paltrow version). If you want a romantic movie, go for it. But if you're an Austen fan, you might want to stay clear.


The location shooting at Kirby Hall is symptomatic of the film - an impressive looking shell, with nothing inside it.

Mansfield Park is Austen's sharpest and subtlest satire, leavened with some splendid comedy characters. This however seems to have passed completely over the makers, who have provided us instead with an admittedly prettily photographed film that conveys nothing of the book. It's difficult of course to compress it into the space of two hours, but at least they might have tried. As it is the plot is sadly garbled; I doubt that anyone who had not read the book (or at least a synopsis of it) would make head or tail of what was going on, and anyone who has read the book would be completely baffled by the cavalier discarding of key elements of the book. What is unmistakably a 20th century cast with 20th century manners dresses up and romps through it as a bodice ripper, completely missing the point that it's meant to be a study of social power structures breaking down in 18th century England. I found myself with a finger on the fast forward butting, wanting the cast to get out of the way of the scenery.


For half or two-thirds of its length, I thought this a fair enough movie. True, it's a poor telling of the novel, bits from which are stuck together without the structure of it being clearly conveyed or, apparently, recognized. Also true, it's filled with bad theatrical ideas, such as combining the heroine of the novel with Austen herself (and then casting the role with an actress who can play neither one). And also true, it's played less like an Austenian social comedy than like a half-baked version of Tom Jones. All these things notwithstanding, up to a point it's entertaining enough. (However, "enough" here means, as always in this usage, not quite enough. Halfway through the movie, not seeing much I recognized on screen, I turned to the novel, and found one paragraph of it more involving, amusing, and wise than everything in the movie rolled together. But let that pass.)

Then came the Social Significance - as if Austen's novels were not full of social significance. Evidently the adapter disliked the nineteenth century, and Austen, and set out to show them up for what they were. I pretended to miss the insinuation of her father's having molested her and her sister--there being no other interpretation to be placed on the looks exchanged between the two of them and their mother when he gives Fanny a hug. But then Fanny turns up an album of atrocity pictures showing what her (almost) foster father, his son, and his crew were really getting up to with their slaves.

This exceeds allowable bounds. Such a device might be imposed on Fielding, or on Dickens, without betraying the author's purpose too far; but not Austen. It obliterates the story, or what's left of it. In the face of rapes and beatings and tortures, who gives a fig whether Miss Price and her Reverend get together? Yet the comedy of manners continues galumphing along as if the scene had never happened. Having forced it in, the adapter makes no changes in the narrative to accommodate it. This is film-making for MTV watchers, i.e. patients with short-term memory loss.

Ah - the adapter might counter - but that's just the point! The characters act as if these horrors didn't exist! To which I would reply: if she felt, reading the novel, that the squire was just the kind of man who would have done that sort of thing, white European male pig that he was, and that Austen (owing to her famous ignorance of human nature, which causes her books to continue to be read two centuries later) was too much of a booby to see it, whereas the adapter's own superior sensibility makes all things manifest, she might at least have done Fanny the justice of having her react to the discovery as she would have, given her character. The story turns on her absolute moral rectitude and her rejection of the amorality represented by the Dangerous Liaisons characters. In the face of the dark deeds of which she becomes aware, her denunciation of the others becomes itself amoral and hypocritical, for she has silently acquiesced in the viciousness of her class.

This conclusion must be extrapolated, since it is nowhere stated in the film, the adapter not having troubled to stir in the muck she has tossed into the pot. But I can't help wondering, if her object was to discredit Fanny, as well as the monsters around her--if she had so little use for the character as that--why did she choose to do this book?


Had Rozema given this story a new title, introduced the characters with original names, I don't believe that anyone would have suspected it had somehow originated from Jane Austen's appraised novel, Mansfield Park. It would have spared her the resentment I am sure that many others share with me towards her.

I was perfectly disgusted by this rendition of Jane Austen's novel. I cannot believe that Patricia Rozema could have had any love for the book to create a story so blatantly ignorant of its origin.

The characters, which were distorted beyond recognition, had no constancy as they were rapid-fired from scene to scene, without direction and without guide.

Had Rozema at least had the decency to pace the story as it should have been, to select lines from the book which did serve as character-building stepping stones, and given Fanny the goodness, the gentility and submissiveness she carried through-out the novel, I could have looked less harshly on this film.

I was also furious at Lady Bertram's opium addiction, at Mary Crawford's hints at lesbian tendencies, at Sir Thomas Bertram's motives and dealings in Antigua, and the complete unnecessary, though brief, nude scene with Maria Bertram and Henry Crawford. These were completely out of place and did not contribute to the story in the least.

Altogether a great disappointment and a poor introduction for those who have never read Jane Austen's novels or seen the other (more faithful) theatrical adaptations to her stories.


Jane Austen rolls in her grave every time this movie is played. The film adapts the story into a dark, sexualized drama meant to attract the attention of today's oversexed audience, but the success of previous Austen adaptations should have been an indication that this is not necessary. Mansfield Park adds in a least common denominator in order to appeal to a modern viewer, but this modern view just turned it off.

Horrible!!


Although I know better than to expect a "pure" adaptation of a novel when Hollywood gets hold of it, I was nevertheless unprepared for the horrible mangling this novel received at the hands of the screenwriter. Having immensely enjoyed recent renderings of "Sense and Sensibility," "Emma," and various versions of "Pride and Prejudice," I expected to receive similar enjoyment from this film. I had not read any reviews or advance press before watching it. I had, unfortunately, just read the book itself this summer and it was fresh in my mind. In my opinion this is the WORST rendition of a Jane Austen work I have ever seen. Perhaps if I had never read the book, I might have enjoyed it somewhat more, but to me it was unbearable to see a book I thoroughly enjoyed so completely rewritten. I am astonished at the comments of some of the reviewers here opining that Jane Austen would have approved. Poppycock!

I began to feel sick early on. To me, the character of Fanny Price and other major characters bore as much resemblance to Jane Austen's heroine as Danny Devito bore to Arnold Schwarzenegger in "Twins." The entire invention of Fanny as a budding writer, the deletion of her younger brother who was so important in the plot concerning Henry Crawford, the image of Fanny as somewhat outspoken and rebellious, the depiction of Fanny's aunt as an opium addict and her uncle as a brutish, raping slaveowner.... The list goes on and on. Henry and Maria being caught by Fanny in the house, Fanny voluntarily kissing Henry and agreeing to marry him and then retracting. Ugh!

I really detest writers who want to mold everything in the modern vein. Fanny Price was not a modern heroine, but she fit her time. There was far too much PC propaganda and feminist hogwash which you might expect in a movie about our society but is ridiculous set against Fanny's time. She was devout, loyal, quiet, humble, stubborn only in her keen perception of others' character as measured against her conviction of what was good and what was not, possessing an innate strength of character which did not rely on others' perception of her and which she refused to compromise. Jane Austen would not have approved of this new Fanny for precisely this reason: her Fanny did not care about the "new" conventions of moral thought and permissiveness in her own society. The movie downplayed the seriously flawed characters of Henry Crawford and his sister. It portrayed him far too sympathetically, made it appear that he truly and deeply loved Fanny and seemed to blame Fanny's (non-existent) double-mindedness for his downfall.

All in all, this is an extremely disappointing film if one cares about what was really written in Mansfield Park. I think "Clueless" as a modern version of "Emma" (and which I also enjoyed) is more true to Austen than this let-down of a movie.


SPOILERS INCLUDED BELOW I truly can't understand why the writer/director of this adaptation felt it was necessary to inject a lot of politically loaded topics into a classic novel about a strong-minded woman who is willing to accept the consequences of an unpopular choice.

The addition of lesbian overtones, drug use and images of slaves being raped and tortured really didn't add a thing to the story. Such images don't modernize the central story -- in fact they distract from it. Nor do these deviations from the original book expand our understanding of the characters in any significant way.

What is the point of making Sir Thomas Bertram into a lecherous creep? Austen's depiction of him as a well-intentioned but misguided man who has been absent from his own household so much that he has no idea what his family is about, is frankly more believable and more universal in its appeal.

Likewise I can't see what purpose was served by turning Lady Bertram into an opium addict. It's enough that she's just silly... we've all known someone just as empty-headed as the character Austen created.

Some of the casting is brilliant, but this version of the novel is ridiculously overwrought and heavy-handed. If you're going to try "improving" a great writer like Austen, you'd better have some great stuff to offer. This writer/director is no Austen.


at the rating of this film as well as the overwhelmingly positive messages on the board. I've even read some that claimed that this was a "great adaptation" of Austen's novel! I have one question...has ANYONE here read the novel at ALL? For that matter, did the screenwriters read the book? The director? The ACTORS? First, allow me to acknowledge that MP is the most sexual of Austen's books, dealing with Edmund's purely physical attraction to Mary, Fanny's rather incestuous love of Edmund (yes, I know that it was not strange to marry one's cousins in that time period, but her fraternal and romantic feelings are rather mixed up), the whole thing with Maria and Henry, and Mary's outward acknowledgment of it - she insists that the only way to get Henry to marry Maria is to let them keep living together, at which suggestion Edmund is properly horrified.

However, Fanny Price was never, at any time in the book, witty, sharp-tongued, or sarcastic. She was clever and affectionate, but mild-mannered, sweet, and cripplingly shy. In fact, it's specifically stated in the book that Henry's persistence is due to Fanny's mildness and sweetness of manner, which makes her seem reluctant to refuse him. Not to mention that she was NINE YEARS OLD when she first got to Mansfield. Austen was fond of Fanny - she is the only heroine to whom the authoress refers to as her own ("my Fanny") - but she was not meant to be a representation of Austen herself. From all letters and descriptions written by her family and friends, she appears to have been nearer to Elizabeth and Jane of Pride and Prejudice.

I have no idea of the entertainment value of this movie, as I was too paralyzed with horror at what they had done to one of the most carefully-nuanced, well-written works in the English language by turning it into a disgusting farce. Bleargh. I'd give the movie a zero, but IMDb won't let me.


I was sadly disappointed in this adaptation of a delightful Austen classic. Although the storyline loosely follows the book, many of the most important scenes were left out of the movie. What's worse, the heart and soul of the book (Fanny Price's shining character) is not portrayed well in the movie. At times, Fanny is fickle, indecisive, brash, and disrespectful, the complete opposite of the literary Fanny's character. Still, any movie based on an Austen novel cannot be all bad. If you haven't read Mansfield Park, or if you are not an Austen purist or accustomed to her superior style, you may enjoy it. Otherwise, expect to be dissatisfied with this film.


For anyone who is a true Jane Austen fan, this is a terrible adaptation. It looks good, but the character of Fanny has been totally rewritten to appeal to the modern woman's idea of a good heroine. This film's Fanny is feisty and challenging. Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! In Austen's novel, Fanny is true to herself, but is a quiet fearful person who dreads change. While this may not be an interesting focal point for today's audience, the character's immobility is intentional. Fanny represents England at a time of great uncertainty. Internally, the monarchy had been compromised by years of George III's insanity and his sons' frivolity. Externally, the Napoleonic wars were threatening Europe. England, like Fanny, was searching for stability and familiarity in a changing world. This film totally undermines its source.

If you watch this movie, enjoy the costumes and the scenery. Don't be fooled into thinking, however, that this production has anything to do with Jane Austen's "Mansfield Park". There ought to be a disclaimer on the box warning viewers that this is "an adaptation loosely based on 'Mansfield Park'". This version does Jane no credit.


It's apparent to me that director/writer Patricia Rozema never decided what genre to use for this film as she's all over the place. The end result is a mass of confusion which attempts to focus on Jane Austen's book "Mansfield Park", biographical sketches of Jane Austen herself, as well as an historical look back at black slavery issues simultaneously and doing none justice. As if all this wasn't bad enough, Rozema couldn't even decide what time period she wanted to use for the movie. It's not just major flaws in the script which has the various characters expressing themselves in ways which would have been much more appropriate for a character of today but also the costumes are all wrong. Many of the characters just seem to exist. As a viewer, I find little character development to make me care one way or the other about most of the cast of characters in this film. Even the leading female and male characters in the film seem lost among the others due to a lack of contrast. Worst of all is the most unimaginative use of narration that I can recall seeing in any film to date. Although this was meant to serve as a transition between scenes and to move the plot along, it fails miserably. There also seems to be a large amount of indistinguishable dialogue in this film that was not intentional. It wasn't until I watched this film with the director's comments which had the actor's dialogue in captions that I even understood what was being said in some scenes despite the fact that I had tried repeated playbacks. They must have have some audio problems. Music for this film was too loud in places and poorly chosen. Speaking of director's comments: Her primary motivation for making this film (according to what she said on the film's DVD version) was a scene which which utilized sexually explicit and violently graphic pen and ink drawings of slaves. Huh? For a Jane Austen film? Yes! Hear the comments yourself in the DVD version.


A misconceived effort to 'update' Austen. Embarrassingly overt sexual and political subtexts leer at you from every place the filmmaker could cram them in against the sense of the book. The acting is quite good, especially O'Conner and Pinter, but much of the production design and soundtrack seems a rip from the excellent 'Remains of the Day'. The worst is that there is nothing literary left - not the first time a director's agenda betrays that they just don't get why literature exists in the first place. Try 'Persuasion' instead, and after that ANY of the other contemporary Austen adaptations.


This movie inspires feelings of disgust in me; it does not stay true to the novel, and contains offensive elements which have been added by the writers of the script. Sir Thomas is turned into some kind of a sick pervert. I felt like vomiting after seeing this movie.


I was flipping through the channels when i stumbled upon this movie. I decided that I needed some time to kill so I watched the movie. When it was finally finished I had mixed feelings about the movie. At times i felt bored and confused. The movie in my opinion doesn't really stay true to the novel. But whateva. 4/10


Normally the sight of carriages and bonnets on the screen has me heading for the nearest exit. To my surprise then, I found this to be a well-crafted and entertaining film.

True some liberties were taken with the literary source (don't films always), and O'Connor wasn't quite strong enough for the lead role. However this was a film that dared to be different, and was even almost a cutting-edge costume drama.


"The Undead" has all the trademarks of a Corman film. It's got "sensational" themes, cheap sets, highly stylized and overripe Elizabethan dialog, a plot with severe Attention Deficit Disorder, and "B" to "Z" level actors trying hard to maintain their dignity in a thankless situation. If you were to tune into this by accident 30 minutes in, without a glance at a program guide or knowing anything about the plot or the actors, you'd be able to say "Corman" within 30 seconds.

Speaking of the actors, the performances here are what the movie seems to call for. The major exception is the weird angry burst of energy from the time traveler near the end of the movie when he tells the heroine to "STAY!!!!!". It's like watching an outbreak of dramatic Tourette's syndrome.

I don't have a problem with complicated plots and esoteric concepts like time travel, past life regression, romantic triangles and witchcraft. But Corman can't even come close to pulling this ambitious story off in a setting of a kingdom with maybe 12 people in it and a scope of action smaller than most British bedroom farces. Especially when the plot substitutes sheer movement and scenery change for intrigue and story arc, which makes the movie an exercise in padding. Once the hero (Sir Gullible) found his wronged romantic love for the first time, all he had to do was to put her on his horse with him and ride out of the 10-acre kingdom for 24 hours...and the middle 2/3rds of the movie would have been completely unnecessary. I'm pretty sure that Corman and the screenwriter were hoping the viewer didn't think of that.

Of course, then the movie would have been 30 minutes long and had a simple happy ending. This kind of plotting is emblematic of the reason that Corman would never be more than a "Z" level director - good basic plot ideas, but no commitment to getting the details right or making them urgent and convincing.

The movie also apparently thinks we are all morons. The big dramatic choice at the climax is obvious once it is stated - and it's a nice, chewy one where the heroine has to choose between living out her life and having her future selves never come into being, or else meeting her destined fate of an early death and sending her "soul" onto to its future incarnations. The implications of her dilemma and her eventual decision should have been in the actress' eyes and bearing. (Meryl Streep could have pulled it off, no problem); and this actress does seem to have a few chops herself (for a Corman cast member). BUT instead the screenplay bludgeons us over the head with the dilemma for at least five minutes with all the cast members telling her what she should do. And then the time traveler bursts in with his weird and inappropriate "STAY!!!!!" comment and completely distracts the viewer from the drama of the choice that the heroine must make.

In the movie's defense, the "twist" at the end is a bit eerie and unsettling, and the "Devil's" final words to the time traveler have a nice Faustian/Marlowe ring to them. That adds at least one star to the rating.

Also in its favor, the two "babes" do look smashing in their costumes, even if most of the men look completely ridiculous and uncomfortable in their leotards and armor and whatnot.

Billy Barty is in this. He plays an "imp". Barty gives the most generic "imp" performance I've ever seen in my life. It's as if he was reading from the Big Golden Book of Acting under the chapter titled "Smirking,Gesturing And Being Short: Your Best Tools for Impdom."

MSTs coverage of this was some of their best work, but a viewer can find plenty to poke fun at in this movie without their help, if that's what suits them. Ambitous enough, but definitely one of Corman's lesser efforts.


Sure this is cheap, and sure the whole enterprise hangs on two pairs of costumed breasts. The devil. Time travel through hypnosis. Some very puzzling and complex causal mechanics, if you actually pay attention.

Corman tries to make sense, which is why In these sorts of things I always prefer Franco.

A woman is hypnotized and sent back in time. Ancient witchcraft intermingles with modern witchcraft, both represented by sexually open women. Two men "observe" and one goes back in time as well. The devil himself gets involved.

There's lots of interesting stuff here if you are a watcher  a few things about us as watchers both being in the thing watched and twisting the mechanics of what happens. Its a noir thing, that notion of the world bending to be interesting for the viewer and harming people in that world.

So you may find it mildly interesting. But really, if you are at all interested in this you'd do better with Jess Franco.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.


Through hypnosis, a woman is able to visit a previous life where she is to be put to death for being a witch  a charge of which she is innocent. But if she is able to change her fate and avoid the executioner's ax, what will that mean for her future? How will changing history affect the present?

Come on people! While The Undead does present a few interesting ideas and a couple of entertaining moments, it's not worthy of the praise it has received in many of the reviews on IMDb. I started to think that maybe all these people watched a different movie. The Undead is a low-budget Roger Corman quickie that's just not very good regardless of what Leonard Maltin thinks. I just don't get it. When one of the most positive aspects of the film I can think of is the fit of Allison Hayes' outfits, you can get a good idea of my thoughts on the movie. My 4/10 is incredibly generous.


Brilliant.

Nothing less suffice. I guess I have seen about 70 MST3K films over the years, and this has to be the best. Stuff like "Future War" and "Outlaw of Gor" came close, but the quality of the jokes - and the sheer volume of them - makes this an almost non-stop laugh.

Also worth mentioning is that Mike and the bots laugh and snicker a lot more of their own gags along the way so you really get the impression that they enjoyed doing this more than others. This cannot help but make you laugh a bit more as well. Also the gags are quick to comment on the stuff that you, as a b-movie fan, spot yourself. Those are the best gags in my opinion.

The movie itself is suffering from mediocre acting, lack of extras and limited sets/locations - but knowing how the movie was filmed and that the budget was so limited (see trivia about the movie) then nonetheless a good effort - but not the director's best.

So on my scale with about 1400 films in the bag that would be a 4, since it at least progresses somewhat coherent and you get the overall idea. Also, only a handful of bad cuts. For the MST3K version it would be far up the other end of the scale. Go see it!


Okay, I know that my one line summary might give the impression that this film isn't half bad but don't be fooled, it's absolute rubbish. It's just that after watching films like 'Hobgoblins' and that pumaman nonsense this doesn't seem that bad. It's all about this scientist who, using deep hypnosis, manages to actually send his subject, a very thin woman, back in time. Why, we're not really told though I assume it's for the furtherance of science. There follows a series of badly filmed, badly scripted, usually unconnected scenes involving the time-travelling woman, a 'hero' (A loose term I know), a couple of witches, an imp and a mad (Or just confused) gravedigger fond of singing. It truly is terrible, watching the fight scenes prove this undeniably, but the acting isn't always grade z, though it is so stereotypical you'll want to throw your head back and laugh. Heartily. Why did the bad witch need to cut that guys head off? How bad was the acting of the imp? And where did all those town folk come from?? All these questions and more will not be answered no matter how many times you watch this film. Have fun.


Yes of all the things to notice about the flick the one that stood out for me is the fact the set had to be really small. When ever the characters went anywhere in the movie it seemed they only had to go a couple of steps to get there. Enough of that though I have a movie to review. This movie is a about two researchers and their attempt to send a prostitute back into one of her former lives. They suceed and she ends up as this gal who is imprisoned in the Tower of Death which strangely enough seems to have only one floor. She is accused of being a witch and must die. She escapes with the help from her future self and this messes everything up so that maybe her future self won't live. It gets even more jumbled by the end with one of the researchers going back to that time to...he really doesn't need to, but I guess he just wanted to check it out. Billy Barty appears in this one as an imp and you will meet the most annoying grave digger ever. Also, watch for the good looking evil witch who can change into muliple things. Not much to recommend here, unless you watch the MST 3000 version of this flick. One thing I did learn is that you can't take your clothes with you to the past, but you can take your watch apparently.


Curses on you, Corman! Any fan of MST3K has had to watch far too many of your dreadful snooze-fests. Boring, gray, horrible messes of films, with you trying to get intellectual(and generally failing). The only thing that stands out in most of your schlock is that the women tend to be intelligent and/or kick-ass. Gotta give ya that, if nothing else.

In the Undead, an idiot paranormal researcher hypnotizes a a hooker and sends her back into her own past life, as a young woman accused of being a witch in the Middle Ages. Actually, it looked like the hooker just attended a Ren Fest instead, and one with only about seven other people attending it. The scenes in the 'past' play out like Shakespeare on acid, and the cut scenes back to the 'present' are like trying to read Dostoyevski all in one sitting.

The hooker manages to help her 'past self' escape from the cardboard..err.stone tower that she's being held prisoner in. Outside on the one set, she encounters a gravedigger who makes Hamlet's look like a sane guy in comparison. She also encounters all six of the other Ren folk, including an old hag who's REALLY a witch; a beautiful young witch in service of the devil who can change her form and is out to steal the accused witch's boyfriend; an imp played with great joie de vivre by Billy Barty; said boyfriend, the dreary and uninteresting knight(what these two saw in him I don't know); and, of course, Satan. Satan in this one looks like he just escaped from a Broadway musical, so camp is he.

It turns out that the idiot researcher has managed to screw up the hooker's life even more than it was, since if the might-be witch lives instead of being executed, she'll not re-incarnate and none of her future lives will take place. Good job, dummy. Anyhoo, he finds a way to go into his own past, or her's, I wasn't really sure on that point. If it was his, it's pretty convenient that they both lived in the same time and place, no? he has to convince the girl to go tamely to her execution, which after spending some time with her boyfriend she decides would be a good thing. She goes under the headsman's axe, the boyfriend killed the shape changing witch(he's gotta be gay), and there's another puzzling cut scene of the pansyish Satan mouthing off about Hell(or something). End of another great Corman film, and the end of yet another few of my brain cells.


This film has one of the most odd concepts I've ever seen. At one point, Quintus,(the hero)is so distraught over the loss of Helen, (the witch) that he tries to rent his soul to Satan. This proposition was so stultifying, it left me speechless. It also seemed to stump the devil as well.


I have never allowed the hype surrounding Roger Corman's alleged "genius" to cloud my perceptions of his work. Most of his 50's movies are really awful; their cheapness and speed of production is the only reason they got released, to fill the double and triple features of drive-ins for the teenagers who weren't watching anyway. He improved marginally in the 60's but remained more concerned about exploitation than creation. "The Undead" is a perfect example of the former (50s) period. It is goofy, stupid, illogical, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly staged...you name it. Face it - the emperor has no clothes; that is, Corman stinks.


This movie was awful, although I have seen some worse movies before. The Imp is the most annoying character even though he is supposed to be the most lovable. The witch is fairly attractive and the rest of the characters are really annoying. For example, the madman whom continuously points out that he's mad. And the knight in shining armor whom fights like a sissy and trusts everyone right away. But like I said, there have been worse movies.


Whew! I've heard some rather positive reviews of this movie but it is not a good movie.

The plot concerns a hypnotist (or psychical researcher according to the movie) who hypnotizes a woman into reliving a past life which involves knights, imps, and witches. That screws up stuff in the past for some reason so somehow he follows her back in time to fix things. How exactly this happens is beyond my knowledge.

This movie has mistakes, incredibly stupid dialog, and one of the most illogical plots of all time. Worst of all...no zombies or undead creatures of any kind!

Still, it's a campy, goofy movie good for a laugh or two. Look for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version.


The Undead is a very silly piece of melodrama from Roger Corman. The plot is concerned with a time travelling doctor who regresses his street walking patient back to a time of witches, imps, dumb knights, fey fights, and singing gravediggers. Listening to Smolkin belt out his rhymes is funny. Watching this strange film on MST is even better. They point out things like how come Pendergon trusts everyone right off the bat? They also point out that Quintis has become rather smug toward the end of the movie. If you think that you can't survive this movie, I've just got one word for you, STAY!!!!! At least if you're watching this on MST.


I live in a weird world where someone can give this movie 10 stars. IMDb has failed. Right now it has a 6.6 - that is a failure of the rating system. I gave it a chance because of that rating and it has a good cast. But everything is bad. The dialogue, the acting, the over-the-top scenes, the directing. Everything. It's like a bad sitcom. It has that annoying bubbly music playing in the background to remind us it's a comedy. Everyone is a caricature, nobody is a real person. The dialogue is stuff no one would ever say in real life, that why it isn't funny. Things are funny when they strike at truths that you can relate to. This movie fails at that. It's just a bunch of stupid people saying stupid things. I gave it 3 stars because I had a few chuckles and Zooey is sweet but that's it.


I am all for a sweet, funny, touching independent film about a band of dysfunctional, quirky characters interacting but I felt that Eulogy fell flat, was uninspiring, was over the top and worst of all, was just not believable.

Someone dies. The whole family comes together as a result. Interactions and Hilarity and Drama ensue and the audience is supposed to be engrossed. This is nothing new and yet still had potential to be something great if the writing and acting and all the elements came together but they didn't and as a result, this movie was average at best.

If someone told me that there was going to be a sequel about this family and their hijinks, I would not watch b/c I don't care and THAT is the problem. I didn't find the characters endearing or likable at all except maybe Katie played by Zooey Deschanel who was the token normal one of the bunch. In fact, at times it seemed as though she was in a different movie since she was so laid back and sane and the characters around her were so over the top and cartoonish. I just didn't find the family interaction or characters believable - it's like each character was his or her own caricature of what a true character should be only not.

I wanted to get into this family and this movie. I wanted to care about these characters. I wanted to go on the journey with these characters as they rehashed the past and dealt with repressed demons BUT as I said above, I just didn't care one iota about them and I found the whole dynamic very manufactured. I was very aware at all times that these were actors trying to create a dynamic of a dysfunctional family. It just didn't work for me at all.

4/10 since there were some funny moments albeit over the top just like the characters and the dialogue in this movie.

Oh and be ready for some cheap jokes at lesbians' expense because apparently the movie is that sophisticated and smart (*snerk*) - many that can be see as offensive including the 10 year old mentality that girl + girl couple = hot lesbian action. Yes, it's that stupid.


Like a dog chasing it's tail this movie goes nowhere. Too many characters it becomes confusing, and eventually crashes into total silliness. This is NOT black comedy, it is idiotic try and be as strange as possible boredom. Constantly starting new angles and then somehow trying to tie a story together out of these disjointed fragments does not make for entertainment. Some of the characters were so uninteresting and boorish that they could have been written out entirely and actually improve the film by shortening it. Avoid at all costs even if it is in the cheap bin. It is a waste of time, talent, and celluloid. - MERK


My problem with this movie is that I expected it to be hilarious. With it's incredible cast how could it miss? But miss it did, badly. Hank Azaria? Piper Laurie? Debra Winger? Glenne Headly? Famke Janssen? Rip Torn? (not enough Rip) And Zooey Deschanel? In truth, I enjoyed all their performances; I disliked the dialog and direction. Almost everything seemed contrived at best and forced at worst. The surprises weren't very and the end could not come soon enough. The characters that were meant to irritate me did and most of the others did as well. As a survivor of a dysfunctional family, I enjoy DF comedies; this one seemed longer than my childhood.


Unlike Tom from Santa Monica (the other reviewer), I didn't read any newspaper reviews - I just sat through the first 45 minutes and couldn't take any more.

The actor Ray Romano was irritating in the extreme and the storyline totally unbelievable and unfunny. For example, a girl puts on a video which is of her mother in a sex movie, the doorbell rings and she doesn't want to answer it because the visitor is an old boyfriend, so she hides without turning off the video. Guess what happens. Ridiculous.

Example no. 2: a father is smoking a joint in his locked bedroom. His daughter knocks on the door and he tries to get rid of the smoke and upsets a flower pot on a bed. He then answers the door with the joint still in his mouth. So funny. Not. Truly an awful film.


Two Men Went To War is a based-on-fact WW2 story about a couple of disgruntled British Army dentists who decide to 'invade' France and cause havoc among the enemy. Purloining a load of hand-grenades, the pair go AWOL and travel down to Cornwall, where they steal a boat. Setting off for France in the dead of night, the sequence of shots features the hotel where they had stayed and the harbour they were departing - all picked out with 'practical' lights blazing through the hotel's windows and other bright lights strung all around the harbour walls! This, in wartime blackout Britain, on a coastline facing enemy-occupied France, in waters regularly patrolled by German e-boats! Another commenter in this section states that the lighting was authentic in that the Cornish locals at the time figured that as they had never been attacked before, there was no reason to assume that they ever would be attacked then or in the future. However, even is this is true, the script should have made reference to this hard to believe 'fact' in dialogue, simply because the situation was so unusual and would have breached the strictly enforced wartime regulations concerning the blackout. Usually in movies, such 'blackout lighting', considering a story's authenticity, would be restricted to moonlight effect only. Another oversight in the film is the lack of anti-shatter window tapes which criss-crossed every pane of glass in Britain during the war. It's hard to believe that this glaring error went unnoticed by cast and crew. I suspect someone in authority said, 'Oh, they'll never realise," and simply let it go.


Married Professor(Jeff Daniels) awakes from the only sleep we see, to find his wife missing. Only thing is, he's missing time, too. He's been severely sleep deprived before we even enter the scene and the wreckage that's been left behind is all we have to follow. It's an excruciating journey into a mind unraveling from a crime, too unbelievable and too horrific to be possible. The film also makes good comment on a Society so pill-laden, that the use of psycho-tropic drugs is common place and is used to deal with our day to day existence rather than with our real emotional selves. Our Professor, who, never leaves his downtrodden, filthy household is a representation of the stultifying damage that can occur during severe depression. And that the fragile thing that keeps us all connected, can be damaged, even if by only one other, in deep despair.


oh boy, what a bore! I mean when i go to the movie (which is quite often) and especially within the frame of a fantastic films festival i'll do my best to have a good time, i'll bury my expectations and critic sense as deep as i can. But this movie was really sooooo slow. The director fails to create an atmosphere, despite heavy use of the same gimmicks (tired look of the main character, phone or door bell ringing all the time, water dripping and medications). We did not feel concerned or interested in the story, two gory moments are out of place and seem grotesque rather than horrible, dialogs are flat, the main character is supposed to be some kind of a would-be poet but the lack of interest of his reflexions is only matched by the adolescent prose of his wife in her diary. Even the sexy scene is out of place and make us feel sorry for the actors. And then nothing happens and frankly who cares if he killed his wife or not. I suppose it won't get distributed in Europe anyway...


This movie was weird, twisted, and made little sense. Some scenes were too disturbing to even watch. The ending did not reveal any truths to me, only more mystery as to what on earth really happened. The young college girl was a pointless part of the story that did not even begin to seem like a subplot.


If you have insomnia and are wary about taking prescription medications, then this CLUNKER of film should do the trick! I rented this on the strength of imdb comments....I should know better when it comes to "psych thrillers" and "horror genres" that my taste doesnt reflect 3/4 of the population. I have no problem when a movie contains an ambiguous ending...BUT...when a director leaves the viewer without even THAT MUCH, the film then becomes a "so whats the point of the whole DAMN THING ANYWAY? I dont buy into the "art house" symbolism crowd either. The acting is okay, the directing is okay, but there isnt enough of a STORY, other than, did he or didnt he?....and if thats all the director was going for...then again I ask...SO WHAT? who CARES?.....and though I have no problems with sex scenes in a movie(as long as there is a reason for it) what was the point of this film to have a minor one....except to "just film a sex scene"...yeah, really original...If you like a story that goes ABSOLUTLEY NOWHERE, then CHASING SLEEP is for you....


Just one meaningless, inscrutable scene after another. I was quite confident that it would all come together in the end, which is why I was looking forward to its conclusion. There are several ways to interpret everything that was seen (almost none of which may have actually happened) but I wasn't able to come up with anything harmonious. So my consternation spiked when all I saw was a dark hole, and the credits rolled.

The main character has a lot of episodes which are clearly delusions, but then there are many rational-looking scenes some of which are contradicted by other rational-looking scenes.

Anyone who likes this movie cannot care one toss about the plot, since in the end, the only thing we can be sure of is that Jeff Daniels thinks therefore he is.


first, don't watch the trailer. it shows the end of the movie.

second, I think the comparisons to Lynch are dangerous, especially when Lynch has already made a movie about a guy who feels disconnected with his wife and the love they used to have, about a guy who finds himself down a bloody path, about a guy who finds himself in a really bad dream, indistinguishable from his reality...

Okay, I'll just say it straight out: Chasing Sleep is a farm-league Lost Highway. If you know someone who likes creepy psychological movies, but couldn't dig Lost Highway, they'll probably like Chasing Sleep. Spells out the main character's situation a bit more plainly. That's because the setting's plainer (the entire movie's in the man's house, a lifeless six-figure suburban hovel), the characters are plainer (especially against Lynch characters), and the plot is a lot simpler -- almost predictable.

There's a couple of familiar faces for TV junkies, but this movie rests squarely on Jeff Daniels' shoulders. He does alright as an Everyman on the breaking point; at least, I believed that he was spiritually exhausted throughout the picture. Given the story's setup and flavor, I think the hollowness of the other performances are intentional, avoiding the intimacy that might break this spell of solitude on the main character. Or the actors might have just had too little to work with.

Conclusions? the movie's slightly clever, some intriguing shots, still haven't figured out about the baby... But I can't watch this without thinking about Lost Highway, Vanilla Sky (Abre Los Ojos), or Dr Caligari, and what's already been done. Still, good enough for cable...


Jeff Daniels is excellent, but that's it. A surreal, dream-like thriller weaved together Jeff Daniels at the forefront providing a surprisingly mesmerizing performance. Wouldn't see it again, too bad the story could have been incredible if only some things could really add up.


Jeff Daniels, an ordinarily fine actor, is totally wasted is this plotless melodrama which was apparently written by someone who couldn't sleep. What passes for a plot starts with Daniels waking to find his wife missing. What happened to her? Did she run off with her lover, did Daniels kill her? Or did she just leave? Who cares?


"Chasing Sleep" is from the first minute it rolls over your screen a perfect and decent psychological thriller. We have an amazing and excellent acting "Jeff Daniels" as the leading role. A little unconventional role for his being but surprisingly enough it suits him perfect. The movie like I already wrote starts from the first second on when you hit the play button as a damn good quality thriller! While the movie takes off and creates minute by minute a perfect dark story it will take you at the same time on a ride onto that downwards spiral of loosing every inch of sanity a human being can possess. Also we have pretty weird scenes into the film such as the oversize baby in the bathtub, blood running out of tabs and toilets as very strange water stains on walls and ceilings. The plot line is based on the mysterious disappearance of his wife, what happened with her? This is the whole intention of the movie, the complete 89min of running time; "What happened to my wife?" Not only this question will pop up but so many more questions will arrive! And then we have the promised minute, the 90th minute of the running time and you're waiting for those answers, as for the biggest one of them all, "What happened too the wife?"

And you wait and,

and wait,

and wait,

and wait,

end credits pop onto your screen!

If not for such a big disappointment of an ending. Which is so mysterious and open that even the "Bermuda Triangle" would disappear in it, I would have giving it an 8 outa of 10. But this overall serious bummer of an open ending sucks so big time I bombarded the movie without any shame to a 1 outa 10. Did I miss something in the movie; do I need to give it a second view? Well I think I'm not able because I was so disappointed the first time. Can anybody maybe help me out? What did I miss, if I did miss something in the first place!

Dario/


This movie was horrible because I had no clue what was going on at any given moment. I bought this movie strictly because Julian McMahon starred in it and he was only in the movie for like five minutes which was very disappointing. I did look forward to his scenes, though which gave me some excitement. I did not understand the plot of the movie nor the ending. Jeff Daniels played a pretty decent part considering I paid more attention to Julian McMahon's little parts. I should have rented this movie first before I bought it. If you are looking for a lot of Julian McMahon scenes, don't buy this movie. He was only in two scenes in the entire movie and you hear his voice on the telephone once. Oh, and by the way, they misspelled Julian McMahon's name on the DVD cover. They spelled it MacMahon but at the end of the movie, they spelled it McMahon.


This movie is so stupid that I want my $2.99 back that I paid for!! First this movie starts off with a bunch of wooden actor geeks with fill in talent like they got picked off the street somewhere because the "real" actors either did not show up because of the laughable script or they just couldn't get anybody desperate enough to do this movie! The music in this movie is enough to put you to sleep, flute music made for faerie's dancing in the wilderness wouldn't even be good enough for this movie! And the guy dressed up as Satan looks like he's all dressed up in a K-Mart Halloween special costume! There are no dead scenes except a few lame scenes. When I saw what the terrible killers looked like in those bath robes with Nosferatu faces I just laughed! This is what the whole town is supposed to be running away from once a year! This movie is one of the worst demonic movies I have ever seen. Avoid this one!


This movie is... horrible and wonderful at the same time. I first saw it when I was about 13 or 14 years old, so it has a great deal of nostalgic value for me. In this movie, Cesar Romero actually plays the character of Octavio, the man who "discovered" Santana. There are also two other actors, Monte Markham (plays Sam, who is trying to save his daughter) and Peter Mark Richman (plays the priest), who have large filmographies, and these are the only performances that are okay. The rest of the acting and the movie itself have all of the B-film qualities that some of us cherish.

I recently spent 2 years trying to acquire a copy of this movie, and it is almost nonexistent. I am assuming that it was discontinued very shortly after its release. But I did eventually find a copy and paid a pretty penny to acquire it. If you happen to come upon Judgement Day in a video store (unmistakeable with a cheesy green "satan" on the cover), count yourself among the blessed who live near one of the few video stores that still has a working copy. A must see for those of you who like to laugh at cheesy attempts at a scary movie.


One or 2 good performances, but other than that this is total waste of time. Poorly directed with a totally predictable 'twist' ending that is thoroughly unsatisfying. In fact the only reason I am offering a review for this little mess is because of all the 'good' reviews. How people can be so taken in by this crap these days is beyond me. About the only thing interesting in this flick is when one of the young boys moons one of the others. The fact that none of the 'older' men looks a thing like his young counterpart doesn't help the confusion. It took me till almost the end of the movie to figure out which kid went with which adult, but then I cared so little about any of the characters that I didn't really bother to try. Oh, there is at least one other good thing about this. The fact that the murderer turns out to be a Catholic priest. At least that much is true. Now if they had only made him an alcoholic child molester as well, they would have gotten the character right.


The more that I watch of the 1970s New German Cinema (Das Neue Kino) the more manifest it becomes that, despite the usual namedropping of Wim Wenders, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, and Werner Herzog as a trio, it truly was only a one man movement, and Herzog is and was so far above and cinematically dominant over his two rivals that to speak of the lesser two in the same breath as Herzog is like mentioning the Gawain poet whilst going on of John Donne's or William Shakespeare's poetic skills.

This is abundantly clear in lightweight films like the 1980 pseudo-documentary Lightning Over Water, directed by Wenders- with a meaningless co-credit to his idol Nicholas Ray, whose death is central to the film, and who, along with Wenders, is credited as a co-writer. In a sense this equivalence is apropos, since Wenders and Ray are both, at best, second tier filmic talents. After Johnny Guitar and Rebel Without A Cause- the James Dean teenaged sudser, are there any real films of note that Ray directed? And, neither of the two films mentioned is anywhere near greatness. The only reason that this misshapen mess of a film was made was because Ray was something of an idol to Wenders, and dying of cancer, not long after the two men met filming The American Friend a few years earlier.

Yet, none of this camaraderie nor artistic affinity comes through in the film for we see only one brief movie clip, from Ray's Lusty Men, we get no background on Ray's life, and all we are subjected to, during the film's VERY LONG ninety minutes, is Ray's wheezing, hacking, spitting, whining, and assorted other bodily noises as he lies about, waiting to die, as Wenders narrates that this or that moment made him feel bad. Add to that conversations that are supposed to be 'real' yet are clearly not a part of the 'internal documentary,' and some poorly acted and staged scenes that are meant to illuminate the tale of Wenders' trip to Ray's bedside, while also trying and failing to break down narrative conventions, and you have a genuine disaster. The film was shot both in film and video, but this mixed media adds nothing of consequence to the meaning nor import of what it captures. I guess the video adds a bit of realism to Ray's decline, but the fact is that there really is nothing here besides such a minor addition. Let me sum up the film this way: imagine sitting at a funeral home and listening to strangers ramble on about the neighbors and old friends of a loved one that you know nothing about. And to top it off, the storytellers are dreadful at their craft, and furthermore never complete any of the tales. Worse, there is no connection to the audience for they are telling tales only they know anything about. Thus the viewer feels no empathy for Ray nor Wenders. Even more annoyingly, there are some shots that are so amateurish and badly composed that one has to wonder if Wenders deliberately screwed up his film to try to 'show' that he was so upset that he could not do his job properly; in a sense employing faux amateurism to try to cynically manipulate viewers into jerking tears over his dead friend.

Regardless of whether or not this is the case, in the end, all the manifestly feigned experimentalism is just dull. Not even some well composed shots of the bygone Twin Towers can elicit genuine emotional responses. Then comes the penultimate scene of Ray, near death, lecturing Wenders, who inexplicably is lying in bed in a fake hospital scene. This scene is just painful to watch, for Ray's out of his mind and merely rambling. Wenders shows this for seven minutes and the result is borderline pornography, full exploitation, and plain old sadistic, because nothing is gained. I felt a minor anger and contempt for Wenders during this, but it passed, as all else in this empty vessel does.

Yet, did Wenders really think that this sequence would illumine death- Ray's or any others? Apparently so, which only demands that the flaw of pretension be added to this film's artistic sins, which include treacly sermonizing, such as when Wenders asks, in all apparent seriousness, such banal queries as whether or not telling the truth is dull or exciting. All in all, Lightning Over Water is a bad film, an inconsequential and failed extension of the documentary form, a weak statement on art and/or death, and not even a good record of the late 1970s fashion nor culture. It is basically a pointless vanity project that never coheres, for it has no narrative nor emotional cement to hold its flimsy structure together. This fact provokes only two real questions- who was more vain, Ray or Wenders? And did the right filmmaker die?


Great premise, but they managed to muck it up. This flick was big on stereotypes; small on imagination. A lot of the humor was sophomoric and crass; indicating a not- too - mature writing staff. Some adult supervision would have greatly enhanced this predictable bore. The casting was great - all the main characters were quite capable and the movie did have its moments. Jamie Kennedy had the rap-wannabe dialect down. The movie quickly became bogged down with racial stereotyping, however: hostile blacks, lots of guns, women as sex objects. This film had lots of potential - it just needed some direction and, in the end, originality. The word "bitch" was used so frequently as it would indicate that the script writer received royalties for it. "Bitch", "bee-och"; it quickly graduated from offensive to nauseating.


I thought this might be funny going in, and Taye Diggs got a few laughs out of me, but I will never understand this whole "act black" thing. First off, I am black- I don't act like that. I speak well and I don't do hip hop and I'm not into rap. To shock you further, I'm also in my mid-twenties. However, so many people believe that all black folks are like that, and there are a lot of "posers" out there who try to act that way. It's not "acting black." It's "acting poor." Because that's how poor folks in the ghetto act, black, white, green, whoever. The trailer park folks aren't too far off, the accent's a little different and the lingo is a bit different. But riddle me this: go to the 'hood, and go to the trailer park, and write a list of things you'll see in common that have nothing to do with skin color: i.e. the Lexus outside the shotgun house vs. the Viper outside the trailer. And about the movie...well, it's kinda like hanging with Mary Jane, you lose a few brain cells, and forget the entire experience. King Kong definitely got something on this one.


Imagine watching a movie parodying the "hood" made by people who have never been to, met anyone from, or had any contact with the hood. That is this movie. I'm not just talking about Jamie Kennedy's character, who is supposed to be fake, I'm talking about the whole d**n thing. It was difficult to distinguish the actors who were supposed to be actors and the actors who were supposed to be "real gangstas", because all of the acting in this movie sucks. The first time I watched this movie I thought it was hilarious but the second time it just really rubbed me the wrong way... I don't know, maybe this just isn't my type of humor. The only reason I gave this three stars was because of the fight scenes, especially the Scarface-looking one where he was on the car screaming "AHHHHHAHAHAHAHA" like a nut... the one with all the gang members in the house facing that crew of Malibu people holding a f*****g whale harpoon and a rocket launcher was the only funny part of the movie IMO.


In the long history of Godzilla films, Yonggary adds a small twist of alien invasion and tells the story of a monster, determined to destroy Earth. It's a low budget film with low budget digital effects and quite simple plot, reminding us B Movies in which actors play flat, monsters are unable to fright even the children, nobody cares about what it's going to happen next and everything is silly but entertaining.


It's like the worst parts of every Godzilla movie decided to combine with Power Rangers and form the biggest load of idiocy ever to hit my TV screen. The moment I saw people in jetpacks shooting at a fireball-spewing plastic dinosaur with machine guns, I recruited about 5 friends via telephone and instant messenger to gape in awe over how awful this was. It was a laugh riot, not over the movie being funny (because it wasn't) but more over the fact that such a piece of crap was even being aired. Painfully bad in every way, not even worth paying for a rental.


At first the movie seems to be serious. A powerful wraith is unleashed by some archaeologist guy who has an inflated vision of his own importance. Then some dinosaur bones are found. And some poorly animated aliens show up--they know the monster or something. Soon, things are going downhill fast. Either it's a parody of some other loud sci-fi's, or it's just downright insanity.

The satired movies include (but or not limited to) Godzilla (97 version) and Independence Day. Also some demented legend stuff. A big ugly creature with a propensity for smashing helicopters goes on a rampage, and then winds up in a city somewhere. Another rampage. I love the cheap CGI insertions over old footage: while a 50 foot monster battles jets with rockets and buildings are being destroyed, directly below in the background, calm traffic is rolling back and forth like this happens every day. Many buildings are blasted by fire, but subsequent shots show no fires anywhere, lol. Also, scenes where the thing casually dodges missiles: priceless.

Corny lines are numerous. Action is dizzy and non-stop, and clichés are everywhere. The movie just mocks itself, and it's good enough for a few laughs.


First off, I have no idea where to begin. There were just so many things wrong with this movie. *POSSIBLE SPOILERS*

1. This movie was a very cheap rip-off of the old GODZILLA movies. Only the FX in this movie were far worse.

2.The graphics on the monster were horrible. A second grader could probably come up with something better.

3. You could never hear what the alien dudes were saying to each other because they were always mumbling.

4. The plot was really dumb and a lot of the dialog was stupid. EX. Guy talking to monster while holding really big gun says: "Hey, Mr. Monster, I want you to meet my friend Tommy".

5. What did the second monster have to do with anything? If the aliens were so powerful, why couldn't they just take control of the monster's mind again?

I could go on forever, but since this has to be under 1000 words, I'm not going to. So, again, I cannot stress how bad this movie was. Stay away! This movie is a deathtrap......... -5 stars out of 5.


...this is the kind of movie he would make.

I've seen some very bad scifi and horror movies, but this one is on a class of it's own. As bad as the acting is, one still can't help but feel a bit sorry for the actors for having to spout out such astonishingly inane dialogue, and to portray characters that couldn't possibly be more stereotypical, in a storyline that would make the average 12 year old cringe.

Ed Wood's movies became classics because they were so earnest, yet so genuinely bad that they became funny. "Younggary" distinctly fails to be scary, simply because it is so utterly silly in all respects, and the storyline has more holes than swiss cheese, but it may have some minute appeal in the similar vain as Ed Wood's material, provided that the audience is in the right frame of mind. And preferably quite drunk.


"Yonggary" is a pretty amusing film about a big lizard from Korea named Yonggary.It's a fine example of giant monster flick that will keep most monster lovers entertained.The special effects are horrible,but they are still fun to watch.The script by Marty Poole is laughable.The acting by a bunch of unknowns is not too hot,either.The film features giant monsters,car chases,exploding jets and helicopters,spaceships and space aliens,so kids won't be disappointed.I love horror movies,but this one is surely nothing special.Avoid it,but if you have enough time to waste...4 out of 10.


Um...well...it has a big Godzilla wannabe thing in it (Couldn't you just watch Godzilla?) Ok, fair question...well, it has rocketpacks (Ahem, THE ROCKETEER had better special effects?) ok, but...it has some laugh value for how bad it is (Couldn't you just watch Shrunken Heads so you can claim to have seen the worst ever?) Well yeah, I guess you could.

Sorry, no reason to see this.


There is nothing positive I can say about this movie. Third graders at a Thanksgiving play could act better than anyone in this film. Not that the actors were given a plot or any dialogue of any kind to act with. The story is so stupid it insults even the dimmest viewer.

The real reason people will watch this movie is to see a monster movie. But the special effects are so bad; the old Godzilla movies with rubber suits are way ahead of Reptilian. The cgi effects are jerky and poorly superimposed. It's like a bad cartoon on top of a bad movie.

Save this movie to watch with people you hate. They will suffer.


How on earth do movies like this get made? Is it like... "Hey! I've got a few hundred thousand to spare. Let's write a lame script with lots of bad dialogue, hire dozens of mediocre actors and throw in a bunch of stupid special effects! What a great idea!"

There many scenes and lines that were just pointless. There were just there to fill up time. Then there was the lame 'B' plot about (plot spoiler again) the secret goverment agency trying to get their hands on the aliens. The whole development of this plot is little more than "I can't let the good guys destroy the monster, because then the aliens won't come down. And I must have the aliens. Bwahahah."

Huh?


Very interesting product from South Korea, a.k.a. REPTILIAN is equally good as it is bad. Far out story line with unimaginative dialogue. Very good F/X holds your interest. Hostile invading aliens reanimate a dormant giant lizard-like creature named Yonggary to eradicate humanity and take control of Earth. Super cool alien spacecraft and a prehistoric monster should be more than enough to keep Sci-Fi fans happy.

Overview of notable cast members: Harrison Young, Donna Philipson, Karl Calhoun, Dan Cashman and Richard B. Livingston. The monster is handsomely detailed and fun to watch.


Let me put it this way. I love bad movies. I pretty much grew up with MST3K since I was about 10. I often rent cheesy horror and action films for a good laugh. This movie made the original Godzilla movies look like Oscar worthy films. They even try to make their monster seem more powerful and more impressive with the line "This guy makes Godzilla look like a pussy." Well at least any Godzilla films (Japan or USA versions) has better plots and acting. The special effects were awful. A special effect is supposed to blend in to make creature or other objects look like they are real. The special effects in this film stick out big time. I would not wish this film on anyone.

1/2 stars out of 4


This is truly a terrible movie. The dialog is beyond cheesy, the special effects might have been cutting edge in the eighties. The acting? Bad! I could go on and on... The thing that got me the most was the classic sci-fi movie blunder: "the city". Rather than try to actually pretend to destroy an existing city they just have a bunch of buildings and call it "the city". The dialog reflects this, such as "The monster is attacking the city" or "If it gets to the city we are done for" or "the aliens are directly over the city". As if there was only one city on the planet.


Yesterday in local DVD-store I saw let's say an attractive poster with Glenn Ford. Now when I saw the film I am totally disappointed. First: the part of the tough bounty hunter definitely don't fit to old Glenn Ford. Second: he lets the son of the guy he just killed follow him around, then eventually gives him a job and home.Finally Jody accepts Santee as his own father(OMG!).One of the most "tragic" and funniest things is that Jody was practicing to become bounty hunter and he couldn't hit target from couple of meters , but in the one of the final scenes he kills three members of the Banner's gang. Now you probably think there is no need to see this film. But actually there is a few light things: Jody's father (Robert J. Wilke) and John Crow (Jay Silverheels). And that's all I'm afraid. If you are not western fan there is no reason to watch this film.

4\10 totally deserved


I may sound a bit harsh, but this flop of a movie doesn't really deserve a comment. It was like a series of unrelated scenes created from a joke compendium. Admittedly, I did laugh, and if that was the film's only purpose, then it was reasonably successful in achieving it. However, the actors in it are obviously more talented than the weak script warrants, and the issue of sexual dysfunction could indeed have been treated in a way that is both humorous and at the same time enlightening - something the film failed completely at. Instead, the motivations of the characters were initially presented and then left unexplored. I am still wondering why the husband left so abruptly, and then why Priscilla didn't give it a second shot. Danny De Vito was possibly in his worst role ever as "Wayne the Pool Guy", and what was really mysterious, and in my opinion the weakest point of the movie: why did Priscilla fall in love with him (or did she, or was she just using him, like all the other men in her recent escapades?), what did Wayne the Pool Guy have that her husband didn't? A comedy doesn't have to answer all our questions, but it should at least cohere a bit. If I hadn't seen this film, my life would not be any the poorer for it. As to a vibrator addiction, I would advise prospective consumers to tell this movie to "buzz off". But of course now I've aroused their curiosity instead...


I waited for the DVD to rent it, and am glad I did! The storyline was interesting but there were too many holes in the plot.

For example, why did this couple stay married for ten years without going to a couples therapist? Then, once Priscilla was able to experience orgasm with the vibrator, why didn't she try having sex with her husband again? Also, why didn't the husband ever have any regrets about his affair? Why didn't he get into trouble for having an affair with his student? And so on....

Anyway, the most difficult part to believe was that Parker Posey would EVER end up with Danny DeVito!!! Yeeessshhh! If the studio HAD to have her fooling around with an older man, why didn't they use one of the Quaids? Or Robin Williams? Or someone attractive? Danny wasn't even convincing as the pool salesman, in fact!!


What gives with the talented Parker Posey? She can make great films with incredible comic timing (example: her great work in Christopher Guest's films) and then barely make a dent with crappy roles in crappy films like "The Oh in Ohio". This movie, which is about a young woman's quest for the elusive orgasm, is pretty much the same territory explored in "ShortBus" this year, right down to the same joke involving accidental triggering of a vibrator. I bought this film used, and should have suspected that it was a turkey if it was being sold at rental stores a mere four weeks after its DVD release. Indeed it is a turkey. Whyt Liza Minnelli, Paul Rudd, and Heather Graham would even want to be part of this escapes me. Parker? Get a better agent...fast!


I am not going to tell you about the plot because there's no plot at all. After the movie ended quite awkwardly, I couldn't help to ask: what the heck is this movie trying to say? It appears like a sex comedy, but the dildo thing is not funny at all, and the cum during the meeting is so old that it becomes quite embarrassing. The affairs between the husband and the student, the wife becomes a slut, and the huge swimming pool of DeVito, all have nothing to do with the main story - wait, actually there's no story at all! Fortunately it runs less than 80 mins.

This is a definitely NOT a SEX COMEDY, don't be deceived by the tag lines.


The nice thing about this movie is that I will forget that I ever saw it in about a month. It is so dull that it sent me to the concession stand once and to the bathroom once. I really had to go to the bathroom badly. I am glad that I was overpowered by gastrointestinal exigency during this movie, which was another little Indy waste of time. I keep thinking of that producer who explained that if it is not in the script it isn't there. Parker Posey, Heather Graham, and Danny DeVito were all good in this movie;in fact, Heather Graham was better than she has ever been. I felt that if you jettisoned the rest of the characters and started over with these three, you'd might be able work out a plot that would not send you to the lobby to check out the posters of what is coming to the theater next week.


I see why this movie went straight to video. Who in their right mind would choose Danny DeVito over Paul Rudd? Did the director see them without shirts? Anyway, this movie is a poor excuse of film making. It tries to be something it is not (mainly funny and aimed at adults). The ending comes out of nowhere and makes Paul Rudd's character seem like the antagonist when it is the wife who jacking up on her vibrator and sleeping with every guy who walks around. Also, is that the only thing this woman has going for her - an orgasm? And sticking a pager inside herself, why is that funny? It was a bad ripoff of Absolutely Fabulous. If this is what passes for adult comedies in Hollywood, no wonder Indie films are getting awards.


I wanted to like this movie more than I did, but I just didn't. Some of the people at the SXSW fest really enjoyed it, but there was a large majority- such as myself- that almost walked out.

Parker Posey is, well- Parker Posey again. Sometimes I find her funny, but a lot of the time I find her shtick a little tedious, and where I really like her as a supporting player, when she's the lead I start to get a headache. Perhaps that's just me, but if you ever thought she may be a little over the top, this is not the film for you.

Paul Rudd is okay, but he has scenes with Micha Barton, who is to acting what wood is to forests, so there was no hope for those scenes.

The standout for me, surprisingly, was Danny DeVito. He brings a warmth and reality to a supporting role (clearly based on Wallace Shawns character in Annie Hall) that took me by surprise and made me remember why I love him so.

The film itself tries very hard to get noticed, sometimes in that puerile Farrely Brothers HEY LOOK AT ME! kind of way, which I'm sure my 14 year old nephew would enjoy. ("Hey, they're talking about SEX!! Wheeee!") but after a while it made me long for a comedy like, say, Annie Hall or Manhattan (am I dating myself?) where the people are adult and smart and interesting and attractive and don't try so hard to be funny, but just ARE funny.

I'd be interested to see this director/writers next film, hopefully they'll have a little more faith in themselves and a little less need to keep the volume so loud.


Thank god i got to see this thing for free! this is probably one of the worst films i've seen in a long time! everything from the dialog, to comedic timing, to continuity, to cinematography...SUCKED! i cant even begin to explain how much this film blows. Parker Posey delivered one of the worst performances of her career. Paul Rudd's character is so unbelievable, i'd be shocked to find that he ever works in this town again. Mischa Barton actually did a pretty decent job. Or maybe its because everybody else sucked so bad! Devito probably took this role because he hasn't had an on-screen kiss since Twins! he was at his all time worst. Keith David was probably the only saving grace in this film. He was awesome, as always. But there is only so much one actor can do to save a horrible film. bottom line, don't waste your money in the theater, or at the video store...wait till one of your friends buys it at the 99 Cent Store...and borrow it. Billy Kent owes me 88 minutes of my life back!


Awkward nut case goes around raping and killing women, now he turns his sights on a suburban housewife and soon invades her home.

From the premise of this movie one would like to think that it would be, at the very least, an interesting thriller. Well, you would be wrong unfortunately. Forced Entry, unsurprisingly a poor remake of an infamous sexploitation flick from 1973, is a completely tedious movie. Not only is the movie badly paced but the acting is utterly terrible, the cinematography dull, and there is a miserable lack of suspense and tension. On top of this it's tasteless and told entirely from the monotone point of view of its unconvincing villain. The only highlights are early appearances from later stars Tanya Roberts and Nancy Allen (who plays an ill-fated hitchhiker) however they can't save a movie that's not only garbage but boring garbage!

Not on video, for good reason.

BOMB out of ****


This film by Jim Sotos (the director of the surprisingly decent eighties slasher 'Sweet 16') is apparently a remake of the earlier infamous film of the same title by Shaun Costello and starring Harry Reems. Forced Entry was never meant to be a mainstream flick, but it would appear that Sotos was trying to turn it into one with this film as the plot is basically the same but we don't get any of the sexual violence, which is a bit of a shame because that's the only thing that most people will have tuned into the original for and it's always going to be difficult to make an R-Rated film based on this plot line and make it a success. The plot is very simple and focuses on a psychopath who works at a gas station. It's the old story of abuse as a child and this man suffered at the hands of his mother; which has lead to an acute hatred of women. Naturally, he decides to use his job (which involves meeting women) to find females to have his way with and murder. However, soon he meets Nancy and actually falls in love with her, which puts him at odds with his murderous rage.

On the whole, it has to be said that this film is not successful and the only part of it I really liked was the music on the opening credits sequence. Showing the violence and gore is not always necessary in films; but it is in this one. The original was meant to shock and it did; but this film's neglect towards showing the violence means that it is not shocking, not true to the original and it also doesn't feature a plot strong enough to hold up a film like this without violence. Ron Max is the lead and while he convinces as the psychopath, he isn't very charismatic and the performance feels a bit flat. Luckily, there's some female talent in the form of Tanya Roberts and Nancy Allen on hand to help the film along. The film features a voice over that shows us what the psycho is thinking and feeling and it's all rather generic stuff and the film could have done without it. There's not a great deal of interest created in the plot and the ending is both predictable and generic. The film has a handful of decent moments and it's worth tracking down as a companion piece to the original; but it's not very good unfortunately.


I wanted to watch this one sense I am a fan of films such as "Last House on the Left" and "Maniac". This film follows in this same gener only less satisfying to watch than those above. This movie is about a garage worker who leads a double life as a serial rapeist, watching young women and taking advantage of them at the apropriate moment. He stutters when he's with a girl and starts to feel nervous which I felt was unapprpriate for the movie. Then we see him making his move towards the victim and them the movie switches to a different scene and then later on in the movie like when we see the killer watching TV or drinking a beer or scratching his rabbit which is his only friend we see flashbacks of what happened between the killer and the unfortunate victim which we should have seen while he was killing the victim. This I also found unnecisary in the movie. The part that I did like in the movie as compared to "Maniac" was the fact that we get to see what the killers thinking and just why he commits these murders and I liked that. Always wanted to know just what made those serial killers tick. But this one didn't tick to much for me, I gave it a 4.