Like the title, everything in "50 Ways To Leave Your Lover" is swiped or cribbed from another, greater source.

In this monstrosity, Paul Schneider, plays the main character Owen, a weedy author of pot boiler murderer biographies who aspires to become a legitimate, serious author. Far from being a sympathetic schlep who we can sympathize with for falling short of his dreams, Owen comes off as a petty, whiny, vindictive loser who does more to sabotage his own efforts than the supposedly cynical, money-is-everything city that surrounds him.

Given an opportunity to enter the world of legitimate literature by writing the biography of a scientist, Owen for some reason feels the need to leave the city in the rudest way possible. Ostensibly, this is so he will never be tempted to come back but it comes off as a contrived way to allow our hero to scandalize, verbally brutalize, and otherwise act in a horribly anti-social way to everyone that he has been associating with over the past few years. But then, just as he has burned every single bridge imaginable, he meets and falls madly in love with the girl of his dreams. Oh, the humanity...

Aside from some highly derivative dialog (you'll notice some Albert Brooks-esquire lines and deliveries in there) there is a scene involving lime Jell-O that will have you screaming, "That's EXACTLY like the lobster scene in "Annie Hall!" None of Owen's pranks, and the situations that arise from them, are particularly original, clever, or compelling and so when you come to the highly predictable end you are almost relieved. That is, ALMOST. A likelier scenario is that you will be left feeling gypped of your time and money, with your intelligence thoroughly insulted.


Did any of the actors put any thought while reading the script. Or they just had nothing better to do with there time. I thought How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days sure had its perks. This movie started out good, a good Hollywood setting, about the adventures and misadventures of romance in L.A. But as the film went on it just really got bad, and annoying to sit through. My thoughts on this is, who wrote this stupidity anyone dares to call it self a movie script. The characters seriously become very unsympathetic. Poppy Montgomery and Tori Spellings characters make this film very unwatchable. Not that they are bad actress's, they just deserve better then this.


Oh boy. Another in a looooooong series of movies penned and directed by Hollywood types who want to stick it to Hollywood. Whoever told writers, "write what you know" should have added the qualifier, "only if it is entertaining." I can only wait for the doofus who put this lame hunk of junk together to produce a movie about reality TV.

Now let us place blame where blame is due for this horrid waste of time.

Paul Schneider doesn't seem to have a subtle bone in his body and instead of being funny, his antics are tiresome, bordering on the offensively unfunny.

Jordan Hawley - wrote and directed this trash. I'm sure that if anyone besides myself had bothered to watch this, he'd be getting honorary Razzies for the rest of his life.


This film started out with a humorous, well-written screenplay that had potential, but this was wasted by the incompetent direction of its writer, Jordan Hawley. This film is Hawley's directorial debut and it couldn't be a better illustration of his complete lack of directorial confidence, creativity, or thoughtfulness. The dialogue is delivered in a forced, emotionally false way. There are many comedic cheap shots and the humor has a needlessly mean spirit. On a technical note, the cinematography is pretty good with some vibrant colors and a few of the supporting performances, notably Fred Willard's, are funny. However, the film panders to the lowest common denominator and follows a predictable formula. Despite its low- budget, this film has none of the wit and edge you would expect of an indie. It is "mainstream comedy" in the worst sense of the term.


I think the difference between good and bad movies is about the characters. Do they behave properly, given the world created for them. I never bought into the motives of the young woman in this film. She is too pretty and too confident to be desperate enough to do what she does. Nevertheless, she ends up in prison with a group of characters, including a classic snitch and her deaf cohort. People are looking out for her. People are after her. She has the money that was stolen. Talk about your stupid criminals. It's so full of unbelievable events, including one of the bank robbers showing up in the jail in drag. There's also an off again, on again, thing between the main character and a man who turned her in. It just never gels. Not to mention the goofy prison setting and lack of security. Not much to bother with.


Chic beauty Faye Emerson (as Dorothy Drew aka "Dot" Burton) supplants hard times as an actress by joining a group of bank robbers. Unfortunately, Ms. Emerson's carefully planned plot to rob the "Central Trust and Savings Bank" of $40,000 goes awry, when her getaway car driver, a young Jackie Gleason (as Wilson), parks in the red. Big mistake. Mr. Gleason draws the attention of a passing policeman, and Emerson is left holding the bag. Love interest Frank Wilcox (as Kenneth Phillips) tries to keep Emerson out of women's prison. Fortunately, he is unsuccessful, and Emerson serves a intermittently amusing sentence, with Julie Bishop (as Myrtle Reed), and other beautifully coiffed women behind bars.

*** Lady Gangster (1942) Robert Florey ~ Faye Emerson, Frank Wilcox, Jackie Gleason


This is very dated and very much of its time (a capsule of the 'swinging sixties). Strangely set bound (even the exterior scenes are filmed on a set), it has the appearance / atmosphere of a stage play. For such a distinguished cast, there are more than a few shaky performances which makes the direction suspect. Not particularly enjoyable as a thriller, certainly not scary and why the DVD still carries an 18 certificate in the Uk heaven only knows. On any night of the week you can watch more explicit material than this on the main TV channels. Only worth watching as a curiosity now I'm afraid. One thing's for sure, Hywel Bennett would certainly have been better keeping his clothes on in the film, his pasty body isn't a pretty sight!


okay this is a very funny show i remember when i first saw it i could not stop laughing but i after a while i had hear all the jokes and it was starting to get lame.

and on top of that it was rude..i felt bad because they would get more and more personal to the person that they are up against.

i don't know maybe that is just me but yeah this show is just plain and simple unoriginal and not very entertaining. i think the person who created this show is just stupid..the host is a complete idiot who cannot act on that 70's show and to be honest it sucks!!!

some of the jokes were original and very funny..but i watched it on MTV..and they would censor some of the stuff that the audience in the show would crack up at..and we could not hear it

i cant stand this show and im glad it got canceled..


When I watch something that is listed as a comedy, I want it to be good and funny. What's this? It's not good. It's not funny. So what is it Fez? What is this thing you call a television program? Hey Fez guess what: YOU SUCK! And That 70's Show have lots of really bad episodes too. So as far as I am concerned, you are retarded and dumb! Go kill yourself now. Nah don't do that, but seriously, your show blows chunks man. "Yo momma so fat she really fat!!!" OK you see stupid bullcrap like that is what's ruining America. Unless you wanna be responsible for ruining the Americas, then please stop with gay shows like Your Mother.


Nothing new here whatsoever. One of the more boring outings of the ever popular Rugrats. Bruce Willis adds nothing and songs are forgettable. Numbers 1 through 5 appear at various stages during the movie. Everyone was scratching his head wondering if they were supposed to remember them to perhaps win some terrific prize. A search on Google turns out they should have been scratching cards given out during a Burger King promotion where the smells coincided with the particular scenes. I guess I need to watch more television. Must have missed that commercial....somehow. In any case, was probably far more interesting than the movie. Luckily, the time flew by. Thank TPTB, it is a short one.


Most kids will probably think the Rugrats meeting The Wild Thornberrys would be a match made in heaven, and it almost could have been with more effort put in. Basically Stuart 'Stu' Pickles (Jack Riley) has planned a vacation, but miss their boat and are forced to board a rented boat. Unfortunately all in the boat, parents and babies together are caught in a tidal wave and end up stranded on a deserted island, with very little food and no way to get help. They do not realise living on this island are the Thornberry family, led by father/husband Nigel (Tim Curry), and with the girl who can talk to animals, Eliza (Lacey Chabert). While the parents try to find a way off the island, the babies, Tommy Pickles (Elizabeth Daily), Chuckie Finster (The Simpsons' Nancy Cartwright), twins Phil and Lil DeVille (Kath Soucie), Didi Pickles (Melanie Chartoff), Charlotte Pickles (The Simpsons' Tress MacNeille), oh and Angelica (Cheryl Chase) go off to find Mr. Thornberry, or "Mr. Strawberry". Meanwhile, Eliza has met up with the Pickles family dog, Spike (Bruce Willis) who wants to get them back to the parents. Eventually all characters are brought together, after some small moments of adventure, and they do manage to sort everything out. Also starring The Pretenders' Chrissie Hynde as Siri, Joe Alaskey as Grandpa Lou and Tony Jay as Dr. Lipschitz. The animation seems to be as standard as the original two (same animation) shows, the voices are alright too, I think it is just some of the story that could have done with much more work to make it entertaining, which it isn't very. Adequate!


Spoilers?

This movie contains disgusting humor and terrible songs and acting, but I will not explain that. When the Rugrats crash on the island that the Thornberries are filming on, the adults join together to find a way out. When Angelica watches the babies, she is dumb enough to go play. The Rugrats run off into the woods to do some playing of their own. When Tommy witnesses a Thornberry filming (Curry, one of the few good actors in this film), he is determined to find him. But when their split up they have to fight their way back to camp. Angelica, meanwhile, realizes the babies are gone and goes into the woods to find them for her own benefit. When she runs into Debbie Thornberry, she takes a break at her camper. Alizza is out with her chimp, and she runs into Spike, played by the always good acting Bruce Willis, and for the first time, you hear him talk.

A deserved 2/10 (because it had the Thornberries, which are better).


I have luckily escaped seeing any of the Rugrats movies, and have watched the series now and then with my kids. It's a cute show, but really not much material there for a whole movie. Thankfully, this movie was rather short, and relatively painless. There are a few pop culture references there simply for the parents (and then, some parents are too young to appreciate them...I swear I was the only one in the theater who "got" the Poseidon Adventure reference...perhaps the other parents were still in diapers when that movie came out in the 70s...) but other than that not too thrilling. It would have been nice to have the scratch n sniff cards but they were not made available to us at the theater. My kids told me we needed to go to Burger King and get them (after the fact, of course)...since I don't watch the Nickolodeon ads, I didn't know this. Not a great classic kids movie by any means, but okay to watch. We won't be buying this one.


I saw this film with my daughter (6 years old) and her friend (7), none of whom are Rugrats fans, mostly because they consider the Rugrat's humor to be too immature and inappropriate. My daughter and I did, however, mostly enjoy last year's The Wild Thornberrys Movie.

The plot is a literal and figurative shipwreck. The Rugrats and their parents end up on an uninhabited island somewhere in the Pacific, on which the Thornberrys happen to be. Various groups and individuals splinter off in search of others. By the time Nigel Thornberry gets knocked on the head and reverts to the mental age of a 3 year-old, I had lost track of who was looking for whom and why. How a kid is supposed to follow all these machinations is beyond me.

The sheer number of characters and the randomness with which they run into each other prevent any sort of character depth from being explored. For example, in The Wild Thornberrys Movie, considerable attention was given to Darwin the monkey, who is one of the more interesting characters in this entire assembly (Darwin is smart and makes very insightful observations of human behavior, but he can only communicate with one person, Eliza - to everyone else, he is a dumb monkey). However, here he has what could be characterized as a cameo appearance at best. So, unless you are already familiar with all the characters, and don't expect much in terms of character development, you'll be disappointed.

I think there was a moral to the story (something about leadership and redemption), but I was nodding off by the end of the movie, having lost track of the plot. The audience I saw the film with was mostly subdued, with only a few audible laughs. My daughter and her friend said they liked the movie, but they like every movie I take them to, as long as I buy them popcorn. They did not talk about the movie at all the rest of the weekend. On the way home, we listened to the Lilo & Stitch soundtrack, which has much better songs than the few musical numbers in this movie.

I'm not giving this movie the worst rating, because it might be enjoyable for a few Rugrat fans. And the Rugrats' potty humor is not as bad as it could have been, although there are diaper jokes, bird droppings, and Spike the dog raises his leg a few times.


this animated offering from Nickelodeon features the Wild Thornberry family and The Rugrats together.now,i know i'm not the target audience,but this is as pretty slow,lame movie.plus,it's so negative.you'd think a movie with these two families together would be pretty decent,but it isn't.i'm pretty certain a lot of kids will find it the same way,at least the older ones.the younger kids might be entertained.anyway,i was very disappointed.for a really great,funny, entertaining animated movie that the whole family will enjoy,try Recess: Schools Out instead and leave this one alone.for me, The Rugrats go Wild is a 4/10


I am not a Rugrats fan, I don't appreciated bathroom humor. The 6 year old I took to see the movie is subjected to advertising and of course is young enough that bathroom humor works. The story line is okay it might even have been a good movie but the constant jokes about smelly diapers and feet detracted from the story. The Thornberries helped some but the teenager in their cast is a little to Beverly Hills. Spike did little to add to the program whether he talked or not. If you have 6-12 year olds they will laugh, otherwise forget it. Some of the music was catchy.


First off, this is a kids movie so certain allowances should be made for its rubbishness. But I expect that the majority of 7 year olds would find High Noon an unrewarding and painful experience.

The film concerns a group of extremely unscary baddies who decide that world domination can be best achieved by hijacking an amusement park. Two things prevent the villains from carrying out their evil plan. Firstly, the bad guys find themselves easily defeated at every turn by three children and Hulk Hogan. Secondly, those aforementioned bad guys are morons.

The three children are, of course, the 3 Ninjas. They defeat fully grown men in martial art combat at every turn. Particularly remarkable, since one of the kids appears to be about four years old. Of especial note is the second youngest as he sports a haircut that is so abysmally misguided it makes Billy Ray Cyrus's mullet look tasteful. It is a bowl-cut/pony-tail combo; two haircuts from hell all on one head - it is truly horrendous and should really not be seen by younger viewers.

An interesting aspect of the movie is that despite the fact that the fairground has been hijacked, no one seems to have informed the extras. They carry on enjoying the rides as if nothing has happened. As I said earlier, the bad guys are essentially idiots, so its just possible that they have not got their heads round the technicalities of hijacking. But, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter as the film is not exactly convincing in a general sense.

Do I recommend it? Not really but it is an ideal birthday present for a child you dislike.


the only reason i rented this garbage excuse for a movie is because i am a big fan of the original 3 ninjas movie. when the original came out i was a little kid and it was great. after seeing 3 ninjas kick back and 3 ninjas knuckle up i wasn't expecting 3 ninjas high noon to be that good, since the 2 preceding ones weren't' that great. so finally, 8 years after the release i rent 3 Ninjas High Noon at Mega Mountain....where shall i begin.

-3 new actors playing the boys, if u can even consider them actors -rocky is "too cool" to be a ninja -colt has a lisp and a pony tail -tum-tum looks like he retrograded back in time and is now 5

-when tum-tum screams hi-ya it sounds like a little girl

-hulk holgan is in this movie -terriorts take over AN AMUSMANT PARK! -worst acting i've ever seen...ninjas, hulk holgan, terriorts included -dummest plot line

this movie killed the 3 ninjas for me. i don't' think i can ever watch the original again and enjoy it. every time i see rocky i will think of a stuck up asshole; colt, i will think of his "new look", and tum-tum i will think of a 5 year old cry baby.

god


This was horrible. I remember that the original movie was mildly amusing, but this stinker left me disgusted. This is one movie where I was actually wanting the villains to win, because of the annyoing, constipated sounding screeching noises that "Tum-Tum" was making for karate yells and what not. I actually laughed when Loni Anderson said "Rest in pieces". The first two movies were cute, the third was...blech, but when a movie stars Hulk Hogan.... slow up on that, you've already lost all the money that you put into this flop; and then some.


In this tremendous film Hulk Hogan plays a really brilliant and inspirational character called Dave Dragon and he runs around being BADASS with his amazing theme tune and also he beats up loads of bad guys with his little chums who all suck at acting. This film is basically ninjas (rubbish ninjas) getting beaten up by little kids for ages, while rubbish bad guys go about executing their rubbish plans. Hulk Hogan doesn't really do much in it and his theme tune doesn't get played anywhere near as much as it should.

All in all I would say watch this movie because it's got Hulk Hogan in it.


There two types of bad film.... a)a film so bad you turn it off immediately or b)bad films starring hulk hogan that you have to watch to amuse yourself. Hulk plays Dave Dragon, some old guy who is not very hard and not very funny - and basically the bottom line of the film is some female terrorist tries to take over a theme park. They fail, thanks to some geeky kids who apparently know martial arts. The most annoying thing though is how easily grown adults get beaten up by pesky little kids. This film is so bad, but, fair play, I watched most of it so it achieved something in that sense. Enjoyable if you like ripping it out of bad actors and rubbish plots.


I've just worked it out on my pocket calculator, this is the worst film I have ever seen. Reminds me of a film produced a couple of years back, "Kitchen Wars", if only for the fact that the bad guys(the late great Jassi Chan)/girls in both films liked to wear leather skirts. The film has only served to fuel my hatred for the 3 ninjas. I'd love to beat up the 3 ninjas, I'm pretty sure I could take them in a fight. I've seen the film three times now, studying their moves and I don't think they're as good as Hulk Hogan says. On the plus side... It did star Hulk Hogan and as Hulk always says "hi, I'm Hulk Hogan!" My favourite part was when the little kid went POW! However, it's really good and I love it.

1/10


This movie is the most awful karate movie i have ever seen. The moves the kids did stunk, the plot was lame, and the ending was dumb. At the end, the bad guy offers a fight deal against the grandpa when he is his prisoner. If the bad guy had half a brain, he would have simply kept him as a prisoner. When the ninja kids do their moves, they do not look realistic and they do not actually hit the targets when they do the moves, but the bad guys get hit anyway. Also, to hold off the criminals in their home, the ninjas give two of them diarrhea?? How lame is that? DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!! IT STINKS!!! This movie is currently on my top 10 of worst movies of all time. Oh, by the way, the kids looked like they were 3 yrs younger than before and the middle aged boy's hairdo gave me nightmares. DO NOT WATCH THIS!!!!


I swear at the beginning with the parents, I felt like they were just smiling too much and it looked like they were just going to say cliché' things like "Oh, you kids!" or "That's coming out of your allowance" while smiling at the camera on cue.

Now, granted, this is a movie for kids, but I think we are starting to insult our kids just a little bit. I mean, we do actually have a decent cast for a kid's flick, but these adults really sunk beyond the kid's humor. While it has some good morals and another happy ending, just the jokes got old and I think we are just insulting our kid's intelligence and humor.

1/10

PS: Loni, lay off the fake tan!


Old sea maps used to leave a warning on the outer edges of the charts. It would read: "Here be monsters." I wish such a message had been written before the opening credits. Oh, actually it was, but it was in code that I deciphered too late to save myself. It was the part which read: "3 Ninjas High Noon at Mega Mountain." WOE! WOE UNTO ME!!!!

I'm a man with, admittedly, unusual and quirky tastes when it comes to film and film actors/actresses. I like a lot of character actors because they tend to get the most interesting variety of parts. I really loved Victor Wong's career. Memories of his performances in films like 'Tremors,' 'Prince of Darkness,' and especially 'Big Trouble in Little China' (with another favourite of mine, Al Leong -- the Wing Kong Hatchet Man!!! *LOL*) have put me on a quest to see as much of his work as possible.

A quest that died Saturday afternoon just past.

This deeply regrettable, dreckish, foul excuse of a film and the knowledge that Victor Wong appeared in three other incarnations of it is enough to sour even the strongest movie-goers stomach. Victor's appearance in this awful thing is mercifully concentrated in the opening of the film. It gives him no chance to show off any of his inimitable charm and Victor Wong looks like a tired old man weighed down by the two hardest words that any actor will ever have to listen to: Contractual obligation.

Music: insipid. Direction: insipid. Plot: insipid. Dialogue: insipid. Acting: hit and miss.

The kids all deserved better than to be stuck in this film. For fear that they will track me down and beat the heck out of me with their ninja skills, just let me say that they all gave academy award worthy performances. Exhibit A: the two younger brothers manage to keep a straight face and wait -- holding their fight stance -- for thirty seconds as the three bad guy adults struggle to get out of their costumes and dress up again so that the kids can yell "NINJAS!!!" I don't blame the kids for this despite the fact that they were as unwatchable as everything else here. This film will bore parents to death so unless you want orphans, avoid, avoid, AVOID!!!

Victor Wong (let me return to a bright light for a moment) died after this film. Jim Varney, who also appeared in this film, has also since died. You may draw your own conclusions.

Varney, in all fairness, is probably the best thing in this film. His performance takes him in a scene-stealing direction with a bad guy turn. Out-acting Loni Anderson, Hulk Hogan and all three ninjas, he easily comes across as a bully who is picking an acting fight with unarmed opponents ... I said I wasn't going to blame the kids... this wasn't their fault, this wasn't their fault ...

Final Verdict: (un)watchable... BEARABLE only for those who are die-hard Wong or Varney fans. Also bearable if one chants over and over again the words: "this too shall pass." All others should give a miss with extreme prejudice.


Honestly. Do yourself a favor and don't watch this crap. It is not even good enough to be a lame kids movie. In fact, the makers of this film should be sentenced to a life term in prison for exposing the world to such garbage.

Seriously, there are a lot of cut corners here, and the story is worse than that of a cheap porn flick. Anyone who payed to see this movie in a theater was robbed. It still amazes me that this could have been printed, honestly, the movie is just one stupid gag after another, one's we have already seen and are tired of. On a scale of 1 to 10, I wouldn't give it a score at all, it is not good enough.


I'm sure when this movie came out it was the greatest disappointment of whatever season it was released in. I'm sure the intrepid masses of casual movie-goers teeming with anticipation for the latest 3 Ninjas spectacle felt betrayed on a deep and personal level akin to having a father register you for the navy. While this movie may not be the best in its class and may suffer from numerous flaws (rancid acting, unrealistic plot, pathetic villains, stanky clichés, annoying ninja kid grunts, Hulk Hogan's dialogue, Hulk Hogan's wardrobe, Hulk Hogan) it still maintains one splendid aspect which I find delightful no matter how many times a week I sit down and pop this VHS in: its soundtrack.

Yes, Howard Bucket may be one of the most under-recognized composers of synthesized film soundtracks. I bought this soundtrack on cassette in 2001 and have never felt more satisfied spending a dollar twenty five. Bucket shows a diverse range of emotions, from the go-lucky tune of "Ninjas and a Female Geek" to the dark and menacing track "Varney's Villainy". Who could refuse the heroic and uplifting tone of "Dragon's Theme"? A personal favorite of mine is "Hogan Gets Captured Again". The whimsical and bouncy nature of "Bad Guys Get the Money" forms a stark contrast to the dramatic almost nerve-biting "Realistic Battle on Top of a Roller Coaster Track", a technique that bands like Radiohead and Smash Mouth began to employ many years after. And who can forget the pen-ultimate track "Tum Tum Eats the Flesh of the Fallen"? Yes, this soundtrack is truly as epic as the film it was made for, but of a much higher quality! You see kids, soundtracks don't require a gigantic team of cameramen, directors, producers, writers, engineers, actors, more writers, actors' parents, and technical consultants. Soundtracks require only one lonely thirty three year old in a studio with a synthesizer. And a lot of heart.


This movie was the worst I've ever seen. I hope they don't keep it in the video stores, because kids don't need to see all that bad acting. Even Hogan was stupid! The kids do okay with the martial arts, but you can so tell that they hardly ever connected the blows. The least they could have done was make it look real!


A colossal mess. Badly acted, poorly written, sorely misdirected. The "3 Ninjas" series never needed a sequel, much less the uncountable number it has spawned.

The infamous 3 Ninjas go to a theme park in this sequel and use Hulk Hogan to fight off a bunch of terrorists (?). Miserable, putrid stuff. The acting is in league with "Pod People" (1983).

Do NOT watch this movie! I feel stupiderererer already.

0/5 stars.

- John Ulmer


Growing up till this day 3 Ninjas Kickback was the weak link in the series but that movie is a blessing compared to 3 Ninjas high noon at mega Mountain.

It does have some star power and familiar faces such as Jim Varney, Loni Anderson, Hulk Hogan, and Victor Wong but not even that could save this film.

The plot has the 3 ninjas saving a theme park from the bad guys. Not a bad plot because it introduces some fun scenarios. And some of the training and fight sequences were pretty creative, just hard to get into considering how flawed this movie was.

The previous kids who played the ninjas obviously had outgrown the roles by the time this was made but the casting was terrible. Nothing against the replacements, its just they didn't fit the role.

I'd suggest any of the 3 ninjas films except this one.


My therapist won't like me talking about it but I've got a bottle of calm-down pills nearby in case this review brings up too many memories for me ad causes...a relapse.

This film is dreadful. There aren't enough words to describe how buttock clenchingly bad this film is. It made me want to yell at those responsible about how they were causing physical pain to people with this movie. I was 12 when I first watched this and I thought it was awful then as well. I defy any child to be content with this dross, and if any adult enjoys it I'm sorry but the men in white coats are coming with the special jacket.

The plot is nonsense, the dialogue stomach churning and the acting worse than anything seen in a Friday the 13th movie. Avoid if you like your eyeballs and don't want to spoon them out.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll just take my tablets and go to bed before they come and take me away again...


Let me just say that a nice introduction is not needed in this piece of leftover meatloaf that needed to be produced by a Fishcer Price karate team.

3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain had a plan in it's motive to be produced. It wanted to show compassion. It wanted to show teamwork, brotherly love and it wanted to show Hulk Hogan's acting abilities. It all failed in that.

Three brothers who happened to be in an amusement park will save the day because the amusement park is taken over by terrorists! There are also subplots of Hulk Hogan's character being a has-been (so is he) and the eldest ninja who'll get the heart of this ten-year-old girl. Lame! Colt is played by this kid who will become the future Canadian band Moffats-parody lead singer. Tum-tum is a little Hilary Swank stuck in a Baby Gap model's body. Rocky is this over-the-top, meant to be "cool" punk who can't kiss at fourteen.

The supporting kids are just as weird. The computer girl had not a cinch of fear since there was a four-minute bomb inches away from her face. The "roller coaster-Come save me!" girl was the miscast of the entire debacle. Can she even stand still? Why is it such a good idea for terrorists to take over an amusement park? Why cast a has-been wrestler who can't even say his name right? Why are Jamaican men such good computer junkies? Why cast a toddler (who yelps like a strangling cat) into saying those damn "Ay-Ya's" over two dozen times?

I liked these ninja movies. The first ones? Great. I was like three when that came to video. But this? This is the limit of underdeveloped. It looked like it was directed by a damn pro-kids pedophile! I would just say that the hype, the story, the climax and the stupendous fight scenes (where the kids close their little eye-dy widey's to kick the bad goons) take the cake as making this pure garbage.

Don't waste your time, I did.


I think worst movie ever is being too kind. If I had the option of watching this again or ramming nails through my head, I would choose the latter and I hope all of you do as well. This has got to be the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. And Hulk Hogan? Wow, he is just absolutely pathetic. Stick to wrestling - that's something you suck at slightly less than acting.


Uggh! This is a terrible film and this was obvious by the first scene. The film begins with three very white-bread kids being taught by their grandfather how to be ninjas in some sort of Mario Brothers-like training facility. Considering how similar all this looks to "Pocket Ninjas" (the #4 lowest ranked film on IMDb's Bottom 100 list), I knew I was in for a painful time!

Soon after leaving grandpa's house, the three annoying brats go with their friends to an amusement park that is about to be taken over by the lamest villains in history--Loni Anderson and Jim Varney as 'Medusa' and 'Lothar'!! And, oh God say it isn't so, it's up to the thee kids AND Hulk Hogan to save the day. Can it get any worse?!?! Well, with tons of lame stunts, tons of special effects and minimal acting, the answer is YES! To show the FBI that they mean business, once the baddies take over the park, they make certain rides go SLIGHTLY faster!!! What beasts!! In fact, while there is lots of punching and kicking, this is only family-friendly violence--so the kids naturally win and no one shoots, stabs or even tickles their opponents. Because of this and the constantly insipid writing, the film is a total bore to anyone older than about 6.

So should this movie be on the infamous Bottom 100 list? I think probably not for two reasons. First, very, very young kids will enjoy this insipid crap--and to me, a film should not be on the list if it is in any way enjoyable. Second, the production values are not that terrible and the film makes no attempt to be anything more than it is--a dopey little film that would most likely make a parent kill themselves or the kids if they are forced to watch it!!


Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh at some of the dumbest things ever to grace a TV screen. 3 Ninjas: High noon at mega mountain equals that. Horrible acting, paired with unrealistic realism, Lines you'd hear hulk hogan say, and a hot chick who was once married to one of the greatest legends in acting, and you get something that ranks in the IMDb bottom 100.

So the 3 ninjas are spending the day at a theme park with their nerdy next door neighbor friend, Amanda. during the day, an escaped criminal who calls herself Medusa invades the park and holds it's visitors hostage. this looks like a job for hulk hogan and 4 kids who are faker than wrestling.

it's not action. it's just stupid.

1/10


This movie is just flat out beyond horrible! After reading many comments about how bad it was, I decided to see whether or not I could watch the whole thing.

The result: enduring the movie is almost impossible, and something I would never recommend watching.

In retrospect, I actually feel like crying. NOT because it was good, but because high noon is a complete disgrace to the other 3 movies.

The 3 replacement actors don't seem to know martial arts at all. The acting was pretty bad and fake, and the characters of the original three ninjas were destroyed as a result.

Like others have mentioned, I would not consider high noon to be part of the 3 Ninjas series.


Here are ten reasons 2 watch this movie 1) You have done EVERYTHING in life so u are basically jobless.

2) You are an IMMESNSE fan of Hulk Hogan from his earliest days of wrestling n before u die u have 2 see whatever movie he's been in.

3) You want 2 know what is the meaning of 'gay'.

4) You always wanted see what a movie would look like if it was made by a 2 year old.

5) You have permanent brain damage n can swallow even the most disgusting piece of crap put in front of you.

6) You want 2 be a director and after watching this movie you have hope that if this piece of crap makes it , U have a better chance.

7) You hate yourself ( warning :After watching you'll hate urself more)

8) You love 2 point n curse at the TV

9) If you have the habit of crying at something funny n laughing at something serious.

10) If you're on he brink of suicide watching this movie will speed it up.


1st watched 4/6/2008 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sean McNamara): Harmless fluff, but poorly done at times. In this 3 Ninjas entry, the guys are spending time at their favorite amusement park for Tum Tum's birthday. A group of bad ninjas just happen to be attempting to take over the park for a ransom while they are there. The bad guys are led by Madusa(played by Loni Anderson) and assisted by a rare non-comic Jim Varney, who actually does a pretty good job as a villain. The movie starts with the 3 hero's doing a pretty cool obstacle course at their grandfather's place but learn a valuable lesson when he turns off the power and then makes them attempt it backwards. The lesson they learned, supposedly, is not to get a big head because they aced it going forwards but couldn't cut it backwards without power(believe it or not!!). This is later used by the guys in the final showdown with the baddies, which kind of brings their lesson back to them and creates kind of a purpose for their grandfather's teachings. I won't let you know what happens the 2nd time, in case you want to watch the movie yourself, but you can probably guess. This predictability, some obvious mistakes in the production(boom mikes and wires being visible) and the low acting expectations from most make this attempt at a fun kids movie even dismal to most kids, probably.


After watching 3 Ninjas: High Noon at Mega Mountain I have become a changed man. Before I was lost in a fog of listlessness and melancholy. I was in a state of deep depression that for all intents and purposes was inescapable. But then like a toaster dropped into the bathtub of my life, 3 Ninjas: High Ninja Mountains Hyper, changed it all. From the tight and clever writing to the on point set and lighting design everything was solid.

A real stand out here was Terry "Hulk" Hogan as Dave "The Dragon" Dragon a semi washed up television star who is performing his final show at Mega Mountain. In what can be seen as art mimicking life in a sick form of jurisdiction.

The only weak point here is the basic plan of the terrorists. For a group of highly trained mercs, lead by Lothar Zogg no less, it was lacking in forethought. Everyone knows you need to take into account ninjas being the monkey in your wrench.

All in all 3 Ninjas: Mega Assault on Hyper Mountain is a fine film. I'd give it a shot if it happens to come on cable or the like.


Although I may be ashamed to say it, there was a time in my life where I thought the 3 Ninjas movies rocked. My personal favorites were the first one and the one where they go to Japan. When I finally surpassed that dark age in my childhood, I decided to see one again just for plain stupidity. I noticed all the elements present in a bad movie. Then, Mega Mountain was aired on HBO, years later since the last time, and saw it for whatever reason you could think of that included weed. Stupid jokes, stupid plot, stupid acting, stupid kids making stupid moves to stupid bad guys. That's all there is to it. Just like the previous ones, but this time they step it up a notch, by adding the incredible martial arts moves of that kung fu legend, Hulk Hogan. There were really memorable moments, like the one where a bunch of people puke after riding a ride turned nightmare (actually, they were puking over being extras for this movie). The movie's plot was probably stolen from a rejected script from Beverly Hills Cop 3, and later rewrote to achieve that disgusting kiddy tone. This is an insult to any audience, including babies. You can't even make fun of it while watching it (it's that bad).


We recently screened this film for our English class and I found it to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. There are WAY to many closeups of this actress, the plot was very weak, the props were poorly manufactured, and the sound was unbearable.

DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

The film shouldn't have been released to the United States and should have just stayed in Bollywood land where it belongs. This film is neither shocking nor riveting. I can't believe how many people liked this film. A group of normal college kids from Chicago all unanimously agreed that this film was complete trash.


Careful -- there could be a comment here that maybe a spoiler.

I only mention the spoiler as I believe this film should carry the "buyer beware" label as I believe some scenes have been edited out so it could show in Chicago (where I saw this film). I am unsure of the print that showed as I think I never saw the entire film. Scenes appeared to be "blacked out" -- scenes that were probably important to the film ending. Yet let's press on (caution: spoiler comment in forth paragraph).

This could have been a good film but the sound editing is terrible. The sound of water and breathing distracts you as it dominates in almost every scene. It becomes annoying; however, the music sound track is very good. The story does has movement and is helped along by the music score as it builds to the climax. Yet be prepared to be left..... hanging. (spoiler comment below)

I can only guess what was edited out (my guess was a visual destruction that Chicago audiences may have found disturbing). The editing, in fact, ruined the film for me as the black outs came at the climax. If an American viewing (or Chicago) was going to be a problem for the film they should have inserted a stock shot or kept tight on Malli's face.

It had potential as a good Indie but the poor sound recording and poor editing caused me to think "malo" instead of "Malli - si! - muy bueno".


I am surprised that so many viewers liked this movie. Let me make myself clear: I find the subject matter very interesting. Trying to understand why people (especially, young people, and even more so young girls) become terrorists (or freedom fighters; the terminology is heavily dependent on your alliances) is quite noble. So I was really eager to see the movie, but unfortunately was disappointed beyond the normal expectations. What was good about it? Well, the actors were not too bad (especially, given the fact that they were mostly non-professionals). That's about it. What was bad? Let's start with the premise: a girl (freedom fighter/terrorist) becomes impregnated by a wounded "brother in arms" while they find themselves hiding from the government troops in a ditch (and the latter are still raiding the area, might I add). Are you kidding me? I admit, I've never been shot in a battle, so I cannot tell what a person would normally do under these circumstances, but my wild guess is that having sex with a comrade (while the enemy soldiers are searching around) would not be the first item on the list. Well, may be I am wrong here... Next, who was in charge of the soundtrack (and sound in general)? This was probably the worst movie sound, I've ever heard: the same bad composition played on a cheap synthesizer over and over, so by the middle of the movie, you have an urge to turn the sound off and just read the subtitles. Who was the director? Almost every scene (with exception of the scenes involving the old man, his goofy friend, and the paralyzed wife) looked exceptionally fake: fights, killings, pull-ups, etc. Anyways, this could've been a decent unprofessional movie, but for a professional motion picture (especially, given the amount of positive coverage), it falls quite short.


First let me start by saying I was a huge Van Wilder fan and enjoy all of Kal Penn's work, be it in Van Wilder, Harold & Kumar, and even American Desi. This film, however, was a disaster. The plot is unimaginative; Taj arrives in a British university and leads a misfit group of losers against a wealthy, socially elite house in an intra-fraternal competition. The object of Taj's affection unfortunately winds up being the girlfriend of his biggest antagonist, the head of the rival fraternity house (see the original Van Wilder for a blatantly similar romantic situation).

This just wasn't funny at all. I crack up pretty easily and laughed less than 5 or 6 times during an hour an a half. And even then, I was forcing it just because I felt like I forked down $10, and if I didn't even laugh once, I'd have been bamboozled of my money. The only redeeming scenes are those featuring Taj's parents, who are in the film for less than 10 minutes and managed to pull my rating from a 1 to a 2. Every other joke was corny, unfunny, and otherwise dull. The writing and directing were so uninspired that it was actually painful to watch this movie. The problem with this film was half conceptual too, since Taj was only funny in Van Wilder in the limited doses we got. Goofy Indian accents aren't enough to carry an hour and a half long poorly written train wreck, and that's what we saw here.

The thing that really bothered me was that I could feel Kal Penn's career dying before my eyes. I really don't know how anyone who read this script could agree to do it, especially him, because he was the only actor with a future in this movie. He had at least moderate buzz going for him after a string of decent performances, and then releases this nonsense. I can only hope that movie studios will forgive him, because it was difficult to watch this.


After making a great supporting role in Van Wilder and being pretty damn funny in Harold and Kumar, I had kind of high hopes for Kal Penn, but Oh God does this movie suck.

Short of changing the actor who plays the lead character for a sequel, the worst thing you can do when making a sequel is get rid of the main character who is in this case also the title character (how can it be called Van wilder 2 if Van Wilder isn't freaking in it?).

A brief synopsis of the story is that Taj goes to England and starts trying to do Van's thing in a posh college, he also somehow gets involved in a dog show. Sounds pretty lame, doesn't it? Well, yeah it is. Not only is it not funny at all, but again there's the completely stupid British stereotypes flying around as if people even found them funny the first time round.

Don't waste your time


You know things aren't going well when the title character doesn't make an appearance in the 'sequel'. As much as I enjoyed Kal Penn in the first Van Wilder (and Harold and Kumar), he isn't given much to work with here.

The script is awful, just brutal. I think I laughed twice throughout the whole thing. I'm sure nobody is watching this type of movie for compelling characters and riveting plot, but when almost every single joke falls completely flat... every other blemish on the script becomes glaring. There are completely nonsensical subplots thrown about that reference secondary characters that you forgot were introduced in the first place, a silly competition that never makes any sense and an embarrassing turn by the bulldog that made his infamous scene from the first "Van Wilder" look like high art. If you sat a twelve year old in a room with a typewriter and told him to write "Revenge of the Nerds in England" he couldn't do much worse than what's given here. The worst part is that the movie gets consistently less funny as it goes on. The final 15 minutes or so is cringe inducing.

The direction isn't much better. The whole thing has a look of a made for cable TV movie you'd see on a kid's network. Not only is Kal Penn inconsistent with his accent from scene to scene, sometimes it's every other line. On a few occasions, I couldn't even make out the dialog. The actors clearly didn't give a clean read but it made through to the final cut anyways. I realize this was made on the cheap, but you can tell the folks behind the camera didn't put forth much effort. Either that or they didn't have the time. Regardless, it's not pretty to watch.

The only saving grace are the actors. Despite Kal Penn not bothering to hold his accent, everybody on screen appears to be having a good time. Even if everything else is awful, I can't hate a movie where it at least appears that the actors enjoyed their work. They all seemed determined to give their best despite what they all must have known was horrendous material. Kal and the female lead (Lauren Cohan) admirably build some chemistry with little help from their lines. Holly Davidson also steals a couple of scenes as the "cockney" member of the group.

While I didn't think this was a complete disaster, you'd be wise to avoid it.


I want to begin by saying that I actually feel embarrassed to say that I went to this movie on its opening night in CT, needless to say it did not make a favorable impression on me. I realize that I was asking for it just by watching a movie with a title like "The Rise of Taj" that wasn't the name of a documentary about a palace in India, but now that I'm through the hellish experience I feel obligated to warn as many as possible about the mental anguish you will go through if you see this craptastic movie. Oh, and my condolences if you have already been tricked into seeing it.

I checked 'contains spoiler' in this comment but I have faith that I will NOT be spoiling anything for anyone. The plot is about as formulaic as it gets for a movie about young people going to college and the warm feelings you may get from the relative safety of a painfully predictable storyline are about the only comforting thoughts you are going to experience... IF you can sit through it (I dare you). This movie made me cringe from the moment in the opening scene when "Taj" starts waxing philosophical to the dog with scrotal elephantitis, to the obligatory sword-fighting climax, when the hate-me-I'm-a-prick antagonist gets his ancestors' cremains in the face. Now those two sight gags may have been funny at some time on their own, but like a s... sandwich everything in between still reeks.

Imagine, for a moment a giant staircase where you must look at travel brochures of London or slides of a dog show for five minutes after which time you are forced to jump onto the next step and land squarely on your head. Repeat this process 19 times and you've got the essence of the movie down; lull, followed by a sharp decline in your personal well-being anytime any colorful characters opens their mouth to recite from the most boring, headache-inducing script ever made. VW2's script has enough clichè and stereotype reinforcing to eclipse an entire season's worth of MTV's reality show 'Next' and the one where Xzibit whores himself out... combined!

Flaming aside, the fact that movies like 'The Rise of Taj' are made and seen by idiots (myself included) is very depressing. I encourage everyone to make their own judgments about this and every film, but I feel very strongly that seeing it and actually enjoying it would require you to be either under 18, or someone with the intelligence of perhaps a blade of grass.


This highly redundant sequel involves Taj stuck in that tired old plot where he has to lead some misfits into victory against a superteam of unbeatable snobs. Meanwhile he also falls in love with our main villain's girlfriend. Gee, I wonder how all this will end. Kal Penn tries his best and comes of as pretty sympathetic, but these lines he gets are just, ugh. How many double entendres can you cram into an hour and a half? The first time it's pretty funny, the thirtieth time not so much. The writing just consists of working in the word "hard" with every opportunity that comes along. The most amusing scene comes somewhere in the middle, and that's just because it's ripped of from the first one. Are there really any redeeming qualities to this movie? Well, I'll give it a go. The lead snob lays it on really thick, which makes it somewhat enjoyable when he gets his comeuppance. That's pretty much why I kept watching, to see what would happen to him. Also, Holly Davidson is pretty hot. That's pretty much it. It's not enough to hold together a movie, sadly.


The worst kind of movie sequel promotes a supporting character to take over the lead role and takes longer than a couple of years to arrive in theatres. Like "The Return of Josey Wales," "Iron Eagle 2," "Smoky and the Bandit 3," and "Jaws 3 & 4," the latest superficial sequel to show up, "Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj," substitutes a supporting character for the title protagonist and appears four years later. As far as gross-out comedies go, "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" (2002) was no masterpiece, but the Ryan Reynolds' original qualified as far funnier that its tardy and tedious sequel could ever imagine. Everything that made Kal Penn of "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" so memorable in the first "Van Wilder" has been sacrificed and Penn cannot rival Reynolds' comic timing. Not only does it lack Reynolds' charismatic poise, but also the uninspired plot rehashes hackneyed higher education humor that "Animal House," "Revenge of the Nerds," "Old School," and "Porky's" have already worn out. Like its predecessor, "Van Wilder 2" does feature a collegiate setting, several bare-breasted babes, binge drinking aplenty, risqué sexual epithets, with a scatological skit or two, but nothing like the crude shenanigans in the first movie. The two biggest jokes in "Van Wilder" consisted of the seamstress sight gag at the beginning and then the very vulgar prank where a rival fraternity gobble pastries spiked with the seminal fluids of a well-endowed bulldog. The lack of anything remotely funny is compounded by the lack of originality in "Van Wilder 2." Look for this lackluster movie to crowd the video shelves in no time.

Baby-faced comic Ryan Reynolds channeled Chevy Chase in "Van Wilder," but the eponymous hero graduated from Coolidge College after seven year of lolly gagging. As Van Wilder's Indian protégé Taj Mahal Badalandabad, Kal Penn has not only stepped into his mentor's shoes but also he has stepped into something infinitely worse--a movie of unmitigated mediocrity. Nobody quite knows how to pronounce Taj's family name in "Van Wilder 2" and the joke generates fewer laughs with each instance. Freshman scenarist David Drew Gallagher, who has acted in a number of television shows and should forsake the pen, has forged far fewer offensive gags than his rowdy predecessors in his cookie-cutter screenplay. When "Van Wilder 2" opens, Taj has graduated from Coolidge College and has transferred to merry ole England. Our hero sets out to get his Master's Degree at a stodgy Cambridge-like university called Camford and follow in his father's footsteps as a lothario. Taj learns quickly that the natives are none too receptive to his desire to join their ranks in the elite Fox and Hounds' fraternity. Pipp Everett, the Earl of Grey (David Percival of the TV series "Sinchronicity"), the stuck-up man-in-charge of the Fox and Hounds, informs poor Taj that he has been rejected on a technicality. Searching for somewhere else to fit in, Taj takes the job of advising a minor fraternity made up entirely of misfits: Seamus (Glen Barry), a fiery Irish rugby player; Sadie (Holly Davidson) a tough female boozer; Simon (Anthony Cozen) a bean-pole genius, and Gethin (Steve Rathman) a well-endowed but shy guy. Taj names the new fraternity the Cock and Bulls. Actually, this is about as daring as "Van Wilder 2" gets.

In a dastardly attempt to put upstart Taj and his new friends in their ignoble places, Pipp challenges our heroes to a high stakes university competition for the prestigious Camford Cup, an annual academic, social, and athletic contest between fraternities. Nothing inventive in the way of amusing sight gags or grandiose gross-out jokes emerges from this stale, substandard sequel. Director Mort Nathan, who helmed the laborious Cuba Gooding, Jr. comedy "Boat Trip," makes the least of every comic opportunity in this prudish 95 minute potboiler. Indeed, Nathan and Gallagher revert to the general plot of the original without breaking new ground. When the snooty villains realize that they're going to lose the cup that the Fox and Hound fraternity has never forfeited, they plant incriminating evidence in the Cock and Bull's frat house. Consequently, dotty Camford Dean (veteran British TV actor Roger Hammond) has no choice but to expel Taj and his pals. Taj admits that he stole the test materials so that his pals can continue to compete in the tournament. Predictably, "Van Wilder 2" allows our oddball heroes to triumph over the Fox and Hounds without developing any suspense. Aside from Taj, the only character left over from the original "Van Wilder" was Van Wilder's pet bulldog.

Mind you, National Lampoon usually scrapes the bottom of a barrel of monkeys for its college comedies, and "Van Wilder 2" proves no exception. Unlike the witty original, "Van Wilder 2" boasts no cameos from previous National Lampoon movie cast members. Kal Penn should have been working on a Harold and Kumar sequel rather than this infantile idiocy. "Van Wilder 2" ranks as a forgettable follow-up to the original with a modicum of witty lines.


1stly this entire film is based on a total misconception. British Universities have NO fraternity system what so ever. So the need for inter house cups and challenges doesn't actually exist.

Take 1 character from the original Van Wilder and move him to England. Then put him amongst as many British stereotypes as possible.

The British University system actually allows people from all over the country to attend Universities so all accents and classes are represented.

The only actors most Brits are going to know are Taj's parents, One from Eastenders and one from The Kumars and Goodness Gracious Me.

This is a very poor representation of Britain and the British University system which is nothing like this. Fencing? A rarely played sport. Most Black Tie University Balls are conducted at the end of a term too.

As for the very racist notion that the Upper class don't welcome Asians to our country is total rubbish. Many areas of Britian have huge Asian Communities.

This is a bad film with no basis in reality and very poor stereotypes, few of which actually exist in modern Britain.

Oh, and doesn't EVERYONE know Earl of Grey is joke about Earl Grey, the type of Tea?


Considering how funny Van Wilder's Party Liaison was and that the character of Taj was great in it you would expect more from this follow up. It's basically Americans having a laugh at the English the college is a mix of Oxford and Cambridge with toffy nosed types trying to dupe the American. He ends up with a cockney slag, a geek and a drunken Irishman and boosts their confidence. Taj falls for the toffy nosed boys girlfriend and inevitably she falls for him. Predictable, not funny...In fact Taj is the only good thing in the whole movie the rest of the the "never heard ofs" are dire. Not worth the movie cost to rent it. Believe me


I had experienced many emotions whilst watching this film. Here are a few of my thoughts in no particular order: Once in every generation comes a genre defining cinematic epic. I have been privileged to watch 'Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj' while it is still a relatively unknown despite the enormous success of its predecessor.

Firstly, coming from an Asian background myself, I found the difficulties and challenges faced by Taj in a elite British university corresponded almost exactly to my experiences as a undergraduate at an Oxbridge University. Rarely does a film script capture the essence of academia in such prestigious institution. I often look back at my life and remember the numerous fencing competitions I entered and dog shows I attended to gain a respectable reputation from my peers only be thwarted in my attempts by an aristocrat with canine Viagra. Almost biographical, I often wiped the tears away from my face so I could continue watching the movie.

From a purely cinematic perspective, I found few flaws in the film, and at points it reminded me of the majestic direction found only in Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' and Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. If only the respected film institutions representing and honouring Western cinema appreciated such inspiring and ground-breaking work. I often thought of making my own movie, but after watching 'Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj' I can confidently say I have seen this art at perfection and cannot hope to improve upon it. Hopefully future generations will look upon this classic work of art and recognise it for the masterpiece it really is.

The scarily accurate portrayal of students, the best in their generation, at such an elite institution could only be achieved by actors of the highest calibre working at their hardest thoroughly researching the polymaths they bring to screen. Much of their work previously ignored, hopefully this film will elevate them to greater things and Oscars are surely looming. This film is truly a showcase of talent the industry has to offer.

I look forward to seeing more movies like this one, but deep down I know that this is a once in a lifetime cinematic opportunity standing aside films such as Gone with the Wind and Casablanca.

For some reason I was looking forward to watching Van Wilder 2 : The Rise of Taj, despite the negative feedback and media coverage it received. Perhaps it was a fault of mine, feeling nostalgic about my college days, hoping that this film would re-kindle my undergraduate experiences of watching college classics such as 'American Pie' and 'Road Trip'.

Sadly this film lived up to its reputation. If film making was a crime, then Mort Nathan is a murderer and MGM the people who handed him the pistol. Watching this film was like witnessing the execution of Kal Penn's career, despite his best efforts to exonerate the poor performance of the actors around him. Why "that Asian guy from Van Wilder" decided to undertake a film with a script recycled from its predesessor is beyond reason. This corpse of a movie is best remained buried in an unmarked grave so that no-one will have to endure the feeling that they have not only wasted 97 minutes of their life, but leave the theatre knowing something has died deep within them. It you manage to keep your eyes open to witness the horror of celluloid, then be prepared for the post-traumatic stress disorder you will develop following this film, with flashbacks of badly acted college students with no emotional depth haunting your dreams. If the 97 minutes wasted watching this movie were not enough, the subsequent 97 minutes writing this review as a warning to others may provide me with some sort of satisfaction that some good has come out of me seeing this atrocity.

Like my review, the film is full of contradiction, least of all Van Wilder not actually being in it. My friend and I started punching each other to keep us awake during this film.


I had some expectations that this film would be at least tolerable. However, shortly into the film, which I only paid $4 to see, the disappointments began to appear on the screen. I enjoy Kal Penn, and was hoping that he'd be able to continue his humorous Taj character from the first film. In this movie, there may have been a couple humorous parts that I chuckled at, but the minimal laughter that I expressed was usually directed at the complete absurdity of the plot. The plot was very, very similar to the first film. The few differences that I noticed were that it was in a different location, and the prime players of the film were altered. I would further explain the similarities, but do not wish to ruin it for anyone who still has the desire to view this film for some reason. The jokes seemed forced, the plot was unoriginal, as stated prior, and the movie overall had no purpose in being released to the theaters. The film, also, has little reason to ever be released to DVD; however, inevitably when it is, a price of more than $1.05 is too expensive. The one somewhat positive aspect of the film was that there were attractive females throughout, but I still was very upset that I paid to see this film.


Taj Mahal Badalandabad (played by Kal Penn) had a few funny moments in the movie (i.e. jokes regarding the former British aristocracy in India), but the movie almost nothing but sex jokes for the entire movie. This sort of humor included nearly a dozen different euphemisms for the female anatomy (I lost count), and countless jokes about how to "score" with the opposite gender. I laughed at the first few sex jokes, but by the end of the movie, I was really tired of hearing crude jokes.

If this sort of humor is appealing to you, then you'll enjoy this movie. Otherwise, don't bother seeing it. Overall, I felt "Harold and Kumar" was much more humorous. I'm a fan of Kal Penn's, but unfortunately, I cannot recommend this movie.

Brief Plot Synopsis (no spoilers below): Taj heads to Camford University (name taken from Cambridge and Oxford) in England to pursue his higher education and to follow in his fathers footsteps. He believes that he has been accepted to the prestigious fraternal guild "Fox and Hounds". However, upon arriving at the University, he is told by a "Fox and Hounds" member (nicknamed "Pip") that he was mistakenly sent this acceptance letter.

Taj is forced to become a teacher's assistant at the "Barn" residence, which contains a group of social outcasts. Pip and the other "Fox and Hounds" members treat Taj and his house mates very poorly. Determined to help the members of the Barn residence gain acceptance, Taj starts the "Cock and Bulls" fraternal guild. He hopes that the "Cock and Bulls" guild will win the Camford Cup, which is an annual academic, social, and athletic competition between fraternities. The bitterness between Taj and Pip only increases as the fraternities compete in several competitions to earn points towards the Camford Cup.

I cannot say anything more about the plot, or else I'll spoil it for you.


And it was only 3 squid me ol' muckers

Pretty bad flick on all counts, Kal Penn holds it together as best the man can, he forges out a couple of funnies but the supporting cast who try hard must have been kinda cheap to hire...the dude with the Big Wang doesn't make much sense, the Irish guy does look a lot like his older bro from titanic, I wouldn't put the nerd in a starburst advert but I thought the English tart had balls spouting such filth...what would her mother say?

Kind of looks like they made it in a couple of weeks so I appreciate the effort and I think it was worth 97 minutes of my life on planet earth...I didn't watch the extra features I'm sorry to say and I was kinda bummed the way the every 'hastings' scene had the cheapest possible activity, sword fight, paintball, dog show, bus ride, drinking competition....yet there was no stunts and only 4 breasts involved plus Taj's golf cart was super slow..........hey ho!

On the plus side they don't need Van or even Taj to bust out a whole host of Van Wilder Chronicles. Funny and cheap that why national lampoons are a rock and i predict will survive the credit crunch.


I have to say, whoever wrote the comment "Oh My God" made a very valid point, where is the title character?! That aside, it is a bit of a light chuckle, but I found myself screaming at the TV more than anything!! Most definitely filmed in England, with a largely British cast. But the home of the main character is most definitely NOT English, despite being in a very English location. The film is packed with things that the American creators obviously thought they were getting totally right, but have got COMPLETELY wrong!! Ridiculous British stereotypes, the types of people whom I have never come across in my 20 years of living; an Irish stereotype; the obvious Asian-American stereotype; American phrases; American cultural references; ridiculous British references that are.. well they're not really anything that anyone in Britain would actually make any form of reference to!! So on and so forth!! Overall, a laugh, but not worth the frustration of being an American made, British based film!!


Not a very good movie.

Van Wilder 2:The Rise of Taj is a movie that almost completely relies on gross out laughs and unfortunately doesn't succeed.

There are a only 2 or 3 giggle moments.

Some people might be tricked into watching because its called Van Wilder. Don't be fulled ladies and gentlemen Van Wilder isn't even in it.

Taj(Kal Penn)leaves college to continue his education he goes to a college in england where he wants to teach a rich bitch student(Lauren Cohen)not to be so serious.

The actors did a OK job. That is what kept this movie from getting below 3/10. Kal Penn was funny. I didn't even know Lauren Cohen was in this(i know her from supernatural)but it was a nice surprise.

This is not a very funny movie and at most times just plain stupid. The actors are the only thing that make this being worthy of even being called a movie.

I don't recommend this. But if you want to watch a Van Wilder movie without Van Wilder in it then go ahead. They should have only called it 'The Rise of Taj'.

3/10


Van Wilder 2 does not have the character 'Van Wilder' from the first film in any scene. One would expect such a film to be bad. What is notable about this film is that it is not only bad, but it is as bad in relation to the rather low quality first film as this fact would imply.

Van Wilder 2 is a clear cross between the first "Van Wilder", and the classic '80s college frat film "Revenge of the Nerds". Since "Van Wilder" (1) had a poor plot, a person might expect that this could be an improvement, but the crossbreeding is driven solely by the lack of creativity in the writers. Beyond a cursory plot, the film lacked dramatic tension, has poor plot detail execution, a distinct 'gag' or prank shortage, and inherently weak and under-characterized supporting characters.

I had high hopes of Kal Penn, and in fact I cannot fault his performance (as opposed to his choice of roles) but the film, and his role is so weak that this counts for little. A film of this sort requires interesting, if often two-dimensional supporting characters, and while Lauren Cohen, the female lead, does a creditable job, the rest of the supporting acting is rather bad.

To sum up, a very poor film, and a nearly humor-free comedy.


It gets off to a decent start. I thought the film would be good first 10 minutes in but after that it became more and more painfully obvious this one was going to blow. This was supposed to be a comedy and it just does not deliver enough laughs. The original Van Wilder was a much funnier movie. This movie relies on a lot of college film clichés but doesn't add anything new to the genre. Kal Penn manages to hold up the weak material for a little but eventually the movie just sinks. Kudos to Kal because he is always entertaining, but this one sucked. The only redeeming quality in this film are the two female leads, they both provide nice eye candy. I would not recommend this.


I'm brown, British, loved Van Wilder and Kal Pen but this film is utter sh*t.

Unfunny, unimaginative, badly directed and written.

As an initial idea it's great (that's why I went out of my way to see it) but the execution is nothing but shockingly poor.

The acting is poorly directed whist I have to say I expected worse from the accents (remember those terrible British accents by the "diarrhoea twins" in Harold and Kumar?

The dialogue was just offensive and I don't mean in a racial term (see above - I'm brown.) just p*ss Poor. Even Kal Penn's Hindi comments were just offensive and unfunny.

I wonder if this is an example of one of those projects producers and studio execs use as a vehicles to get laid?


This is not a great film, and certainly not a worthy sequel to the hysterical first film.

The lack of any other characters from the first is a killing blow to this film.

Its worth a look for the dog "ballsack" and for Taj. But otherwise its little more than giggle-worthy. Also, there is an incredible lack of research into real English society, This is the weakest Lampoon film i have ever seen.

But worth a look when you're free

Needed Ryan Reynolds.


I have watched such cinematic abortions such as Showgirls, Gigli, Glitter, Police Academy films and low budget bollywood films with no plot or three different plots. Why? Because I'm a sadist when it comes to bad films.

A "friend" brought it over after work and it was so awful we zoned out after 30 minutes and started talking.Lets just say the conversation we had would have made a much better film but thats not to be repeated here as children may read.

The film was predictable and pointless and I have lost 30 minutes I will never get back.

I'm so annoyed by the film i am still planning my revenge on the "friend" that brought it over to my house.


Kal Penn is OK, but the rest of this is formulaic, inane (not in a funny way) and an insult to film. The story is predictable and there is nothing here that surprises or shocks. It is a copy of other idiotic films and it is a bit more idiotic, but less humorous, than the worst of the films.

This is not bad enough to fit into the great bad film genre, with "Ishtar" and "Rhinestone" and Ed Wood's original stuff. It is just bad.

Anybody can make a film now and anybody can write favorable comments. Probably the positive comments were written by those who stand to make some money from the rest of us renting this turkey. Skip this one.


I received a free preview ticket for this and should have stayed home. This was just an awful waste of time and money. I have to think that there is someone out there who could have used the studio's money for something better. There were actually people laughing uncontrollably at a guy getting hit in the groin with a paint ball! It was painfully obvious that this was getting ready to happen. It was like a bad sitcom pilot that went on for way too long. The only good thing here is that there are some fairly attractive females. Oh well, I guess this just wasn't for me. I really shouldn't be complaining though, it was free after all...


Four bodies are found in New York City. Is there a coincidence? Well, they all died 48 hours after logging into the site FEARDOTCOM.COM....yes, it's feardotcom.COM

Sounds like the ring eh, well it is and it isn't, because with the Ring, you get more into the reasoning behind the video tape, in this movie you have some guy filming himself killing people, then people die from their worst fear after going to feardotcom....sorry feardotcom.com. This film falls into the category of "RIPOFF".

After seeing the opening scene I know that this movie would be average at best....I was wrong, it was below average. If you have a choice of this or the ring...make the smarter one, and see the ring. Or better yet, go and see Ringu, it's atmosphere and creep factor outshine both of these films. Notice I'm talking about other films, other then FEATDOTCOM, that's how bad it is.

Let's judge the similarities shall we?

People die after seeing web-site.

People die after seeing a video.

The lead female discovers a dead body in the water.

The lead female discovers a dead body in the water.

The dead body is from a little girl that people see before they die.

The dead body is from a little girl that people see before they die.

After they're dead, they have a terrified look on their face.

After they're dead, they have a terrified look on their face.

Should I tell you which scenario is from which movie...does it really matter?

At least Dorff entertained me for a little while, but please kill everyone else in the damn movie. Even the great Combs was underused and abused.

"I think your perfect for the lead role, come with me"

"well, I don't know you, and you look kinda freaky, but what the hell, I'll go with you and tell no one, and surely sign my death warrant"

Well, maybe that last bit wasn't in the movie but it might as well should have been.

PLEASE!!! This movie is really really terrible, I can't stress this enough. I found myself trying really hard to like it, and ended up hating it even more and who the hell at the age of 5 plays at a STEEL MILL??? Let alone a blonde girl with a white ball. The script and directing in this movie really brings it down because it has no idea what's it's doing. It seemed like they watched the Ring and decided to bring it into the new generation of viewers and make it the internet. It has nothing going for it, besides the cool looking box-art, which we see once or twice in the movie.


Wow,I never knew a film could be THIS BAD!!!!!Considering how high of a budget this movie had,it really had no explanation whatsoever for being as bad as it was.The special effects could've been done better by a toddler,the definition of "scary" in this film doesn't even come near the fright factor it needed to,and the ending and twists were completely unprofessional and mediocre.Basically,I felt I lost over half my brain cells when I was through watching this movie.This is the kind of filth that gives "horror",which if it could even fall under that category,a bad name.I wouldn't even recommend this movie for a good laugh at how horrible it is!!!!!Avoid at all costs,I WARN YOU!!!There was nothing special or good about this film AT ALL!!!!


My, my, my, what a sick and twisted world we live in for a film such as this to be made. After watching this film, I had to take a shower to wipe off the detritus that was emanating from the screen. What has Stephen Dorff done to his once promising career. This isn't a bad career move, this is jumping off a cliff. Was he angry because he didn't get a part for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre 6 or Ghoulies 7?

This film wasn't even remotely horrid, it was downright atrocious. Quite possibly the most scary film ever made, mainly because some idiot studio exec thought this might appeal to some audience, any audience. What were they shooting for? The crowd that recklessly spends their money because they don't care? I can only imagine how the creators of this film pitched this and still got some idiot to pick it up.


I don't understand movies like this, it seems that someone down the line (director, screenwriter) to address very obvious plot holes and inconsistencies.

1. In the first scene, the man who gets hit by the train, first off, he was clear of the train, pressed against the wall, but suddenly for no reason he leaps in front of the train at the last minute. Also, if you die of your worst fear, as the female lead later revealed, then getting hit by a subway train was this guy's worst fear??? 2. The German kid; he just seems to have bled to death in the cell. What was his death fear? 3. The ghost girl; she's a hemophiliac. Wouldn't she have bled to death well before 48 hours? 4. If your computer explodes after viewing the site, why didn't the computer expert girl's computer explode? It seemed only left in tact so the male lead could log on to that site.

5. At the end, the male lead summons his partner when they have the killer cornered, he says, "I don't have time to call for backup." What? Your cell phone service only allows ONE emergency call? And if so you use it to call your useless-up-to-now partner? Or why wouldn't you tell HIM to call for backup on his way??? 6. The partner manages to get there ahead of time, get killed and get strung up, even before the male and female lead even make it there. All by a guy with a scalpel and surgical dress on.

7. If ghost girl was tied down and tortured, how was she able to write a note, stick it in her lipstick case and swallow it without the mad doctor's knowing? Secondly, HE autopsied her and put everything back. Wouldn't he have checked the stomache? That's all. Great concept, poorly executed.


SPOILER FREE COMMENT! (though I don't think that there's anything to spoil here...)

I really don't know, how could I force myself not to turn this movie off after the first 20 minutes or so. In the first 1-2 minutes, I was hopeful, i thought, that it can't be a bad movie, because it has Udo Kier in it! My god, how wrong I was...

When the movie reached the 20 minutes mark, I was so desperate, that I've never been in my life. By then, it was pretty obvious, that this is a bad movie. It wasn't like that, when a movie seems good at the start but goes downhill later; no. It was bad from the beginning to the end.

There is no story. There is no acting. There is no direction. Character-development? Did you see any characters in this movie? Or can I even write down the word "movie" regarding this cinematic torture? I think, not. I won't. Moreover, I won't write anything more about this awful piece of film-making (Hmm... where did I see film-making in this? I really need to stop writing this comment, before I write some more ridiculous stuff. "Filmmaking", holy jeez...).

IMDb's lowest rating is "awful". This word hardly represents the suffering you go through watching FearDotCom. This is the only movie I rated 1 on this site, and when the credits started rolling, I immediately put this movie into the AAAC-category. What does AAAC mean?

AVOID AT ALL COST!!!

1/10


I was excited for this when it came out. Directed by the person who brought us the underrated House On Haunted Hill, many horror movie veterans (Dorff, Combs, and Kier), and at the time a fresh concept (released just before the Ring and all the other "ghost uses everyday thing to kill you" movies), and a dark atmosphere. So movie starts to begin, things are mixed. Cool death scenes, but scares are nonexistent (and believe me, I'm a wuss at horror movies in the theater and jump at even the fake scares). Use of Rammstein song, major check! But then after the first major death scenes and Dorff decides to check out the website himself, the movie starts to go downhill. Maybe it was because of how confusing the movie got afterwards or my mind just doesn't choose to remember it at all, or maybe even both but I can't remember too much of what happens in the second half right until the predictable climax. The characters are just too uninteresting too, no matter who is playing them. It just ticked me off how Combs was given a crap role, and a small one too. OK, maybe he didn't have a big one in HOHH, but he still owned a lot more than what he does here.

So in summary, I guess everyone has a few speed bumps in their career of movies. This is one for Malone, and I hope his next movie will make me bow at his feet and forgive him for the 5 bucks I wasted on this movie


So many holes in this film, so many. I have no idea what it was trying to be, if its intentions were to be artistically driven metaphors etc, or if it was just a bad idea. If i were either Dorff, Rea or Mcelhone i would be embarrassed with the result. It is as if they lost pages of the script during the production, or they wrote it while they were making it. The characters had no depth at all, and it didn't make sense why Mcelhones character as a health department investigator hung around trying to solve a case that had nothing to do with the skills she had. It was like she became a police officer for a while. Also, Rea's character was a strange parody of a delusional madman, trying to be meaningful and purposeful with his depraved acts. And what website was he broadcasting to? Fear dot com wasn't his website, and the relevance of the girl, his first victim was unclear. How\why was she the only victim that wanted revenge? Why did she kill people who didn't find her body? It must have been her website. Why did Dorffs character flake out and become useless as soon as he viewed the website, leaving Mcelhone to do everything? Yet he then became well enough to go and finish... blah blah blah. It is not worth writing about anymore, I assure you that this is one of the worst horror films, no, one of the worst films ever made.


After reading the description for this video and deciding to purchase it two days ago, I felt that it might be a worthy horror film. Unfortunately this movie was a major disappointment. This was definitely a "hack and slash" film, but it was the plot and continuity of the film that were cut to pieces. This movie had no redeeming qualities... The plot was non-existent, the acting was poor, the effects were poor... The worst part of all is that this movie was actually released and that there are people that like it. No offense to these folks, but when the best part of the movie is throwing it in the trash, you really need to reconsider what you're watching. This could have been a decent horror film, but all things considered, this movie ranks a 1 on the rating scale and a 10 on the pain scale.

My suggestion is to watch a horror film such as 'The Ring' or John Carpenter's 'The Thing.' Both are edge-of-your-seat thrillers that will show you what horror is meant to be... ;)


This has to be one of the biggest wastes of money, time and effort ever! Director William Malone did an entertaining job before this mess with the remake House On Haunted Hill, but here the story has clearly got the better of him and everyone involved! Meaning that there is no story, of course! It's a rambling mess of set pieces that have no tension and zero scare factor. Stephen Dorff is one of those actors who needs to fire his agent, he is talented and easy on the eye, and has made some good films like Blood and Wine, and World Trade Centre. Still, more often than not we find him in the midst of films such as this and Alone In The Dark, where he so obviously is searching for a way out, presumably so he can kill his agent! Natasha McElhone is an actress who's work I genuinely enjoy, films such as The Truman Show and Ladies In Lavender show how good she can be. The poor thing had no chance, she looks worried for her reputation the entire running time ... and please dear, who goes swimming in some flooded factory with a homeless woman as your lifeguard?! And why were you asking her questions about some girl? Oh, sorry Natasha, you didn't know either did you? Stephen Rea ... I can't even think of why he is here ... no excuse at all. After this and In Dreams (a big mistake for Neil Jordan!) he is gonna need about 10 movies as good as Interview With The Vampire, The Crying Game and The End Of The Affair for him to sink his acting chops into again, before he can wash the taste of this experience out of his mouth! Cinematography was basic, and effects were so forced as to make me wonder if the film was set in the future. It's not, it's trying to push for a reaction to the growing threats that the internet can bring on society, but instead it looks terribly dated. Commentory from the director is useless ... he talks of mixing old and new looks ... blah blah blah, it didn't work Billy, your film makes everyone look like they need a good wash and a shot of tequila ... if only to wake up from the nightmare of being in this stupid, incoherent story! Phew, so glad to have got that off my chest ... please save yourselves and don't see this film. To follow what I could of the films "it'll be the last site you visit" story ... this could be the last film you watch ... that's how much it will make you cry for the state of cinema!


I would estimate that I've seen over a thousand movies in my lifetime. FeardotCom may very well be the worst of those films. The acting is bad, the dialogue is worse, and the editing is terrible. The film lacks coherence, cohesiveness, and, in some parts, comprehensiveness. The film manages to maintain its unwatchability for over an hour, but by that point the viewer will probably have already logged onto www.feardotcom.com in hopes of ending the misery. If I had been able to give this movie less than a star, I would have done so in a heartbeat. Do not make the mistake of renting this movie; there's a small chance it may scare you, but the odds of that happening are not worth sitting through 90 minutes of some of the worst examples of film-making.


I picked this up this evening for no other reason than the cast. Oh, sure, now and then I do enjoy a good horror flick (this isn't one) and was in the mood to watch some mindless goop. Well, FEARDOTCOM is certainly mindless; indeed, I muttered out loud when the credits were running, "Oh my God! They actually had a writer!" Could have fooled me -- I was literally expecting one of those "Script by Committee" acknowledgments; whoever Josephine Coyle is I sure hope she doesn't quit her day job (her only other credit listed at IMDb is as a "production coordinator" for PRESENCE OF MIND in 1999).

And, largely because of that miserable excuse for a script, it winds up being not a good ANY kind of film: When the bloody hell are film makers going to realize the rather elementary truth (as in Kindergarten level) that if you don't have a good script, you don't have a film? Period! Never mind good production values (and I hate to admit it but they ain't bad), good direction (this definitely has none of that - Lord! The number of bloopers is just astonishing SPOILER**Just as a for instance: When McElhone rushes into the psychiatric ward of the hospital to talk to Dorff (with no explanation WHY he's in a psychiatric unit), is directed to his room "first door on the left," she is instantly there, finds him having a full-on seizure (with no medical people in attendance, mind you), and suddenly -- when she, oh, so frightfully conveniently gets a phone call -- NOW she's got to go out the door onto a stair landing and through yet another doorway before she's back in the same corridor! Really good continuity there, folks!) END SPOILER.

I have admired Stephen Dorff in many films **but this was just, well, a grunting quasi-Neanderthal that pretty much embodied every tired cliché there is for a world weary cop since sometime in the 1930s**! (**Oh yeah! And somebody really should point out to this generally admirable young actor that if you have a story in which the primary character doesn't "solve" the main problem, but instead winds up a clueless bystander, you just don't have a viable story.**) I adored Natasha McElhone in MRS DALLOWAY (and -- even GIVEN the weaknesses of the character in the script -- in THE TRUMAN SHOW), and have been an admirer of Stephen Rea ever since THE CRYING GAME, too -- but I can't figure out why they agreed to do this one; did they all need some quick-and-dirty money or something. . . .

Usually one can at least learn something from a genuinely bad movie (which this is) but with this one, for the very first time, I wanted to go back to my film rental store and demand my $3.50 back on general principles.

I'm glad I didn't follow my first impulse to shut the show down at the end of the "first reel" 20 minute period, because I can quite honestly report about this disaster of a movie: Dreadful! Just dreadful on every level except, as I said above, production values. Big deal!


really one of the worst films in recent memory. and that is saying a

lot.

what a muddy script and incredibly bad direction. a few people

said to me that at least it looked good, but i thought it just looked

cheesy - very cliche.

one dimensional characters. bad story development. totally

fractured. very predictable. badly edited. REALLY badly written.

hard to tell if the acting was particularly bad (although i can say

with certainty that at least 'the partner' was really awful..) as the

actors had NOTHING to work with.

amazing that this made it to the big screen..

did i mention that it was bad?


Not even Leprechaun can compare. Though the girls on the Fear website are freaky, that's about all this movie has going for it. And it still won't help raise this stupid thriller above a one rating. It is number 64 on the list of bad movies. Very apt. The acting stank, the plot was confusing and made no sense, the characters had not even a sliver of depth. I truly despise this movie. Do not rent it. Do not even waste your time if you happen to catch it on TV. That's all I can bear to say.


This is one of those movies that against my better judgement began to watch at the urging of a friend of my wife's. Well to sum it up I have never until this now walked out of a movie. After rationalizing (since I had nothing better to think about during the movie) I figured that the only way I could recoup the cost of the movie was to cut my losses and leave. The some 1 1/2 hours that I would have spent watching the remainder of the movie would have been better spent licking a toilet at a buss station. ** SPOILER FOLLOWS ** IT SUCKED, IT REALLY REALLY SUCKED !!!!!!!


This has to be one of the worst movies that i have seen. The Tagline of the movie was not bad. It was the acting.Perhaps if there was a better script then maybe it would have been a better movie. The leading lady need some acting lessons.


In what may be one of the truly bad films of all time, the lead actress

cries out "Oh My God," whenever anything unexpected happens. I counted

six such outbursts and stopped, but it occurred to me that her words sum

up this witless, pretentious,badly acted, badly directed, badly written,

badly photographed mess. OH MY GOD, indeed honey, OH MY GOD indeed!


I have always loved going onto this site to check user comments because i find them interesting and helpful. I have many times thought about signing up so I could post comments but never really had the desire. That all changed after I saw feardots**t. This movie is so incredibly bad that i felt obligated to warn others. When i tried to rent this the guy at blockbuster said dont and told me that it was a terrible, terrible movie. Being the idiot that i am, i rented it later from a different blockbuster and lost 2 hours of my life that i will never get back. The movie does not make any sense what so ever. My friends and I were literally on the floor laughing when the mother said that her daughter used to play at the abandoned steel factory. Of course every character in the movie logged onto the website even though they knew damn well it would kill them. Please, if you havent seen this movie and are thinking about renting it please dont. Not even to make fun of it or see how bad it really is.


This is one of the worst movies ever. Each person's dvd/vcr player should ruin the copy before it is done as a service to those who are considering watching the movie. Why? It was boring. It never went anywhere. It was not scary. It was undramatic. I would have rated it a zero, but it was not an option. Actually, it deserves a half point for showing boobs and another half point because Natascha McElhone gets hotter as the movie goes on (BUT THIS IS NOT NEARLY A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO WASTE ANY TIME ON SEEING THIS MOVIE!!!). So, I rated it as 1 out of 10.

Seriously, it depresses me that scripts like these even get read all the way through. Who approves the making of a movie like this? I can't believe that any of the actors'/actresses' careers are that bad that they would agree to acting in something like this. In fact, anyone trying to further their career by taking a part in this movie may have set their career back considerably. Trust me, if I had anything good to say, if there were any redeeming qualities (besides for the boobs and Natascha, of course), I would gladly point them out. Take my word for it, the movie is not worth watching for more than one second and is not worth paying one cent for. This is more of a public service announcement than a review. I care too much about you and your spare time to misguide you into watching this. Have a nice day.


At no point during this incoherent rambling, did it ever make sense, everyone who watched this... is now dumber, I award it no points, and may got have mercy on the directors soul... The movie did not make any sense, it wasn't for even a minute scary, it was more of creepy that someone had these images in their mind. The ending was horrid, I drew parallels to "The Ring" from this movie, but The Ring wasn't nearly as bad.. I don't recommend this movie to anyone unless you have seen every other movie in the world.. 1/10


In my 39 years of movie viewing, only three times have I fallen asleep watching a movie.

1) FOOLS RUSH IN, and that's because I'd had NO sleep the night before and shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not that the movie was that good.

2) MOULIN ROUGE Sorry, it just hated this movie. Couldn't take one more song with the two of them singing badly to each other on a rooftop. Yuck! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

3) FEARDOTCOM. I think I slept towards the end out of a sheer defense mechanism, to get away from the embarassment of it all. I felt bad for the performers, I guess. I won't go into all the various reasons, but for a movie supposedly set in the US, why did it so BLATANTLY look like it was filmed in Europe? Could it be that the exterior establishing shot for 1) police station 2) her apartment 3)a victim's apartment & 4) his apartment were all filmed on the same city block? Just from slightly different angles, but it was amusing when we first saw the exterior of the police station, and then later the cop is driving to the Natascha McElhone's apartment and WOW, it's the same building. The story ultimately makes no sense, really, and it's just yucky. I don't mind gore one bit, if handled well. I even stomached stuff like DAY OF THE DEAD back when it first came out and people were hurling in the aisles. But feardotcom was so distasteful, so indulgent in its love of the gore (mild though it was) that I mostly felt a little dirty for watching, kinda like I'd watch a snuff film. And no filmmaker should actually want you to feel that way, but the movie is so amateurishly made that you feel like you're watching home movies of these brutal acts. Sounds good and edgy, some might think. But if you like something resembling COHERENCE in your movies, guess again. It was momentarily amusing to see Jeffrey Combs (he of the unusual but entertaining performances in REANIMATOR and FROM BEYOND), but in the end, he was pretty darn bad. Natascha McElhone, whom I usually like, generated no heat whatsoever. And I can only believe that it was actually Geoffrey Rush's untrained twin brother who acted in this movie and not the real Geoffrey Rush himself.

Never have I wanted my money back more. Do NOT, NOT , NOT see this film!!!


In 24 years of movie watching I have never once walked out of the theatre during a movie. Until this one. I love bad horror movies. But this was by far the worst movie I have seen that wasn't skewerd on MST3K. Really Really Bad.


I love horror movies. I love gore movies. I love movies that make you jump in your seat and make your heart flutter and make you cringe with fear.

This movie couldn't possibly be considered anything but a waste of time.

It wasn't scary. It had gore - I'll give it that...but it was more dead-bloated-woman-being-mutilated gore than Freddy Kruger or Scream gore.

As a matter of fact, I took offense to many parts of the movie. I think it is possible to make a movie about a serial killer that mutilates and humiliates women without doing so on screen. This movie went way beyond the norm and showed graphics and images that most do not want to see. Even those who enjoy horror.

I think the only people that enjoyed this move are the kind of people that would actually take pleasure in committing the crimes that occurred in the movie.

Do not waste your time.