I really disliked this movie for many reasons. First, the effects are horrible and laughable, the acting is horrible (Robert Patrick and Bo Hopkins were not very good in this one) and so on... This gives no honor to the first in any way, they should have stayed with the first and the third to make the perfect duo. The part where the guy is attacked by a bat in his car is so funny! Oh my, it just looked like a plastic toy that someone threw at his windshield. This film is not by any means a popcorn B-movie... it's worse! With such a low budget and with this director, you can't build a well filmed good action sequences with a lot of explosion and stuff. The first is one of my favorite action movie but this one is just... awful.

Rating: 1.4/10


Ok don't get me wrong, I love vampire and horror films, but I have to say this is the only horror film that I've actually fallen asleep trying to watch, and not even the wonderful Robert Patrick can redeem it.

The only mildly redeeming area is friends turned and still pretending to be themselves, but even that wasn't done very well

Sorry, but I would only ever recommend this film to someone who has to treat insomnia, otherwise watch something else instead


I really liked the first movie. It was cool, it was violent and the twist was really fun and unexpected. This movie is nothing like it. Fact is that this movie just stinks. Please do me a favor, if you're thinking of renting this movie, think again. The very uncool camera angles and quotes like "Come here you sexy bitch" just makes you think that the movie is made by some sort of primate with the brain the size of a peanut.


I am a really big fan of the first part of "From Dusk Till Dawn". Today I bought the english version of part 2. I thought: "Yeah, part one is great, "Texas Blood Money" will surely be cool too. I has to be good, cause it costs about 30-40 US-Dollars." But it wasn't. The story is absolutely weak, the actors too and the special effects are one of the worst I've ever seen!!! They only run/drive around and kill all people they can in such a cruel way I have never seen!

What did Quentin Tarantino do? The first part is such an excellent, great, fantastic movie but the sequel is so bad. Why. Does he only want some more money, cause of the first success?? I am totally disappointed. But I think I will buy part 3 too. Some people said it's nearly as good as part 1. I hope so...


As you can tell by the summary line, I'm no big fan of the Tarantino scripted original, but it shines in the face of this effort. This second sequel, made back to back with the third, attempts to cash in on the profitability of the original movie. In a nutshell, this movie stinks! Really badly. No care or continuity has been taken in the writing. The endless use of pointless P.O.V. shots really grate the viewer (although, I'm sure the crew had a much worse time having to waste their efforts on such shots as an elevator button P.O.V., etc.) The effects are abysmal.

But you've probably already seen this movie. You know how bad it is. What I'd like to know is how can we convince the industry not to waste their money on poop like this?


This movie is one of the worst excuses for a movie i have ever seen. i don´t understand how Quentin Tarantino, one of my favourite directors/producers can do such awful movies as the From Dusk Till Dawn movies. This one is even worse than the first. Unlike the first one, this one has Bad actors (Robert Patrick). DON´T WASTE YOUR TIME, YOU WILL ONLY BE DISAPPOINTED. Robert Patrick should really consider which roles he should play more... I liked him in T2, but in this movie, no, don´t think so. And Tarantino should do more movies like Reservoir dogs, Pulp fiction and Jackie brown. Shape up Quentin, i know you can do better than this. Bad special effects, Even worse acting, bad story, bad jokes. In other words.... BAD MOVIE.


There's not much to say about this. I've tried watching the movie 6 times, but each time I fall asleep. It's boring, ugly and I'm sorry I even bothered to put it in the VCR.

It's kinda funny, when you think about it. The first movie is one of the best movies I've ever seen. The plot, the change, the dialogs, the clichés, the roles, the music. This movie is the worst one and has none of those highpoints. Absolutely none. It doesn't have a descent plot. The dialogs looks like they try to be funny (though they aren't). It has no links to the real world. The roles aren't good. And even the music sucks. I remember Tito and Tarantula and the Vaughan bros. playing in the first one giving it the GREATEST soundtrack ever.

I'm greatly disappointed


Admittedly From Dusk Till Dawn was a hard act to follow. There are few horror fans who would disagree that it is a very good movie. However, that is no excuse for the 90 minutes of my life that were savagely taken from me. Forced to watch a film which lacked any forms of good dialogue, story-line or directorial skills. To begin with the overuse of point of view shots becomes absurd too quickly; dog POV, push-up POV, telephone cable POV, fan POV, behind bats teeth POV. At first it's amusing as if it were a spoof. But soon you find yourself reaching for the eject button. If you do last any longer you'll find totally unexplained plot details, such as, why the hell are vampires robbing a bank with humans? And how does Danny Trejo suddenly turn up towards the end of the film after being slaughtered in the first reel. Despite the talent on offer here, everything you could think of is a let down and an example of how to not win any support from the audience. I think the key to this failure is the abysmal writing and directing from Scott Spiegel. Let's campaign for this guy to stop. If he hasn't already.


Dusk till Dawn was a fairly competent film full of everything you need in a good action flick including a bizzare twist i.e. all the locals in the bar are vampires.Dusk till dawn 2:Texas blood money though was a whole different kettle of fish.It is a poorly thought out ploy to cash in on a successful movie.Don't get me wrong i'm a huge fan of bad films and commend them if they are in any way inventive or resourcefull,this wasn't.Texas blood money also made use of annoying camera shots it persevered with every point of view shot possible.We had the shot from the pov of a man doing press-ups,we had the shot through the red eyes of a bat and to top it off the pov from a fan moving left to right.Overall it is a highly frustrating film that should never have been made,their certainly shouldn't have been a third installment.Never see this if you haven't,and if you have i feel for you and hope the counciling is going well.


Now, being that close to 80% of all TV-series in the Norwegian networks are of a foreign origin, one might assume that the remaining 20% would contain at least a certain level of quality. One might assume that the vast amount of money it actually costs to produce television and movies here - thus, the obvious reason for the frequency of purchased, far cheaper, foreign programs - could result in television with at least a minimum degree of equality to those purchased from abroad. "Hotel Cæsar" fails to meet these anticipations.

I really can't recall being witness to a TV-series with such an embarrassing writing, awkward acting, disgusting cinematography and unprofessional directing.

Imagine a series with a cast who would be rejected from a John Waters-flick, the writers behind "Full House" suffering from writer's block, and cinematography which would make an average amateur-porn-movie look like an epic. Then, imagine Üwe Boll orchestrating the whole thing together.

"Hotel Cæsar" is, then, not to be recommended to anyone. Not even if your nationality is Norwegian. That is unless, of course, you consider this kind of television to be well spent tax-money.


I am not one of the people who hates soaps, I love some American soaps like Sunset Beach and Days of our lives(the way it was in the 90s that is) But this one is terrible !! The story lines are boring and usually about something that has to do with money. The characters are so boring and unoriginal it isn't even funny. Its the same day in and day out at the stupid hotel.

The only good thing about this show is Svein, he is the only character that is fun to watch and the actor is brilliant !!(not to mention Hilarious !!) I also liked Ragnar played by Nicolay Lange Nielsen but thats about it. 2 characters aren't enough for me to watch a show.

True some of the actors are good but some of them need to show more emotion. For example in one eppies a girl just lost her father and she was talking about her fathers death as if she got a bad math test back !!! I just had to laugh...

If you want to see a OK soap from Norway the only one is Syv Søstre, although it had some really bad actors in it the story lines were far more exciting and actual had original characters. And the good actor in that show were far better than the good ones here.

Its a joke that this show have been on for over 10 years!

Norway don't fit to make soaps IMO, I prefer real life shows from Scandinavia(where as I prefer unrealistic American soaps). Like Vestavind and Sommer.


Bad! It's like the whole show is made for young kids or older people(50 and up)who doesn't know what good acting, good directing and a good script are. The only reason that this show is still being aired is because half of Norways population is youngsters and oldies, who does not understand English or manage to read the subtitles fast enough, and there's no other shows to watch in Norwegian(Okey, you have the sucky sitcoms).

There are some good actors/actresses(not good, but they suck less) and they are the only reason why i gave this 2 out of 10!

Definitely not worth checking out!


The very best scene in this movie takes place about a half hour before the end. It's the final dance pageant. It's worth it to rent this movie and fast forward to this finale as it is truly electric. It belongs in a *much* better movie.

You see, I slept through all but that final scene. And I missed absolutely nothing. I payed attention enough to want to strangle nearly every character in the scenes when they aren't dancing.


The music is bad, the acting is below par, I can't tell the dubbed voice of the main character from his internal dialogue and the storyboarding is horrible. Not to mention the special effects and props and costumes. The very LEAST the director could do was to remove the bar-code sticker from the supply-store bought axe Helgi throws at the tree.

You'd think that the director has never seen a film in his life let alone studied any cinematic or storytelling techniques in order to prepare for creating this one.

I give this film one star, because it is simply the worst film I haver ever seen. I judge my films from what I have seen so far and I don't really let budgets interfere with my opinion. Because you have less money to make a film, you should focus on what is actually possible to do WITHIN the budget.


This movie isn't the way it's poster shows, and I assure you that if you don't consider my comment as a friendly warning then you'll feel very sorry after or even before finishing this movie.

Those who have written good comments about this movie doesn't know about the real sense of what is called a movie at all.

Despite of it's cheapness, actors are so pathetic specially the children - They have successfully put this movie in entire mess from the very beginning. It has a very bad choreography, bad make-up, the brave uncle got a funny mustache that doesn't appear to be true. If you can't make it look real then why bother to have one? It was plainly better without it.

This an ultimate insult to the audience.


I wasn't expecting anything when I saw this movie for free. If I would've had to pay for it I wouldn't have watched it in the first place. The story copies everything from other horror movies. This one feels mostly like Nightmare on Elm Street though, but done incompetently. You have the usual stereotypes, and none of them can act well enough to make you care about them. One of the things I did like at first was the rapid dialog. I found it hysterical at first because it seemed almost natural the way it was spoken, but then it becomes totally repetitive and soon falls apart when the killer finally shows up. And when I say falls apart, I mean it for all the characters. I think maybe the director realized he was just making another useless horror movie and decided to stop caring.

This movie had cliché written all over it. All the ideas have been done to death, and the director offers nothing more to the table to make it work in anyway. THe killer was laughable as was most of this movie. I would not recommend this pile of Pooh to anyone.


The teenager Madison McBride (Sarah Roemer) is traumatized by the loss of her deranged father when she was nine yearold and the suicide of her beloved brother Brandon one year ago. She decides to join the Richard Miller University, where Brandon committed suicide, to overcome her demons. While walking to her dorm, she meets the weird janitor Wilbur Mackey (Joe Inscoe) that tells her that the place is haunted. Madison befriends the recovering drug addicted Holt (Jake Muxworthy); the geek outcast String (Cody Kasch); the sexually abused Ivy (Ellen Hollman) and Maya (Carolina Garcia); and the joker athlete Tommy (Travis Van Winkle). All the schoolmates have traumas and the veteran Rez (Randall Sims) is responsible for them. String discovers in Internet that in 1935, their dorm together with an attached abandoned section was an asylum administrated by Dr. Magnus Burke (Mark Rolston) and considered a safe refugee for troubled teenagers with state-of-art treatment. However, in 1939, the interns uprose against the insane doctor, killing and disclosing the truth about his treatment. Sooner they find that their dorm is haunted by Dr. Burke that is seeking for tortured souls.

The lame "Asylum" is a forgettable collection of clichés that do not frighten or make laugh. The villain Dr. Burke slightly recalls Freddy Krueger with his sharp blades and bringing nightmarish memories to his victims. The characters are destroyed the same way they appear, without any development or care with the consequences. In accordance with the story, Mackey was eleven year-old in 1939. Therefore, in 2007, he would be seventy-nine year-old, still working and in an excellent shape. In the end, I would like to give my suffering for watching this terrible movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Asylum  Não Estamos Sozinhos" ("Asylum  We Are not Alone")


How to begin with this one? Well it starts out with a horror movie cliché. It then sticks to that theme for the rest of the movie.

To begin with, we are introduced to Madison. We are shown her as a child walking down a dark hallway in her parents home while her parents are heard to be yelling. Hmm where have I seen this before. Oh, right. Everywhere. Anyway, it turns out that they weren't fighting. The reality is that her father is insane and pitching some sort of hissy fit, and her mother is trying to calm him down. He shoots himself. This sounds dramatic, but in this movie it just comes off as boring.

Years later, Madison is attending orientation for college. I don't know what sort of private university this is, but I have never seen dorms an eighth as nice as these. It is mentioned that Madison and the other characters will be staying in the new dorms, but the building looks old and much nicer than anyplace a college student has ever stayed. It is explained that the building used to be an old asylum (clever title isn't it). This just makes it seem stranger that the place is so nice. Generally speaking, old asylums weren't very nice places.

I guess I should introduce the characters. The movie had the good manners to do so. There is actually a scene in this movie where all the main characters gather round in a circle and introduce themselves. Saves the filmmakers the trouble of giving them back story. There is the nice guy (whom Madison nearly pepper sprays for rudeness). There is the loud mouth douche bag guy. There is the somewhat standoffish Latin girl. There is the nerdy guy (this college age male plays with a cat's cradle). There is the slutty chick (she never has sex with anyone, but she says slutty things all the time). That covers the students.

There are also some other characters that should be mentioned. There is the campus police guy who doesn't believe anything supernatural is happening (in his defense, he survives the movie without ever seeing anything even slightly otherworldly). There is the slow witted maintenance man who knows all about the secrets of the old asylum (it bares mentioning that though this is the sort of character that other characters humor he is scene to be doing the work of an electrician, poorly I should mention). There is the grad student in charge of the watching over the kids (this guy is a jerk and he never dies or gets any comeuppance, in fact, it's like they forgot about this character halfway through the movie). Finally, there is the ghost of the doctor who ran the old asylum (he is sort of a tenth rate Freddy Krueger. He doesn't kill people in there dreams, he just appears to people causing them to relive some painful memory. He then says that he can help them. He proceeds to kill them in some manner in keeping with the theme of their memory. At least, he does this for a while. Towards the end he gets lazy and just starts stabbing people).

I know it seems like I have described these characters as undeveloped, one dimensional stereotypes. That is how the movie shows them. As such, you really don't care about them.

Anyway, on to the plot. The kids stay in the dorm. They go into the old abandoned section (nobody dies there). The lights blink all creepy like (a character even comments on how creepy this is, but I would like to point out that there is a slow witted man doing electrical work at this building. Maybe that has something to do with the blinking lights. Hmmm) The doctor kills people one at a time until it is really monotonous. Madison (She might be insane. She sees things that aren't there. It might just be the ghosts and all, but I don't think so. At one point she seems an image of her dead brother shoot himself. This doesn't really seem to bother her that much. Madison is weird) and the nice guy try to investigate. They suspect the creepy maintenance guy. This is annoying since the audience knows that it is a ghost killing people. He acts like he is going to reveal some great big secret about the old asylum, but he really doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. The remaining characters (those who haven't died or been forgotten by the director) try to flee. The ghost chases them. For some reason doors stop this ghost who can appear anywhere. At one point the ghost takes off his lab coat to reveal that he is inexplicably wearing a weird S&M outfit underneath. He keeps chasing them. Even after they escape the building he keeps chasing them (this is strange). They end up in a clearing in the woods. Madison stabs the ghost. The souls of his victims leak out of him and he disappears. Madison and nice guy go away. The end.

I would just like to say something about that ending. Madison had no reason to suspect that stabbing the ghost would kill him. (By the way, why does it?) Also, we were never really told that the doctor was holding on to his victims souls. It seems like this ending was sort of a half effort rip off of the ending to Mortal Kombat the movie. That the filmmakers chose to end their movie this way should really tell you something. Don't bother watching this. It isn't scary. It isn't so bad it's good. It's just bad.


What to think of this movie. It's Mark Rolston who makes the movie, appeared before in Corman's Humanoids from the deep and Saw V he gives a perfect performance, made me even think a bit of pinhead from hellraiser. He's got the face to play a killer. But the hardest part is the storyline. Too poor. They could have made an excellent flick but there isn't enough "suffering" in it, not that much gore or blood. The youth that is going to be killed are the typical kind of kids appearing in a horror movie. The oversexed mr macho guy, the sexy girl, the nerd, the thinking girl, the bastard boss,...They all play very well but again, their own storyline isn't worked out enough. Even the usual nudity doens't give it a surplus value. It's a shame because in a time of torture porn they could have made a classic one. They should have known when you use a sentence like "give me your suffering" that you should give people real suffering. Watch it for Rolston's performance, no more no less.


Back in the 30s, Doctor Burke (Mark Rolston) tried to treat teenagers suffering from craziness, but his methods proved more deadly than helpful, and the other patients killed him.

Now, in modern time, the building is now a college dorm. Six unwitting students - each with their own deep, dark secret - have the dumb luck to be living in that dorm.

We got our stock characters, including the survivor girl Madison (Sarah Roemer), the brooding bad boy with the heart of gold Holt (Jake Muxworthy), the shy computer geek String (Cody Kasch), the whorish Ivy (Ellen Hollman), the dumb jock Tommy (Travis Van Winkle) and the Spanish kick-butt-and-take-names girl Maya (Carolina Garcia). One by one they become victims (or survivors) of the mad doctor, with only one outrageous way of killing him.

Let's go through our checklist of horror movie clichés: 1) Stock characters - check 2) Characters with seedy pasts that you know will come into play - check 3) A cop who has no clue what he's doing - check 4) A creepy janitor who knows the whole history - check 5) A supernatural killer - check

Yep...basically this is just yet another horror flick that will be easily forgotten an hour after watching it.


"Asylum" isn't actually offensive or incompetent, so I couldn't give it a single star. In fact, the film is shot fairly well (if you like dark scenes where you can't tell what's going on) and the direction is acceptable. The acting varies wildly, but is certainly a step up from most of the horror trash being churned out these days. The SFX range from pretty scary and subtle to just plain laughable (see the last scene, for example.)

What really makes this film a bore is the lousy plot and script. It truly does play like it was filmed from a script assembled by throwing the scripts from classic horror movies (and some that aren't so classic) up in the air and then picking up random pages after they fall. Not every horror film cliché appears in this film, but there are no scenes in this film that are not horror clichés. The dialogue is just totally unrealistic. No suspense...no character development...no logic.

So who's fault is this big mess? I've got to pick on the director. He had to have seen what he was working with. It's possible to film a decent story from a weak script, but he apparently decided not to put forth the effort. The result is, to use a cliché, "cliche-ridden."

Final recommendation...you probably won't hate it or throw beer cans at the screen, but it's not going to surprise you or scare you. I'd suggest avoiding this film.


When I first saw the cover of this video, I had the sneaking suspicion that it might end up being one of those "so bad its good" movies that I absolutely love. Instead, it just ended up being bad. As far as a summary, take "Nightmare On Elm Street 3", add some even worse acting and production, add a killer that is one part Freddy Kruger, and one part Marcus Welby MD, and you've got this heaping pile of dung. In at least half the scenes in this movie, the lighting is so dark that its very difficult to even see what's going on. Fortunately for the viewer, by the halfway point you stop caring anyway, so perhaps this is a blessing in disguise. That was either a product of bad production, a very low budget, or possibly both. Also, there is this one cheesy song that is played a total of THREE times, including during the closing credits. And the song doesn't improve with multiple listens. Plot holes are everywhere in this film (too numerous to mention), and by the end you are just glad its over. Do yourself a favor, avoid this......!


Madison McBride (Sarah Roemer from Disturbia & Fired Up) has been newly enrolled in Richard Miller University despite the protestations of her mother. It seems the university used to be an controversial mental institution specializing in teenagers. Her and a few other teens residing in her dormitory decide to check out the abandoned section of the school. But seeing as all the new resident's have had 'troubled pasts' the ghost of the doctor of the aforementioned asylum decides to 'cure' them.

This is a typically awful 'teen scream' flick with the requisite bland teenagers. This, in itself, didn't really surprise me as Director David Ellis seems to specialize in this kind of generic fare, having done Final Destination 2, Cellular & the recent the final destination 3-D) The sad thing is, is that the plot did have some potential but it was just handled so overwhelmingly badly that the film comes across as trite, badly acted & lifeless. If it wasn't readily available on Instant Netflix which i simply streamed on my Xbox 360 I doubt I would have bothered with it at all.

Eye Candy: Sarah Roemer provides some fairly quick T&A)

My Grade: D-


I've only given this two stars because the romantic lead couple were actually quite good.

I didn't think the script was particularly bad for a horror but it was about as scary a basket of kittens sitting on my grans knee.

If they'd gone for the psychological horror angle rather than the gore angle this could have been a good low budget horror movie rather than a horror movie with really low budget crap gore special effects.

And at the end after they'd killed the doctor and they were walking along a sunlit road................THEY DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE DOCTOR DRIVING ALONG IN A CAR THEY WERE TRYING TO HITCH!!! Stupid f***ers.

Guess they knew they weren't getting a sequel though.


OK, I am getting sick of the recent trend in horror movies - that of every film being a Rembrandt picture (that is, no source of light and the background being all black). Between "The Descent", "The Ruins", and "Asylum", I have not been able to see what was happening on the screen in a long time.

That being said, based on what i could hear of this film, i didn't miss much. If you took out the F word, the script would have been about 10 pages with narratives reading, "characters show up. meet each other. some you like some you don't. bad things happen. characters run through darkness. lights go out. creepy doctor appears. run. lots of unnecessarily gory deaths. meet background character who appears to know back story. run. defeat bad guy. semi-happy resolution. final pointless scare." oh for the days of "the Friday the 13th series". it is sad when Jason is the barometer of good quality. the bad part is, they don't even meet the Jason quota of nudity and deaths.

the only thing that saves this is some witty dialogue in the beginning during the orientation scenes. otherwise, pointless and too damn dark. did i mention how unnecessarily dark it is?


Common teenager horror movie... Teens go to college, first everything seems to be fine, but soon they finds out the dorm they stays in used to be an asylum for mental patients that was tortured by an insane doctor. It also seems that all the new students that lives in the "asylum" has had some issues in their earlier lives, and now the doctor has come back to "cure" them.

The plot is very lame, and it is very hard to find anything in this movie interesting. useless effects, bad mood, terrible acting... this movie is not scary, and its not bad in a way that makes it funny, it is bad in a way that makes you wanna cut open your wrists just so you have no possibilities to watch it ever again.

See this if you want to be more bored than you were before you did anything, yes, it is actually better to do nothing than watch this piece of crap.


Being a horror movie buff, I tried really hard to like this movie but it was awful. The characters were cardboard, I didn't care about any of them. There was no suspense, no scares, and nothing to keep your interest. I found myself yawning and looking at the clock.

The one character I did enjoy was the Aunt played by Sandy Dennis. She is so wacky, I loved her dialog. But she can't save this abomination of a movie.

The spiders scene was the only scene that showed potential, but even that was color by numbers. There was absolutely nothing original in this film.

The climax of the movie was as laughable as a soap opera and just as stupid. Even watching with an open mind and checking your brain at the door will not help this clunker.

Don't even bother renting this stinker of a movie.


976-EVIL (1989) was a bad movie that came out during the 80's horror movie explosion. This was also Robert Englund's attempt at making a movie. He took a topical theme and try to add a horror spin to it. But all you got was a badly directed and acted film with a creepy villain trying to be a second rate Freddy Krueger (i.e. spouting off very bad one liners).

A no good rascal (Spike) who lives with a strange woman and her nerdy kid is extremely bored. Besides spending his time riding around like a rebel without a clue an keeping the kid (Hoax) from being eaten alive at school,. Spike has nothing to look forward to in life. One day he comes across and ad for a 976 number. The phone number promises it could "help" him with his problems and what not. He tries it but is spooked by the voice at the other end. But someone close to him has a use for the number. Who can that be?

Overall a very bad movie. Maybe if they had a better scriptwriter and director, if might have succeeded. Sadly it fails as a horror film and as a black comedy. Although the first film was bad, the sequel was actually entertaining. My advice to you is to avoid part one and skip ahead to the sequel.

Strongly avoid, unless you really dig bad movies and film-making.

Bad stuff indeed.


I wasn't expecting this to be a good movie and I don't think anybody involved in it was either, or else they would have--for one--called it something else. At the very least, I was expecting this movie to be amusing in a campy way. Instead it was dreary, boring, and downright OFFENSIVE in its extremely gratuitous attack on religion.

Yes, yes, it was the 80s and with Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker, I could see what it would be tempting to Hollywood to portray televangelists in a not-so-positive light. The aunt? No excuse. Maybe she was supposed to be "amusing" and "over the top," but I didn't see it at all. It was just disgusting.

The best thing about this movie was that I saw it at home for "free." If I had paid even a CENT, I probably would have demanded my money back.


You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict a sequel to the original and creepy film by Tom Holland was inevitable. The soul of a psycho-killer inside a doll was a big hit at the box-office and you know what that means...More from the same!! And fast! But hey, who's complaining? Child's Play 2 is fairly good. Some nice twists, several funny moments and a few very original killings. What more could you ask for in a horror sequel? Story doesn't matter. In fact, can you call this a story ? Chucky comes back to life and continues to chase Andy to take over his soul. He has to kill everyone who comes too close to him and his secret and every time he's about to call Dumballah ( or whatever ), he gets interrupted. Voilà, there you have the plot of Child's Play 2. Original ? No. Entertaining ? Yes, very. Jenny Agutter plays the role of Andy's foster mom. I tell you, she still is as adorable as when she played her role in American Werewolf in London...only older, of course. Brad Dourif returns as the voice of Chucky and he seems to enjoy that very much. That's about all there is to say about Child's Play 2. Certainly not a "urgently need-to-see movie" but pure fun if you come across it on TV or something. It's recommended to watch the first two films in a row. Child's Play 3, however, should be avoided like the plague...yuk. The more recent Bride of Chucky uses a whole other style, but surely is worth a look. I'm quite sure more sequels have yet to come...


'Child's Play 2' is a tough movie to review. It is well directed, well acted, and hits all the targets. On the other hand it is a movie I felt unclean watching. The idea of Chucky has lost what ever originality it had in the original film. Instead we get a genuinely evil character torturing a poor little boy for the film. I honestly think you'd have to be mentally ill to find entertainment in 'Child's Play 2'.

I liked the original 'Child's Play' a great deal, and I even enjoy 'Bride of Chucky' a lot for it's camp entertainment value. I will say though that I absolutely hate Chucky as a character. It's no fault to Brad Dourif who is an excellent actor and gives some very good vocal work as Chucky. If anything Dourif makes me hate Chucky for all the right reasons. The problem I see with this picture is that it is staged so that Chucky is always the vocal point of everything. Alex Vincent isn't the main character of the picture. We are in a sense encouraged to follow Chucky and still despise him at the same time. It doesn't work.

Many fans praise this film for it's black humor. I think this is actually one of the worst things about the film. Don Mancini has written a script that takes this little terror with utmost sincerity. Any joke involving Chucky isn't tongue in cheek, the viciousness is still there. Where as in the superior 'Bride of Chucky' Mancini recognizes the scenario as being very stupid and he plays off that for some brilliant jokes. I think I have to credit Mancini for why this film is terrible. He has written a grim hopeless opus for black souls. It isn't easy for me to do this. I've liked plenty of horror films that have been considered dark and too ugly by mainstream critics. It's a testament to Brad Dourif for taking Mancini's script and bringing it to this level.

I think the biggest problem with the script is that Andy is completely alone in his battle with Chucky. Conceptually Mancini is ripping off his original 'Child's Play' to the keel. No one believes little Andy until the bodies pile up. This story is tiresome and unoriginal. Mancini recycles it over and over again but through different lenses. In my opinion he's a lazy screenwriter who struck gold with this character. The concept of a killer doll isn't original enough to recycle the same stories for this killer doll to inhabit. I wish Mancini put more time into his stories than he did into creating this little terror. I'm not praising Mancini in anyway for making Chucky so evil. Mancini was given a tremendous gift in having Brad Dourif respect him and take this role. If a lesser actor took it this character would have died off after the original film.

In a sense I have to award Alex Vincent and Brad Dourif praise. They have taken these characters to the utmost degree. I feared for little Andy, and despised little Chucky.

Director John Lafia is very good at creating pure horror, not suspense, not fear, but actual horror. He has given us a horrendous situation. To his credit he does it really well. The thing is thought that audiences don't like horror, they like simulated fear. 'Child's Play 2' in all it's silliness has genuine horror. Some sequences are genuinely hard to sit through because of Lafia's staging. He takes Mancini's awful script and really brings out the most in it. I think Tom Holland knew how to better frame this concept. He knew that audiences were attracted to the concept and not the character of Chucky. I could have fun with the original 'Child's Play'. I can't have fun here, not when there are real monsters in the world.


I am a really big fan of horror films I've seen Texas chainsaw Halloween you name it I've seen it. My favourite is child's play 1 saw the the 1st chuck film when i was 9 and i loved it. I recommend who ever reads this go and see child's play 1 but you have to buy it because it is banned and its rare to get hold of in hired shops especial in england. If you want to know why its banned look it up. Childs play 2 is good if you see the 1st one you can compare it but after you see the first one you will notice that don Mancini has mucked the story line up. I notice that because he didn't explain nothing at all about it he changed everything the main characters from the 1st one should have been in the second one. he should have changed the 2nd story line into the the 3rd one and come up with something explaining what happened to Andy's mum. I recommend after seeing the 1st chuck don't see the rest up to you but if you see the last 4 you will find that the plot as gone you will get really confused about what happened to the main characters. Plus after seeing the last 4 you will find they are boring I recommend to just see the 1st child's play because the 1st was superb


After Child's Play, I couldn't possibly think that there'd be any way for the series to improve in any way. And you know what, it isn't any better than Child's Play, only worse. Everything about this horrible sequel just blows. There's no scares, no thrills, the acting sucks; with characters shifting personalities multiple times. If there is anything good to say about the film it's that it retains the originality of the first, only to be ruined by your typical worse-than-Hell horror movie sequel formula. One thing's for sure, if this were how "good" horror movies were, the genre would've died long ago. With nothing that's truly good or even acceptable, it's a miracle that I'd give this movie a three, deserves much worse.


(Almost) Every horror movie has its degrading sequels, and Child's Play is no different. Well what can I say, if you've seen the original movie you probably realize what this sequel is about. Chucky the killer doll, with the inhabited soul of a madman, is back again! And he's angrier, and more sadistic, and wielding more corny one-liners than ever. All Chucky fans remember that he was burnt to a toasty crisp in the first movie. However in order to dispel rumors that Chucky ever came to life, the business that makes the Good-Guy Dolls decides to preposterously rebuild him, and show the public nothing is wrong with the doll. When they do this, Chucky comes back to life and sets out to find Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent). The kid he needs to voodoo in order to come back to life as a human. Chucky finds Andy in the hands of his new foster parents Phil (Gerrit Graham) and Joann (Jenny Agutter), and a stepsister Kyle (Christine Elise). Andy realizes that Chucky is after him, but as always nobody believes the youngster. Until the crazy, psychotic doll begins running out of time to turn human again, and sadistically murders anyone in his way of Andy.

First things first, the original Child's Play is a campy classic, Child's Play 2 is not. Whereas the original had a way of composing itself with fine suspense and acting, which helped shut out the corniness of its doll-come-to-life plot. This utterly puke-inducing sequel has no way to take itself seriously at all. It happens in a lot of horror films with a lead slasher. Freddy Kruegger fell victim to crappy one-liners, Jason Voorhees turned out to be a frady-cat loser as a kid (Freddy Vs. Jason), and even Michael Myers got his butt kicked by Busta Rhymes. The only slightly creepy thing about Child's Play 2 is the ending, which takes place in the Good-Guys Doll Factory. But that can't save this ludicrously over-the-top slasher sequel. The acting is mild, the script only gets creative with the kills, and even the kills are more unsettling than scary.

The few parts where Chucky kills somebody go too far over the top, to the point where you almost (or may) laugh at them. While they were a bit creative, I was repulsed by them in every imaginable way. There is a random, grotesque kill where Chucky pushes an innocent man onto a conveyor belt, and he is killed when doll eyes are punched into his face. It's scenes like this that, while creepy, really cross the line. Horror fans may enjoy a movie with nasty kills. But for me there has to be something to back it up, or it's just a senseless kill. I think it's absolutely disgusting how Hollywood glorifies murder on screen nowadays. It's only gotten progressively worse over the years after Child's Play 2. This review is being written in 2008, and the theaters are filled with Saw, Hostel, and more torture, torture, torture! I don't understand why people are so intrigued by gore. What fascinates audiences so much with it that it makes big money in ticket sales? A person gets killed on screen and there's no tragedy, but yet everyone gets upset and mourns when someone dies in real life. There's a word for that and it's called "Hypocrite".

Child's Play 2 is an awful horror film. The poster art is scarier than the movie itself. Chucky did not deserve to have a horror series because in my opinion he's one of the worst horror icons since the evil killer Leprechaun. However I do have to give it points for its eery, creepy "playtime" atmosphere (such as the doll factory scene). I give Child's Play 2 a 1 out of 4. It's a gruesome 84 minutes, and for me it was too inhumane and it just wasn't worth it. Child's Play 2 was followed by 3 more sequels...Oh brother!


For some obscene reason, I do want to see the Child's Play series. I think just for the sake that I saw the first one and something must have been special because I am curious how the series goes. One of my friends also said that I have to see "Bride" and "Seed" for the Chucky series, but I didn't want to see those without understanding maybe a few things I missed in the third or second Child's Play.

Some silly deaths occur in this movie, like the teacher's. I mean, did anyone look at that as more of a porn movie than a horror flick? "You've been very naughty Mrs. Kettlewell!", slapping the ruler? You'll see what I mean. I just thought that it was very funny instead of gruesome and also very unbelievable. But then again, I wasn't looking for Oscar material. I need to get back into my horror movies, I miss them so.

3/10


Unlike the first (great) and the fourth (bad) this movie falls squarely in between somewhere. After apparently being retrieved from Andy's mom's fireplace, a greedy play pal's company orders the pint-sized serial killer rebuilt to salvage the corporation's understandably faltering Pr image. Once reborn, Chucky decides to track down Andy and pickup where he left off.

Andy is sent to a foster home that looks like the parents rake in billions taking care of foster kids. Given their young age, and the realities of foster parent payment, one can only guess how they got the perfect house that Barbie must have built. It's difficult to pinpoint how many rooms this thing has, but it must dwarf the white house for space, and is too sterile and quiet for a child's haven.

Kyle, a perpetual foster kid, is Andy's new sidekick in the film. She is a streetwise young woman who does not take any garbage from anybody and ultimately helps Andy destroy Chucky.

Another problem I had with the film stems from the domineering teacher. I never thought I would say this (and please note, I am not endorsing school violence in anyway) but congrats to Chucky for taking out Ms. Kettlewell after she completely humiliated Andy in the classroom in front of his peers. Granted, there is an inconsistency because the whole mess started with Chucky writing bad words on Andy's paper about the teacher, but she was just so unlikeable to begin with.


This was not a good film , it wasn't even a good horror film. The first Child's Play has scenes of actual suspense, but this one is more jokey than anything else. Some of the characters do die in fairly novel ways, but Chucky doesn't seem to have the zest that he had in the original. There are some good special effects, especially towards the end of the film, and the puppetry being Chucky was excellent, but it seemed a bit of a waste of time. If they were going to put all this money and effort into making sure the special effects were good, then they really should have made sure they had some kind of storyline, and some reason to make the film. As it stands the film seems cold, with as much inspiration in at as a McDonalds commercial. Stick to the first one only, if you are going to watch any of the Chucky films.


Chuck is back and still after Andy is now placed in a foster home after the tragic events of the first film since his mother was committed. In an attempt to save their reputation, the manufacturers of Chucky reconstruct the killer doll, to prove to the public that nothing was wrong with it in the first place. In doing so, they also bring the soul of serial killer Charles Lee Ray back to life.

Andy soon find out that chucky is back and up to no good, of course he tell in his forester parents that doll is alive, yet again now one believes him, There some deaths scene that not gory and not even little bit scary and two of death scene are off-screen. Everything about this movie is so boring and deaths scene could not even save movie, I would say this is the Worst Child's play movie in the series I would say fast forward to last 7 minutes of movie, as it the only worth watching part of movie to see chucky getting killed off yet again.


I've heard a lot of people criticise this movie, and the Child's Play' sequels for that matter, for being unnecessary and personally I have to agree. None of the sequels really offered anything that the original didn't and thus they became rather boring movies.

Following the bad publicity of the Good Guy' doll after the Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) became public knowledge the aforementioned doll was removed from sale. Naturally nobody believes that the doll murdered anybody (Andy's mother is now institutionalised for backing her son's story up in court) but they do believe that Andy was somehow disturbed by his Good Guy doll Chucky'. Rumours have floated about that the internal tape may have been changed. The company that makes the Good Guy' dolls have decided to reintroduce their product and to quell concerns over the dolls the doll containing the spirit of Charles Lee Ray, the notorious Lakeshore strangler, is manually re-assembled. Unfortunately the spirit of Charles aka Chucky is still resident and he once again resumes his quest to regain a human body, which puts the now fostered Andy in trouble once again.

There's a little more bloodshed, a few more victims and more screen time for Chucky but all in all this movie is not particularly fulfilling. Fans of the original may be impressed by the extra screen time for the foul-mouthed, murdering toy Chucky, but on subsequent viewings the movie no longer stands up. The plot leaves a lot to be desired and the characters all seem rather wooden and unrealistic. A pre-Beverly Hills 90210' Christine Elise plays Kyle, the only character in the movie that may garner any audience sympathy and respect and even she seems dull and contrived throughout the movie. Child's Play 2' had no input from original creator Tom Holland and it certainly shows through as the general direction and execution of this movie is poor. The final ten minutes or so of the film are the only moments that really seem to shine through but this is too little, too late from writer Don Mancini and director John Lafia. Other than the finale it's just a far too logical next step from the original and tries too hard to capture the good parts of that movie without trying to improve upon them. A little more humour is added to the mix but still the movie offers nothing of any real distinction to be a satisfactory sequel. My rating for Child's Play 2'  5/10


Andy Barclay (Alex Vincent) is placed in a foster home after the incidents of the first film had his mother committed. However Chucky comes back--he needs Andy's body to come back to life (or something like that). What follows is a boring, by the numbers, stalk and slash horror film with a killer toy.

Dull and boring with a pretty talented cast (Jenny Agutter especially) giving their all time worst performances. There are ENDLESS sequences of a person searching for Chucky...only to have him spring out at them. This happens at least eight times! Also having a 9 year old boy seeing people murdered around him left and right is in questionable taste. Boring, stupid, not even remotely scary. I saw this back in 1990 at a theatre and I STILL remember how bad it was! You can skip this one.


I'm surprised to see so many positive reviews for this movie. This is the first movie I've seen in a while with no redeeming qualities. It's a shame that I caught this yesterday afternoon on TV. I wasted time watching this garbage when I could've just watched something else.

The protagonist of the story is Chris Anderson portrayed by Luke Perry. Anderson is a good cop and overall a good guy. One night he meets a young attractive blonde in a bar. Always a great place to find the girl of your dreams. She's screaming and cursing (what a dream) at some guy who was lucky enough to get out of there. Anderson on the other hand isn't so lucky. He approaches the woman who has cut her hand from a broken glass. Anderson plays the knight in shining armor and helps her. They have a slow dance and she tells him her name is Pam. From the start, Anderson should've known there was something up with this dame. Don't get me wrong, Ashley Judd is a beautiful woman, blonde or brunette. But once you get to know Pam you'll wish you didn't. Anderson drops Pam off home and he decides to see her again. The more the movie goes on, Anderson gets to know Pam and the movie makes less and less sense.

Pam's behavior gets more and more neurotic and you realize along with Anderson that Pam is damaged goods. But for some reason, he loves her and wants to help her. Chris ends up asking Pam to be his wife.

He never really does help her. He just keeps beating a dead horse. Our idealistic cop turns into a complete idiot. He takes someone who is mentally ill and completely out of it. He thinks that by marrying her and making her his wife that is going to help her. Not only does Chris do nothing about her illness, he also turns a blind eye while she does drugs and drinks. As the marriage goes on, Pam gets sicker and Chris gets dumber. Pam goes to the store to buy a special telescope to view an eclipse. Instead she comes home with a knife. Instead of being worried he's angry that she spent $500. He comes home one night and sees that she has cut herself all over. His solution is to buy her a dog. Whenever Chris has Pam around his family it is obvious that she doesn't know how to interact with people. Chris gets mad and yells at her. When Anderson's father dies he tells Pam to get a dress and make sure that she's there. Pam shows up at the funeral parlor dressed like she's ready to go roller blading. Still Chris does absolutely nothing to help her. This is the woman in trouble that he was going to save and he doesn't have a clue.

The couple have financial trouble and they are barely able to live in the shack they're in. Chris loses his job as a cop and we are never told why. Later Pam loses her job because of her drug use. Chris comes home to find Pam with a gun to her head. By now, Anderson has to be a complete idiot to not see that his wife is suicidal. What does he do? He continues to leave her alone and tends to their money problems by becoming a bank robber. Like I said, as the movie goes on it makes less and less sense. There is even a ludicrous ending. Why bother to continue? This movie is very difficult to watch. Whoever made this has to be either crazy or just stupid. Poor Ashley Judd, who has a great body, is stuck shedding her clothes for no good reason. I've never seen a movie with such unnecessary nudity. Ashley Judd is filmed naked in many scenes just for the sake of being shown naked. Whoever made this movie must have something wrong with them.

I'm sorry I ever saw this movie. I hope I never come across it again. I almost didn't even want to waste my time writing a review, but I figured others should be warned. Don't even waste your time on this garbage. Ashley Judd fans especially should stay clear of this. The very talented and very attractive Ashley Judd is wasted. Actually, she is exploited. Luke Perry fans should stay clear of this too. Sometimes it looked like he was giving a decent performance when he was yelling, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was really yelling because he was sorry he got stuck making such a horrible and worthless movie. Stay clear of this trash.


Normal Life starts out with great promise, with a great burst of energy right at the start. But that energy fizzles out very quickly and what we are left with is a rather bad movie. The film follows a husband and wife who happen to rob banks for a living. The movie begins with their last, ultimately failed, robbery. We see the husband arrested and the wife lead police on a high-speed chase as she attempts to get away. And then we go back in time, back to the beginning, to see how these two ill-fated lovers met and what brought them to the rather unfortunate situation we have just seen. Turns out the husband, Chris, as played by Luke Perry, is a former cop. And the wife, Pam, as played by Ashley Judd, is completely and utterly nuts. A whole team of psychiatrists couldn't help this girl. But Chris thinks he can and he'll do anything to make her happy. Suffice to say their relationship doesn't quite work out as he envisioned. A happily married couple they are not.

Eventually Chris loses his job as a cop and starts robbing banks. When Pam discovers what he is doing she is rather excited and suddenly much more enamored with her husband than she had been. And she wants in on the action. So they start robbing banks together and eventually we end up back where we started at the film's beginning. Back where it seemed the film had some promise. But Normal Life never lives up to that promise. It's terribly scripted. Much of the dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The acting leaves much to be desired, most notably with Perry going over the top again and again in his attempts to convey anger and frustration. He's constantly over-emoting and at times it's so laughable it's hard for the viewer to stifle a chuckle. Which is a problem because this is not meant to be a comedy.

The seemingly endless confrontations and arguments between Chris and Pam become rather monotonous after a while. It's just the same thing over and over again. Every few minutes the two leads have a fight about something. It's like clockwork. It's also exceedingly dull. The story never moves along. We just spend the whole time watching these two people bicker and watching Pam have one psychotic episode after another. OK, their relationship isn't quite working out, we get it. Move along, please. It's a frustrating movie to watch because it started with such promise and then just does not work at all. You get the feeling it should have been a lot better than it is. As it is it's a rather tedious movie.


Veronica, the widow of famous composer Valentin Lucinsky is a bitter woman. She is haunted by the memory of what she thinks was a betrayal by her husband getting inspiration from his muse, Helena, a French woman. All this takes place in the gorgeous Mallorca, an island in the Baleares. Into this conflict comes Larry, an American pianist, who with his girlfriend Miranda run a small pension.

Larry wants to pay tribute to the great man, so he must obtain Veronica's permission to play his music in a small amphitheater the great Lucinsky created, using his own grand piano, played by genius Narciso Ortega. Unfortunately, Larry takes on much more than he can deliver. Unfortunately, everything backfires on his good intentions. To make matters worse, his own daughter arrives from America, a girl whom he doesn't really know.

There is also another story involving a rich Englishman, Sebastian, who loves music. His brother Dickie, who is always drunk, arrives for a visit. Sebastian, loves to listen to a recording of Strauss' Four Last Songs, something that he repeats over and over. As Dickie begins to get into Sebastian's nerves, a shattering revelation shakes both their lives.

This is a film to watch for the magnificent exteriors of Mallorca. Nothing feels real because of Francesca Joseph's implausible screenplay and her own direction, which doesn't make much sense. Although it is by no means a horrible film, it feels empty. The finished product seems such a waste of talent in a story that tries hard to please, but does not go anywhere. The best thing is Mallorca itself, but alas, we don't get a grand tour of that enchanting place, only glimpses of its beauty.


This film was a shot in the dark. I figured that with a cast like that (Tucci, Ifans, Malone et al.), how could it go wrong? Well, I'm not obsessive enough-or astute enough-to pick out where the problem lies, but after 45 minutes of the story, I bailed. I wasn't interested enough to care what happened to the characters, even to Rhys Ifans, who definitely had the best lines. The synopses you can read in other comments are accurate, but by the halfway point the story still hadn't picked up enough momentum to hint at an interesting outcome. There was one point that bothered me about the proceedings, too: early in the preparations for the concert the dead composer's grand piano is delivered by helicopter to the stage of a natural-i.e., uncovered- amphitheater halfway up a mountain. The story continues, then, a few days later, there is a horrendous thunderstorm that blows in, serves some plot points, then moves on. No mention is made of the priceless Steinway in the open amphitheater. Perhaps there is some use made of the ruined piano later, after the point at which I stopped watching, but nobody even thinks about it during the storm? That struck me as, at best unrealistic, at worst a lapse of the kind I could expect more of in the film. Why bother?


This film is poorly cast, directed even worse and you would do well to spend your money sitting in the lobby eating popcorn. It should be a romantic farce. Instead attempts to make it sincere, deep and touching are misguided, poorly executed and immature film-making at its worst. The Four Last Songs do not enter into the presented theme if there is an attempt to bring out a theme, and perhaps that is its greatest flaw: what was this about - wife vs muse, father/daughter, ex patriots adrift, brothers in jeopardy? Or just poor cinematography in a beautiful location. It appears to be an American version of an European melodrama by students with more money than talent.


I really wanted to like this film. It had personal sentiment for me as my mother's day was "Adeline" and I had high regard for Irene Dunne ever since I saw her star in "I Remember Maman."

Yet, despite that positive attitude going in, this wasn't something I'd watch again. It wasn't bad; just too dated and I didn't care for Irene's soprano voice. Yikes, that women hit high notes that rattled my fillings! At least she looked good: the most attractive I've seen her in her younger years. The film, though, as a whole, had a very dated appearance.

Billed as a musical romance, I was impressed with how much humor was in this movie. As for leading men, I knew Donald Woods from "A Tale Of Two Cities" but he never struck me as forceful enough to be a leading man. Louis Calhern, however, always was credible at the detestable villain, as he was here once again.

Reviewers here knock the script, but it was the songs that did nothing for me, not the screenplay. Had these songs been more appealing to me, I probably would have kept the VHS, if only for sentimental reasons.


The print recently shown on TCM was really bad. Of all the films that were lost due to deterioration of the film stock, this film should have been one of them.

With composers Gershwin, Porter and Rodgers & Hart providing Broadway with fresh, original material in the 1920s, the original 1929 stage production must have been hopelessly corny even if successful, and its transition to film doesn't improve the corn factor.

The one surviving song (and rightfully so), "Why Was I Born", is given to Dunne's character, and though she sings sweetly, it's a torch song more suited to later singers like Sarah Vaughn. It seems out of place in this story, since it's not used to advance the plot. The rest of the songs are just too dated and hokey for today's audience.

Warner Brothers rounds up veteran character actorsNed Sparks, Hugh Herbert, and Joseph Cawthornand even they can't help this film. Better if Warners had assigned Busby Berkeley to choreograph and/or direct, because the dance numbers are a very weak imitation of Berkeley's style without the interesting camera angles.

Even hard-core Irene Dunne fans might find it hard to sit through this film.


I like Japanese movies and I like movies about samurais and for some reason after I saw the ads I bought a ticket and went to the cinema to watch it. I expected something like the "Shogun" with it holliwoodish but still interesting entertaining exploration of Japanese culture. But what I saw was so cheesy that walking out of the theatre I felt like I start hating Tom Cruise for lurking me into the 2 hour popcorn- for-the-brains show. I always expected Tom Cruise to finally die, but he never did. Instead he went on chopping the samurais (who, supposedly dedicated all their life to the sword fighting art) right and left. The scenes where he trains with the master of sword remind me all those hundreds of cheesy Rambo-Kickboxer movies where the white Americans kick the asses of their Asian adversaries in the field of the martial arts after having trained those arts for some 10 minutes. The movie is quite expensive and has a pretense of being a historical drama, but the plot and the message of it are just way too cheesy. Hollywood clichés are oozing from every scene. The worst part is the ending where Tom Cruise (an Amercian officer who came to teach Japanese the modern Western war technique and subsequently underwent a transformation embracing the "old ways" of noble fighting with the katana sword) together with his noble friends dash in their last suicidal charge with the naked swords right onto the machine guns of emperor's army and... what I see: all Japanese are dead and Tom Cruise is still hanging on, all wounded of course, but alive and with this tremendously heroic face he tries to stand up, alone among the corpses of all his friends. Here the director apparently wants us to cry and sympathize with our hero, but all I felt was a creepy feeling that one might feel when observing something so utterly false and cheap cheesy that you want to shudder. So my verdict is: It is bad, very bad. Even for Tom Cruise.


If you enjoy action-oriented period films and you aren't bothered by inaccurate historical accounts, you may enjoy this film. However, if you are interested in this time period and in the modernization of Japan in the later 19th century, then steer clear of this shameless Tom Cruise vehicle.

For those who haven't seen it, the movie is set during Japan's modernization and deals with the Emperor Meiji's short war against the samurai who resisted the societal change. Tom Cruise plays a drunken American army officer who is inexplicably charged with training the Emperor's new modern army (why a drunk would be chosen for this, especially an American and not a German as it was in reality, is perplexing). He is captured by the samurai and learns their ways and ultimately fights alongside them.

What I found most annoying about this movie was the terrible moral that it left: that it is better to revert to the old ways of society and not ever change. Hollywood filmmakers LOVE tacking this moral onto their corny action epics, and apparently it doesn't bother them that if society never changed, we'd still be in caves right now eating raw deer carcasses.

For those truly interested in the history of this movie's time period, please know that Japan's modernization was a good thing and rational. The big struggle to restore the "peaceful tranquility" of the old days was just a bunch of stubborn samurai who didn't want to lose their status in society. Japan was smart to modernize and adopt western practices of war, because if they hadn't they would have probably been conquered and colonized by the more technologically advanced western countries of the time. The movie's big message is essentially that change of any kind is bad and we should never advance as a culture. Which, coming from the minds of Hollywood screenwriters who would all have been subjugated as serfs had they lived during this period and it had not changed, is pretty hypocritical.


I remember during the promo phase for this megablockbuster superhit, Zwick and Cruise were sitting at a low table, Japanese style, for an interview with some IFC types. They didn't smile, and held a rigid posture that reeked of pretension, as if to say, "We are involved here in a mighty weighty meaningful respectful project for the ages, and we really really understand this Oriental mystic deepness thing." Well, they don't.

Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai is a good example of stupid writing and ham-fisted acting, typical of all his movies after Risky Business except Magnolia. He's shoved into the role of a masculine hero with a babe on the side. Think of it -- he's a fighter jock sleeping with his aeronautical engineer instructor; he's a pool shark with a girlfriend; he's a race-car driver making it with his doctor. Here, he's a soldier cum Samurai lusting for the widow of a man he killed in battle.

The clichés don't stop there. The tired conceit of a diary is used to shovel soliloquies into the audience's maw between mouthfuls of popcorn and Sno-Caps. "These are the most disciplined people I've ever seen," Cruise narrates in a voice-over. Later, he says, "These people are really spiritual!" Unable to comprehend discipline or spirituality, the writers choose not to illuminate the concepts with dramatic subtext and action, but simply to include the two words.

At one point Cruise, who is in love with the widow of a man he killed, is presented with a dramatic opportunity fraught with promise. He sits down next to her on a tatami when she is alone. Close-up on Cruise's painfully wrinkled brow, connoting deep thought and painful deep emotion. "I'm sorry," he says, in a deeply pained voice, "... your husband." Does he help her, do something for her, dedicate himself to her or provide an active indication of his sorrow? No, he dumps a word on her over a cup of tea.

At another point, a young man tells him to fight with "no mind." So he mouths the words "no mind" whenever he fights from then on. Instead of truly creating a condition of no mind, he fills his brain with the words, "NO MIND." Evidently, it's a shallow vessel but quite deep enough to contain oodles of on-the-nose monologue.

Sitting through over two hours of these missed opportunities is bad enough, but at the end you'll be pummeled by the Hollywood happy machine on steroidal overdrive. The weak Emperor suddenly grows strong. The deeply corrupt minister is defeated. The downtrodden masses (referred to as "the masses") are given land. The mortally wounded Cruise is revived. The Japanese widow who spurns him suddenly drips with lust at his smile. Two malicious officers become Samurai supporters. Even the opposing army genuflects to their victims. All to a saccharine voice-over track with swelling music.

One of the peak experiences of my movie life took place a few years back when the Music Box Theatre in Chicago held a month-long Kurosawa/Tifune festival, playing every film made by the pair. For weeks, I swam in a sea of artistic brilliance. When I heard that Cruise and Zwick were making a samurai film, I dreaded the anticlimax, knowing that economic forces coupled with a general lack of thematic depth in their oeuvres would probably create a marginal work with lots of production and no guts.

It was worse than I thought, and Roger Ebert awarded it 3-1/2 stars.


I am a Japanese. In this movie I see many false misunderstandings and errors on Japanese culture. For example, they try to overlap Samurais and Native Americans, which is very difficult for Japanese to comprehend. In one scene, Samurais were fighting in a jungle. We do not have a jungle in Japan. They try to depict that swords are the most important thing for samurais, which is not true at all. Bushido is not that shallow.

The only notable thing I observed in this movie is that the Hollywood finally learned to be capable of treating foreign cultures positively. I know it is very difficult to make a movie about foreign cultures free from misunderstandings and prejudice.

If you want to touch the real Bushido, which Japanese natives embrace, I recommend that you read "Bushido" written by Nitobe Inazo, or watch "Chushingura".


The Last Samurai is a movie about the fascination of Americans for Japanese culture, more specifically Japanese heroism. But focusing on heroism alone dangerously narrows down the subject and approaching it from an American viewpoint warps and twists it into a failure. Before explaining why, here is a short summary of the plot.

American army captain Nathan Algren, played by Tom Cruise, is disillusioned after participating in gruesome slaughter of native American Indians. A friend of him convinces him to come to Japan to help strike down revolts of Japanese samurai, who oppose the new Meiji government's reforms. Soon he faces them, is beaten and captured, but samurai leader Katsumoto, played by Ken Watanabe, spares his life and patiently lets him experience the Japanese lifestyle, specifically bushido, the samurai warrior code. Algren is so gripped by them that he joins their side and helps them in their final efforts to plea and fight for their cause.

This could have have been a nice movie. All ingredients are there: A period of turmoil with great historical importance, a clash of cultures, heroic warriors and of course a solid budget. But the movie never succeeds in convincing. There are a number of reasons for that. First, the acting is mediocre. Nobody really flunks, but never do you see one of them really being their character, instead of pretending to. Secondly, the plot follows a very predictable Hollywood path, never surprising, increasingly boring. The only surprise is that Algren manages to get into a romance with a Japanese lady, which is only surprising because you would not expect the writers to insert such a standard thing into a story that does not suit it at all. Thirdly, the sparse action scenes are shot with an overload of pomp and drama, similar to Mel Gibson - Braveheart / Peter Jackson - Lord of the Rings style, with long drawn out views of heroes dying heroically, or should I say refusing to die for minutes on end? Especially the final battle is pathetically overdone and suggest that the only purpose of the samurai was to die with honor. Did anyone ever consider that samurai also lived lives? Some people have compared this Edward Zwick - Tom Cruise combo product to the works of Akira Kurosawa, who seems to be their own hero. My advice: If you want to see a good movie about Japanese samurai, go watch movies made by the Japanese themselves. For instance, the works of aforementioned Akira Kurosawa, who could have taught Zwick and Cruise some moves.


At first, I was disappointed. With what this movie was trying to do, it was just falling short. As the film drew on, I became increasingly angry with the director's stereotypical portrayal of the samurai and lack of understanding of Meiji Period Japan. The oversimplifications in the film make Pearl Harbor look like a documentary. There is no discussion of why the samurai are angry, why they rebel beyond "Japan is losing its way." The fact that, after more than 250 years of almost total isolation from the rest of the world, Japan had been forcibly opened to foreign trade in 1853 is simply ignored. The rapid influx of Western ideas, science, technology and personnel and the tension this caused is considered to be of no importance. The humiliating terms of the Ansei Treaties that Japan was forced into are mentioned in passing and out of context. The traditionalist backlash, the violence, the overthrow of the shogunate--all are condensed into a bunch of angry samurai rebelling. Why are the samurai rebelling? Is it because they were stripped of their titles of nobility? Or because they were no longer permitted to carry swords? Or because they lost their government stipends? Perhaps because Saigo Takamori wasn't allowed to invade Korea? We don't know, because the movie mentions none of these things, choosing instead to depict the restriction against ponytails while reiterating that "Japan is losing its way." The politics of Meiji Period Japan are also horribly condensed into some oily Japanese businessmen out to make a buck by coddling to the West. The Emperor's role is horribly exaggerated; his position was almost entirely ceremonial and he played virtually no part in the political process. For him to discuss a treaty with a foreign diplomat is absurd. I could go on, but I'm running out of space.


This is my very first IMDb review, and let me tell you why I choose "the last samurai", and no other. Because this movie is the reason why I became a classic movie fan/collector.

I remember it like yesterday... February of 2004, summer in Buenos Aires (where I live), going to Recoleta for a walk, entering the movie theater just to see what were they playing, buying the ticket and a popcorn, preparing myself to have a nice moment of light and harmless entertainment

Around half of the movie, EPIPHANY !. "Didn't I see this movie already, at least one million times ?". "Why Tom Cruise, again ?". "I already know who is going to get the chick, to be the hero, to give as all an unforgettable lesson of honor and humanity... the yankee, right !". "Why I keep seeing this kind of movies" ... and so on

I left the theater, to never return. This was my last Hollywood-crap-big-budget movie, period. I keep asking myself how could I spent so many years of my life, passively consuming this junk-culture propaganda. But OK, better late than never.

Now, after 3 years of rehab (exclusively Kurosawa, Bergman, Fellini, Eisenstein, Kubrick, indie, art, documentary, etc)... I can finally say that I'm cured, I can recognize junk from miles away

All thanks to "The Last Samurai", which I will never forget

Fidel Polvorón

PS1: this is based on a true story... in fact, it's 100% a true story

PS2: I gave it 4/10, just because Ken Watanabe, Art and Costumes


This movie does not have a great original story, excellent acting or a great cast. What it does have is the incredibly attractive Rochelle Swanson. I have to say when I first saw this actress I thought she looked truly amazing. He physical attributes are stunning along with her gorgeous dark raven coloured hair and amazing eyes. Her acting is also not bad for this genre, I could actually imagine her playing a femme fatale type in a forties or fifties set thriller with ease. The overall movie is not really that great, but the nude scenes with Rochelle Swanson, in fact any scenes with her in are watchable. Woody Brown is fairly convincing as the obsessive guy but when he goes crazy he becomes a little less convincing. May Karasun is also quite attractive but looks bored at times and the actor playing the husband is not great either. Still, I don't think anyone will be watching this for the acting. So if you are looking for a bit of late night romance or nudity with great looking women this should suit your needs just fine.


There were no surprises in this completely unoriginal erotic thriller, but then again, who watches these films for the plot? That having been said, there is nothing even remotely suspenseful in this movie, so my enjoyment rested entirely on how entertained I was by the sex scenes. But even though Rochelle Swanson is an exceptionally voluptuous woman, not even her wonderful body was enough to keep me interested in the film.


Securing director Tom Holland for the second season of "Masters of Horror" seemed like a horror fan's dream-come-true. This underrated director brought us such horror favorites as "Fright Night" and "child's Play" and yet I feel he's never been given due credit. The premise here is interesting and clowns are always creepy but "We All Scream For Ice Cream" falls flat.

The mood is properly set. Dim, atmospheric lighting and William Forsythe looking insanely creepy as a murderous clown. But the story is garbage, the flick is badly acted with a very boring central character and it's virtually suspenseless. The back story looks like a bad rehash of "It" and those kids are really bad actors as well.

A total disappointment, it even lacks solid gore apart from one scene with a guy in a bathtub. When a ferociously bad looking naked guy in a bathtub provides the only good scene you know you're in trouble.


I've only seen about a handful of these "Masters of Horror" episodes so far, but I must say that if there is a worse addition than "We All Scream for Ice Cream", I hope divine intervention dissuades me from ever sitting through it. Figuring this one was worth checking out since director Tom Holland ("Child's Play" & "Fright Night") is credible enough and William Forsythe is always cool - but unfortunately this thing is just downright derivative and dull. It kind of deals with concepts similar to "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "It" - a mentally challenged ice cream vendor clown is accidentally killed after a prank involving some punks kids goes horribly wrong. Years later, he's back to get revenge, using a new generation of kids as pawns. There's some sort of unexplained voodoo thing going on with human-shaped Popsicles which causes the adults to melt (like ice cream) when their child bites into it... This method of murder gets boring right from the first time it's shown in the first few seconds and Forsythe's performance is nowhere near as creepy as it could've been. Him and his frosted truck are seen way too much and the end showdown includes some of the most laughable crap I've seen lately. The only real redeeming thing about this was the hot-tub scene where a pedophile redneck melts all over the place.


I have seen almost all episodes of the generally great "Masters Of Horror" series, and the episodes sure differ in quality. Some episodes (such as "Pelts", "Imprint", "The Black Cat" or "The Washingtonians") are downright brilliant, most others are highly entertaining, and some episodes disappoint. Tom Holland's "We All Scream For Ice Cream" is one of the disappointing episodes, or, more precisely, pretty much the worst episode after Ernest R. Dickerson's terrible "V-Word". Holland deserves respect for "Child's Play" and "Fright Night", but his MoH episode is sadly quite a failure. It is not necessarily the director's fault that "We All Scream For Ice Cream" doesn't work, however, since the script and the whole idea are just so plain stupid that only a genius could have made something decent out of it. I usually don't mind movies being silly, since I can enjoy them as long as they're entertaining. Horror movies furthermore don't necessarily have to be "realistic", but they should have a certain logic. "We All Scream For Ice Cream" is just a bit too flat to be enjoyable. I am a fan of odd ideas in Horror films, but this one's premise is just too stupid to be scary or entertaining. At least the V-Word had Michael Ironside.

- SPOILERS! - The vengeful ghost of an ice cream selling clown comes back from the dead. He doesn't simply haunt or murder those who have once done him wrong, however. No, this villainous guy sells some mysterious Ice Cream to the kids of those he means to punish. Then, when the kids eat the ice cream, the parents melt - like ice cream. Wow! The idiocy of this storyline has yet to find an equal. One of the evil Clown's victims-to-be, is wise enough to tell his wife to get the kids out of town. It's quite unfortunate that his wife is an idiot who doesn't get the kids out of town because she thinks it's 'crazy' (in spite of the fact that people constantly melt in her lovely hometown)...

"We All Scream For Ice Cream" may have some qualities (very few, to be honest). The performances are OK. William Forsythe delivers a decent performance as Buster, the Clown who comes back as an evil ghost. It must also be appreciated when a child actor manages to seem evil or cruel, and it must therefore be mentioned that Samuel Patrick Chu does a very good job being a truly sadistic little bastard in a flashback sequence. Other than acceptable performances and decent CGI (sigh), "We All Scream For Ice Cream" has little to offer. It's simply too flat, too silly, and (at least in my opinion) it was not scary at all. My advice: Switch this one (as well as "The V-Word), and watch the other episodes.


This was very very horrible. In all the wrong ways. Its basically about some handicapped icecream truck driver who comes back to exact revenge on those responsible for his death. I have only seen two episodes of the second season of this series and hope a third season isn't in the works. Trust me I love horror but this season and particularly this episode just doesn't cut it.

The Bad:

The acting is shockingly abysmal. (except for the Clown icecream truck driver who does good with what lines he has)

The stupid 'We All Scream For Icrecream' song is used so many times it makes you wish you were deaf.

The story drags on and on and on and becomes repetitive.

It felt like a 2 and a half hour TV movie which is bad considering it was only an hour.

SSDD is used and one word is changed. (For those who don't know: SSDD was used in a Steven King book: Dreamcatcher, while not the best book its bad to rip off someone elses phrasing even if you do change one word in it)

It seemed to me that the story was copying 'It' also by Steven King. I mean we have a clown and the kids that tormented him and he comes back when they are adults to exact his revenge.

The Good:

Great Special Effects Good acting by the Clown The episode actually finished (I honestly never thought it was going to end)

Conclusion: Please steer clear of this episode entirely, its for lack of a better word: Rubbish


This movie was not scary. Instead of doing something truly creative with the idea of a killer clown they dropped the ball. The end of the movie was unbelievably lame. I was vaguely entertained by the gore but overall this movie's idea was the fault. The execution was very good and that's what stops it from being a one. The actors were very good in my opinion but the scenarios were completely unrealistic. I know that clowns coming back to life aren't real but i couldn't suspend disbelief. I really wanted to like this one but couldn't. I even bought this movie for 5 dollars and thought it was a waste of money. I'll never get that money back. Never. I think that's what the really scary thing is.


Maters of Horror: We All Scream for Ice Cream starts at the funeral of Kent (Brent Sheppard), all his friends are there including Layne (Lee Tergesen) who had recently moved back to the town. He hasn't seen his childhood gang the 'West End Bunch' in years & this isn't a happy reunion as another of his old mates Toot (Lyle St. Goddard) feels there are underhand forces at work that want to wipe them all out, Layne & the rest of the West End Bunch think he's talking nonsense but that very night Toot mysteriously disappears. Layne starts to get very worried that a dark childhood secret has returned to claim the lives of the West End Bunch using their children & ice cream as the supernatural means to do so...

This American Canadian co-production was episode 10 from season 2 of the hit-and-miss Masters of Horror TV series, directed by Tom Holland I thought We All Scream for Ice Scream was a definite miss & a rubbishy story that didn't do anything for me at all. The script by David J. Schow was based on the annoyingly titled short story 'I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Ice Cream' by John Farris & is a pretty lame attempt at horror, the main problem I had with We All Scream for Ice Cream is that it takes itself so seriously & it tries to be scary. Unfortunately the basic story of a dead ice cream man coming back from the dead to avenge his death by turning his teenage killers into big puddles of ice cream is even more ridiculous watching it on telly than it sounds here, I just couldn't take the silly notion seriously at all & I sat there extremely unmoved. As an episode it's rather predictable with the 'hero' saving the day in stupid fashion during the lacklustre ending & a story that is very linear & a bit clichéd. However, there's at least one messy special effect worth seeing & at less than a hour in length it moves along at a decent enough pace although even then it failed to really grip or engage me.

Judging by this I'm not sure director Holland can be considered a master of horror but that's down to personal opinion I suppose, to be fair he knows how to turn in a decent looking effort & We All Scream for Ice Cream has nice enough production values. This one's not the usual gore-fest, there's a cool scene when someone messily melts into ice cream but why did the previous two victims not melt in this way especially the first one who one moment is standing there & the very next he's melted to nothing within a split second? The constant shots of the supernatural ice cream van driving through it's very own fog cloud (it must have it's own mini climate) was embarrassing to watch at times & about as unscary an image I can think of.

Technically the show's fine & even pretty impressive as it belies it's low budget made-for-TV roots, the special effects are excellent as usual although how the actor's managed to keep a straight face while acting this stuff out is beyond me. There's not a hint of irony here at all & they all seem to take this extremely seriously like an Oscar was on the line.

We All Scream for Ice Cream isn't the worst Masters of Horror I've seen but it's down there I'm afraid, just about worth a watch for fans but there are much better Masters of Horror stories out there.


So as I suffer from insomnia and was perfectly willing to be subjected to the normal Sunday night/Monday morning line up B-rated porn on my local movie channel, imagine my surprise to a bunch zombie-ish children standing outside waiting an ice cream man, who couldn't be just some normal evil character, no, heaven forbid we do normal, it had to be a FROGGIN STUPID SCARY PSYCHO FLIPPIN CLOWN! Which then prompted and almost asleep insomniac to be awake for the next 4 hrs. F a bunch of this bull crap little episode. Stupid clowns need to rot in hell! It's not as if things such as IT aren't scary enough but you have make the ice cream a clown, seriously can we not think of something more standard, no we have strike fear into the heart of kids, by making something that should be nice and sweet into this psychopathic thing that eats kids! UNACCEPTABLE! Frickin Hate Clowns!


Not one single good gag. Not one single funny line throughout the film. The entire cast gives lousy performances. I know that when the film was made, Raul Julia(may he rest in peace) had died, and that Christina Ricci was getting a little too old to play Wednesday; but did they really have to recast everyone else, too? The only original cast members left are Carel Struycken(Lurch) and Christopher Hart(Thing). All of the new cast is severely miscast; Tim Curry has pulled off some good performances in the past, but come on, he's just not Gomez. Not in a million years. He lacks the 'Latin-American' spirit that Raul possessed. Daryl Hannah obviously tries hard to portray a Morticia faithful to Anjelica Huston, but she fails; she's too lively, and far too naturally beautiful; they tried to cover it up(well, mostly... for some reason, she shows cleavage in the last scene... who thought of that? Ridiculously out of character.) but they couldn't. Another problem is that she's too luscious, whereas Morticia is supposed to have a dangerously, unhealthy thin figure. Patrick Thomas, who plays Fester, is a joke. A bad one. He overdoes Fester so horribly, that I actually cringed every single second he was on screen. I doubt that he could have done much worse. The new child actors are also bad; Nicole Fugere as Wednesday lacks the eeriness and creepiness of Christina Ricci. She never conveys any sort of emotion, not even the disgust that Ricci did so well in the previous two films, whenever something happy or lively was around. Nicole lacks that talent; she just looks the part, that's all. It's pretty much the same with Jerry Messing, the new Pugsley. He looks pretty much like Pugsley is supposed to look, but lacks the acting ability of Jimmy Workman, the actor from the two previous films. The humor of the film is as bad as it gets; whereas the first two had great black humor, this one is reduced to childish humor, which just every once in a while has a bit of 'blackness' to it. But it's all childish, which means tons of humiliation of, and ridiculous amounts of pain inflicted to, different characters for no apparent reason(other than to make children and people with equally bad humor laugh). The effects are also excruciatingly bad; you would have thought that they'd have developed better techniques through the five-six years that passed between making the previous film in the series and this. I mean, honestly, the effects look worse than they did back in the first film. All in all, this is one of the worst films I've ever seen, and I think it's too bad that they had to end the series with such a horribly unfunny film. I don't recommend this horrid piece of garbage to anyone, even children shouldn't be mistreated and go through the pure torture it is to watch this wretched film. You think I'm exaggerating? See it for yourself... no, better yet; take my word for it... it's horrible. One of the most pathetic attempts at comedy I've ever had the enduring pain of watching. If you do decide to give this film a chance, be prepared for the absolute worst. You were warned... 1/10


This movie has basically nothing to recommend it.

The writers bear the heaviest burden for this dog. I'm generally a fan of Tim Curry, Darryl Hannah, and both the Movie and TV(original) "Addams Family "shows. This movie was an embarrassment to anything related to the "Addams Family"

Tim Curry appears to have been pressed into a bad Raul Julia impersonation, rather than allowed to find his own style, Darryl Hannah and and the rest just don't seem to have been given anything to work with.

And neither have you, the viewer. This movie reeks, but if you're reading this, you've probably already found that out to your sorrow.


This movie is the worst movie ever to play on my television set. Its copies should be burned. Tim Curry's mustache was falling off. Daryl Hannah's rendition of Morticia was definitely NOT to die for. The actors had no idea how to play the parts they were given. They were either overly dramatic or had no emotion whatsoever. Even the scenery was awful! And the script was absolutely repulsive. The plot simply wasn't there. Overall, bad script, bad lighting, bad portrayals, bad props, even. Don't see it, no matter the circumstances--it disgraces the Addams Family name. Try "The Addams Family" or "Addams Family Values" instead.


The first two Addams Family films were true to the original Addams Family comics. This film bears no relation to the origional in spirit or concept. It's a pathetic attempt to cash in on an established and recognizable name. Silly slap-stick.


The third Addams Family installment is an complete and utter insult to the Addams Family Name. I have no idea what batch of crap the people behind this rubbish were smoking while doing this, but it was certainly very strong. It's not at all a genuine Addams Family film, and definitely one to forget. It was all just so wrong.

Pretty much of all the actors don't suit their roles. Tim Curry is a good actor, but is better at playing gimpy and swotty roles like his character in Home Alone 2. He made Gomez look like a humble poncy lord butler in this, it didn't suit him at all. Daryl Hannah tried too hard to be the part but just was too glittery and luscious to suit her role. The guy plays Fester over-does his character even more, but he just looks like a laughably drugged retard. And others lack the scary creepy Gothic characteristic ability-that Christina Ricci, John Workman, etc-had. Their acting generally was forgettable. and they looked quite like they didn't want to be there.

The plot was lame. The humour hardly helped at all. It was slapstick, stupid, corny and to an extent grotesque. The Addams Family house itself didn't look very scary and Gothic, and they went to a lot bright pink places. I mean, huh? What the hell...?!....? It was more like Addams Family in Barbie World or something. They were definitely smoking something strong to come up with that idea. It was about as Gothic and scary as a flower field. It was just WRONG. It's like the Cheeky Girls attempting to do a Metallica song. It's seriously that badly combined. In fact, all in all, the only genuinely dark thing about this film is the mere shadow that is it to it's two classic predecessors.

Me and my friend, against the other friend's will, demanded this off about halfway through because it was so bad and wrong. Even hardcore Addam Family fans will probably be insulted by this. This film really is a messed up breakfast and lunch together, and a half-done insulting joke. I think the real excuse for this film was to get money (i.e. cash in on the two previous Addams Family films and thereby robbing people of their precious hard-earned money). Don't be the next to suffer this scam; steer well clear and stick with the other two films and the cartoons.


The Addams Family came out in 91, and it was a huge hit. Then the sequel came out 2 years later in 93, also being a hit. Now number 3 is out, the Addams Family Reunion, a horrribly stupid bad acted(except for Tim Curry and Daryl Hannah) movie. The plot was stupid, the characters were ALL different. Now I know they had to get rid of the kids from the first two, because as you can see Wednesday who was played by Christina Ricci in the first two is now an adult, making movies like Sleeping Hollow. But they could of casted better Wednesdays and Pugsleys for the Reunion, I mean these kids could not act at all and everything thy did was stupid. Uncle Fester who in the first 2 was played by Christopher LLoyd(and brilliantly may I add), now they have some hyper active freak who goes around yelling and screaming like a two year old doing stupid pranks...It was then that it hit me, this new movie was not intended to be a sequel to the previous two. It was supposed to be a movie about the new Fox show "THE NEW ADDAMS FAMILY", and no way related to the old Addams family. This movie was a huge flop and dissapointment and no wonder they decided to put it on video. If they had released it in the theater it would of made absolutely nothing and they would've gone broke. 1/5 stars, it was horribly stupid, and I mean HORRIBLY stupid of a movie to make....


We all know that this movie was made for young children. But even children shouldn't have their intelligence insulted like this.. The special affects don't even try. The dialog is worse than cartoons...This film is just plain bad.


This 3rd Addams Family film seems to be a movie adaptation of the 1990's cartoon series as opposed to the Original Black & White TV series which the first two films were based on. This movie has "comedic" elements which give it a completely different style to the first two movies. And not in a good way.

The premise of this film, a family reunion of the Addams family, is utterly preposterous considering there was a family reunion all the way back in the first Addams Family film, when Uncle Fester had a party thrown in his honour. You have to wonder if the people who made this film had ever even seen the other two. It would appear the characters certainly hadn't as they mistake a group of people with the last name of "Adams" for "Addams".

It's not surprising this film was direct-to-video. However it is surprising that this film was made at all.


I found this terrible. Please, don't bother even LOOKING at the case. I shudder each time I think of it. Raul Julia would be turning in his grave.

Tim Curry. A name known throughout the world. He is a brilliant actor and I have found his other work to be particularly enjoyable- emphasis on OTHER. He seems so intent to replicate Raul Julia that he doesn't (replicate him). Gomez is terribly out of character and is rather more like a prim English butler in a Gomez suit than Gomez Addams. Was he so far in Raul Julia's shadow that he could not bring his own skills to the movie? Daryl Hannah at least I expected something worthwhile from. I've seen reviews that sang her praises and found myself utterly disappointed. She tries so hard to imitate the fey-like quality that Anjelica Huston brought to the character that I almost pity her because she overdoes it. Her features are distinctly different from that of Huston's and her overall looks are too perfect to really make Morticia come alive.

And where are the most classic parts of the couple's relationship? As shown in The Addams Family and Addams Family Values, Gomez and Morticia are unashamed by their blatant displays of affection- affection so overwhelming that at certain points it becomes almost corny in Addams Family Reunion. Not once do we see Gomez trailing kisses along Morticia's arm (a near trademark) and in the beginning of the movie where we are offered a tidbit of the two in bed together, which I suppose is meant to be teasing, I was surprised to find that the scene incorporated none of the sensuality that accompanied Gomez and Morticia in the previous two movies. NGAH. CANON HAS BEEN MURDERED.

Don't even look in this movie's direction.


I came into this with low expectations, understanding it was going to be aimed at children. They missed and hit some toddlers instead. It actually could have been quite a bit better (all the way up to a 5, maybe) if it had been a bit more subtle. As it is, the acting was WAY too grotesque. Uncle Fester's character is a joke. Not funny at all. The same script with a different director and some new actors might have worked.