Datasets:

ngthanhtinqn

/

aclImdb

like 0

The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.<br /><br />I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.<br /><br />The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it. <br /><br />As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.<br /><br />Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan.

The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.<br /><br />Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.<br /><br />Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.<br /><br />In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.<br /><br />It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great.

This film has to be the worst I have ever seen. The title of the film deceives the audience into thinking there maybe hope. The story line of the film is laughable at best, with the acting so poor you just have to cringe. The title 'Zombie Nation' implies a hoard of zombies when in fact there are six in total. This cannot be categorised as a horror film due to the introduction of cheesy 80's music when the zombies 'attack'. The zombies actually talk and act like human beings in the film with the only difference being the make up which looks like something out a La Roux video. If you ever get the chance to buy this film then do so, then burn the copy.

The premise is amazing and the some of the acting, notably Sally Kellerman and Anthony Rapp, is charming... but this film is near unwatchable. The music sounds as if it comes from some sort of the royalty free online site and the lyrics as if they were written with a rhyming dictionary open on the lap. Most of the singing is off-key. I think they may have filmed with the singing accapella and put in the music under it... The dialogue is really stupid and trite. The movie works best when it is actually talking about the real estate but unfortunately it strays to often into stupid farcical sub-plots. I found myself checking my watch after ther first twenty minutes and after 40 wondering 'when is it ever going to end.'

Well...tremors I, the original started off in 1990 and i found the movie quite enjoyable to watch. however, they proceeded to make tremors II and III. Trust me, those movies started going downhill right after they finished the first one, i mean, ass blasters??? Now, only God himself is capable of answering the question "why in Gods name would they create another one of these dumpster dives of a movie?" Tremors IV cannot be considered a bad movie, in fact it cannot be even considered an epitome of a bad movie, for it lives up to more than that. As i attempted to sit though it, i noticed that my eyes started to bleed, and i hoped profusely that the little girl from the ring would crawl through the TV and kill me. did they really think that dressing the people who had stared in the other movies up as though they we're from the wild west would make the movie (with the exact same occurrences) any better? honestly, i would never suggest buying this movie, i mean, there are cheaper ways to find things that burn well.

i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you

I chose to see this movie because it got a good score here on IMDb. But a lot of people either have really poor taste or someone's been fixing the score.<br /><br />Either way it was a real disappointment. The movie is exactly as stupid and far fetched as the title would suggest. There really is no reason to give a summary of the plot - but here goes: it felt like someone had been thinking: "Wouldn't it be cool to make a movie where there were snakes on a plane? And then the snakes for some reason would go crazy and start biting and stuff?!?" And that's about it! The plot is thin and unoriginal. The snakes are bad CGI (but it makes sense to cut corners on a movie that no one in their right mind will recommend to anyone!). The acting is poor, and all people are unbelievable stereo types.<br /><br />To sum it up: It's one of the worst movies I've ever seen - stay away!

I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.<br /><br />It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.<br /><br />If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.

Ouch! This one was a bit painful to sit through. It has a cute and amusing premise, but it all goes to hell from there. Matthew Modine is almost always pedestrian and annoying, and he does not disappoint in this one. Deborah Kara Unger and John Neville turned in surprisingly decent performances. Alan Bates and Jennifer Tilly, among others, played it way over the top. I know that's the way the parts were written, and it's hard to blame actors, when the script and director have them do such schlock. If you're going to have outrageous characters, that's OK, but you gotta have good material to make it work. It didn't here. Run away screaming from this movie if at all possible.

Proof that not everything Tarantino touches turns to gold. This is most definitely plastic, all the way. Its easy to see that without Quentin's involvement this would have probably sat on the shelf for years, that's assuming it would have ever got produced in the first place. It is about a woman with a fascination of death who gets a job cleaning up after crime scenes, Angela Jones is unconvincing in this role, William Baldwin is better as the Serial Killer who keeps Jones in employment!. All in all pretty poor.

That's not just my considered verdict on this film, but also on the bulk of what has been written about it. Now don't get me wrong here either, I'm not a total philistine, I didn't hate the movie because it wasn't enough like 'police academy 9' or whatever, I enjoy more than my fair share of high brow or arty stuff, I swear.<br /><br />'Magnolia' is poor, and I am honestly mystified as to why it is seemingly so acclaimed. Long winded, self indulgent, rambling nonsense from start to finish, there is just so little that could credibly be what people so love about the movie. There's some high calibre actors fair enough, and none turns in an average or worse performance. Furthermore, my wife (a self confessed Tom Cruise hater) tells me it's his career best performance by far. But the plot is so completely unengaging, meandering between the stories of several loosely connected characters at such a snail's pace that even when significant life changing events are depicted they seem so pointless and uninteresting you find yourself crying out for someone to get blown up or something.<br /><br />It doesn't help that none of the characters are very easy to identify or empathise with (well I didn't think so, but I don't like most people admittedly). They all play out their rather unentertaining life stories at great length, demonstrating their character flaws and emotions in ever-so intricate detail and playing out their deep and meaningful relationships to the nth degree with many a waffling soliloquy en route. Yadda yadda yadda. The soundtrack's dire as well, with that marrow-suckingly irritating quality that I had hitherto thought unique to the music of Alanis Morisette.<br /><br />All in all, it was about as enjoyable a three hours as being forced to repeatedly watch an episode of 'Friends' whilst being intermittently poked in the ribs by a disgruntled nanny goat. The bit with the frogs is good though.

I think I've seen all of the Grisham movies now and generally they're all very poor, except for The Rainmaker, but this one is so bad it's unbelievable<br /><br />WARNING SPOILERISH<br /><br />It's one of those movies where the character does the stupid irrational things that no one would ever do. He's a lawyer for Christ's sake. Why when his children go missing does he not call the Police. Oh yes it's because all the Police hate lawyers so they're just ignore him and let him be attacked.<br /><br />When he's arrested for murder they just let him go free, he would be locked up in a cell pending a bail hearing. <br /><br />Why would you drag your kids halfway across the country when you could easily protect them at home.<br /><br />The Police don't bother to try and find an escaped mental patient, they don't bother to interview his daughter.<br /><br />As for the ridiculous ending….<br /><br />In summary, silly, very unrealistic and a complete waste of time.<br /><br />0/10 – One of the worst films ever made.

Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half<br /><br />hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to<br /><br />happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their<br /><br />seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when<br /><br />the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they<br /><br />mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill<br /><br />for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only<br /><br />got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. <br /><br />Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous<br /><br />hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with<br /><br />the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one<br /><br />attractive cast member to remember.

This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.

Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.<br /><br />An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man – the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.<br /><br />This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed – he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical…. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.

I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.

This was truly dreadful! It had a terrible storyline, was poorly acted, and was like an amateur remake of evil dead but not nearly as good.<br /><br />It took all my tenacity to make it through this one, it's a good job I didn't have to visit the toilet else I doubt I would have come back! This one makes Hammer House of Horror look like a big screen Hollywood epic. <br /><br />The only value to this movie was the never ending supply of beautiful women. Not a bad one among them! <br /><br />If you want to letch with your friends after a night on the beer then this one's for you ... else avoid it like the plague!

Quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen; I was ready to walk out after the first ten minutes. The only people laughing in the theater were the tweeners. Don't get me wrong, I love silly, stupid movies just as much as the next gal, but the whole premise, writing and humor stunk. It seemed to me that they were going for a "Napoleon Dynamite" feel - strange and random scenes which would lead to a cult audience. Instead, it ended up being forced, awkward and weird.<br /><br />The only bright light was Isla Fisher and I just felt utterly awful that she (and Sissy Spacek) had signed up for this horrible thing.<br /><br />Thank gosh I didn't pay for it.

what kind of sh*t is this? Power rangers vs Freddy? It was watchable and as good as the first film in the beginning but from the part where the protagonists get super powers in theirs dreams, it started to become childish. This sh*t should have been rated PG or PG-13 rather than R. I expected to see some very mature stuff but it was only for the 1/3 of the film. The rest are for little kids. Plus it's focused too much on Christianity. I know Freddy's a demon but there are many religions that have different ways to fight demons. Why does it always have to be Christianity? This is total Orientalism and filled with white men/westerner's superiority. Don't' watch this, show it to little kids who loves power rangers.

You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.<br /><br />Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")<br /><br />This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...<br /><br />(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...<br /><br />In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.<br /><br />By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."

Amen to Magsel. There was a lot of confusion going on. First off, how do you know which movie you are purchasing? Henry Cele stars in every one of them. I bought this movie thinking it was the miniseries...WHAT A LETDOWN!! It would have been a comedy but for the young girl being raped. David Hasselhoff (spelling?) is OK for popcorn TV but he was not believable in this film (where was his English accent?) AND WHAT'S WITH THE LOVE STORY??? The movie was supposed to be about a young man's rise to military power - not the slave ship captain getting jiggly with the English maiden looking for her daddy...<br /><br />If I had paid more than $7 for this movie, I would have to call the police - because that would be a crime!

From the first time I saw the box cover of the movie and the stretched out photography I thought this guy, this friend of the 'Scwarz' must be like 6 foot or 6ft 2in. <br /><br />Not 5 feet tall. Not that, it's his fault. <br /><br />At any rating, I turned on the movie one cool night in Tucson, out on the second story-deck with a good cigar and let it roll. At that time my wife was having an affair and things were going down hill for me, so I needed a good diversion. But, as bad as the movie was...I totally enjoyed it, with a bottle of Merlot too, I might admit. <br /><br />Truly, I have watched this movie many times. It always makes me feel good!! It's not that it 'tries too hard' to be cool or that 'It's so close' to hitting the mark for an action film....It's frantic. And then truly clueless. Then frantic again. It's the best of the best when it comes to a slow speed chase scene. Wow!! I never felt safer in my life. Warm and happy too. I was thankful that they conserved on the gasoline during the chase, due to less production in the summer months...anywho <br /><br />The direction was 'uninspired' the action and fight sequences needed to be choreographed, or re-choreographed and tightened up, the sound was off the delivery didn't hit you, it just kept on going, the other way. The 'locals' of that village that they were in, the town rather, were 'Off cue' they also did not seem to follow what was happening very well, the would look and even 'stare' into the camera lens. Like a deer in the head lights kind of thing only some of them with a smile, a smiling deer. <br /><br />I feel bad because 'Columbu' I just bet has a good heart and a caring spirit for people in America as well as for his own countrymen. <br /><br />However "Baretta's Island" is very lethargic and unbelievable. Even still I like it a lot. My now x-wife hates it, but I love it! <br /><br />The funny thing is, I am pretty discriminating when it comes to movies I like or even 'love'. All in all, I like Franco. So there it is. <br /><br />As a movie adding addendum to this if you like killing a few hours with truly fun to watch, straight to video-B movies or 'bad' movies for your little library collection then, if you can find it, check out 'The Big Sweat' (1991) with Robert Z' Dar..you know the big guy from 'TANGO & CASH'. 'The Big Sweat', a bomb of a cop story with no real plot discovery and acting that is so lame, it might as well be 'on crutches' and at the end of 'The Big Sweat' I think they ran out of money, because they had a picture of the cast and just set it on fire and let it burn during the credits. -Good fun. <br /><br />But all in all, not as good as Baretta's Island', I gave it a '1' and an overall rating of 'awful' for awful-good B' movie. I'm waiting for the sequel, maybe like 'Baretta's revenge on Montazuma' (Franco takes a Mexican vacation and gets sick on the water then, declares war on the water co.) or 'Baretta's powder war' where as he would stake out a large drug lord in his country and chemically gene-splice and create a hybrid super bug (insect) that would be bred and dropped into the cocaine fields and eat the coke and upon passing it through the bug, it forms a chemical reaction that turns the coke to pure powdered sugar. Then another sequel he would have to get the young people rescued from excessive sugar addiction and so on. He could get a major tooth paste company to endorse and partially fund the project with careful product placement in the feature. Right?(*)

Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.<br /><br />Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.<br /><br />I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".<br /><br />This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.<br /><br />Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.

By rights, there should never have been a "First Blood Part II". The original script for "First Blood" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.<br /><br />The official title of this film was "Rambo: First Blood Part II", but it is more commonly known simply as "Rambo". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in "First Blood", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.<br /><br />What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your "trivia" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.<br /><br />The tone of this film is very different from the first. In "First Blood" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In "Rambo" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made "The Cassandra Crossing", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and "Rambo" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.<br /><br />"First Blood" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. "Rambo", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong! <br /><br />By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to "Rambo", "The Green Berets" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10

There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.

Demi Moore's character in the movie was selected for the SEALs because of her looks. That was a bad start and the movie went down from there. The plot was totally unbelievable. The will to make it in a tough military unit is not enough. This movie did not convince me of a woman's physical ability to perform the types of tasks required.<br /><br />Trying to pretend that women and men are basically the same is an insult to everyone's intelligence. The differences between the sexes are what makes life interesting.

While some performances were good-Victoria Rowell, Adrienne Barbeau, and the two Italian girlfriends come to mind-the story was lame and derivative, the emphasis on the girlfriend's racial background was handled clumsily at best, and the relatives were mostly portrayed as stereotypes, not as real people. I found myself wincing uncomfortably at many moments that were supposed to be funny. I can hardly comprehend why the local paper here in SF said this was a good movie, and wonder WHO posted the glowing review here on IMDb. Very disappointed in this movie, and mad I actually went to a theatre to see it, based on the faulty connection to Garden State, which is a far funnier, more inventive, and touching movie than this one. I must especially mention the emotional climax in the church, which was so wooden and by-the-numbers that I nearly left, and some in the audience actually DID. THAT was followed by a silly climax at the graveyard, which I saw coming 10 minutes before it happened. I really don't like being misled to spend my money so uselessly.

Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.<br /><br />First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.<br /><br />The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.<br /><br />The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.<br /><br />I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! <br /><br />So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.<br /><br />0/5 stars

I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell.

0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.

Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... "Poetry", "hope"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........

I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. <br /><br />The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)

Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.<br /><br />Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form.

It's hard to believe that this is a sequel to Henry Fool. Hard to believe that the same director and actors were involved in both movies. While Henry Fool is refreshing, witty, comical, Fay Grim is slow, boring, and doesn't go anywhere. Where has the wit gone? I am baffled.<br /><br />It is 10 years since I saw Henry Fool and many of its dialogs and scenes are still vivid in my memory. Fay Grim is painful to watch. This is no fault of the actors, who are good (Parker Posey) or great (Jeff Goldblum) -- the blame lies entirely with the plot, the dialog, and even some of the filming (low budget is no excuse). A huge disappointment. <br /><br />Sorry I couldn't pay attention to the plot, I was so bored, so disappointed... if you enjoyed this one you might not enjoy Henry Fool so much... the two movies have absolutely nothing to do with each other... there is no continuity in the characters' personalities... it's all a fraud to entice fans of Henry Fool to watch the sequel.<br /><br />I'm switching this off now -- Henry in some sort of jail with a Taliban?!?!

This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!<br /><br />Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.

If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.<br /><br />Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: <br /><br />* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.<br /><br />* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.<br /><br />* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.<br /><br />* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.<br /><br />* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.<br /><br />* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.<br /><br />* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators –even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.<br /><br />* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.<br /><br />There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.

A number of brides are mysteriously murdered while at the altar, and later their bodies are stolen en route to the morgue. Newspaper writer Patricia Hunter decides to investigate these mysterious killings. She discovers that right before each ceremony, the bride was given a rare orchid (supposedly from the groom) which contained a powerful drug that succumbed them. Patricia is told that the orchid was first grown by a Dr. Lorenz, who lives in a secluded estate, with his wife. In reality, Dr. Lorenz is responsible for the crimes, by putting the brides in a suspended state, and using their gland fluid to keep his wife eternally young. Patricia, along with Dr. Foster (who is working with Dr. Lorenz on the medical mystery surrounding his wife) try to force Dr. Lorenz's hand by setting up a phony wedding, which eventually leads Patricia into the mad doctor's clutches. This movie had a very good opening reel, but basically ended up with too many establishing shots and other weak scenes. The cast is decent, Walters and Coffin deserved better, but that's life. Russell steals the show (even out hamming Lugosi- who does not give one of his more memorable performances, even considering his Monograms) as Countess Lorenz playing the role with the qualities of many of the stereotypical characteristics of many of today's Hollywood prima donnas. Weak and contrived ending as well. Rating, based on B movies, 4.

Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!

I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing "Return to Paradise," which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from "Return to Paradise." <br /><br />Maybe I was expecting too much. <br /><br />On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying. <br /><br />I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tension<br /><br />The best thing about this film is the "tragic" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.<br /><br />3/10

MINOR SPOILERS!<br /><br />Well i just sat up late and watched this film, mainly because i enjoyed and rated some of Singleton's earlier work like "Boyz n the hood". However, i have to say this was a major disappointment and is everything i hate about contrived, clichéd, so-called "message" movies. <br /><br />The acting is mainly poor,(pop stars and models do NOT necessarily make good actors...take note), the situations hard to swallow, (rape victim becomes overnight lesbian?...please!), but worst of all it reinforces every screwed up stereotype you can think of. By the second half of the film it has become cartoon like in its characterisation, making you lose any shred of empathy you may have had for its one-dimensional players.<br /><br />Not once is any valid point made about the inherent causes of racism and cultural, sexual and political ignorance. As a result it merely ends up sensationalising the results of these problems. It's message is contradictory, resulting in a sense of confusion and a general lack of plot cohesion. As for the films conclusion i found it predictable, embarrassing, exploitative and mildly offensive. For a film called "Higher Learning" i have to say all i learned is to avoid seeing this ever again.<br /><br />If you want a true comment on some of the themes that this film completely fails to elaborate upon then go hire "American History X"....unless you were just watching it for Tyra Banks then go hire a life.

THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.<br /><br />The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.<br /><br />The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp

This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.

...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br />

I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.

Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).<br /><br />Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.<br /><br />There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?

Here's why the Jane Show won't work. Once again Canadian bonehead producers and writers can't create a sitcom without putting some kind of different spin on it. I guess these people don't watch a lot of T.V. from the U.S. which has the sitcom model down pat. No, here we have to do something different, we have to make the A story absolutely absurd and then have a meaningful B story to try to make up for it. The characters are two dimensional and the story lines are way over the top: Forklift races??? give me freaking break. Here's a little advice for the writers of the show, Don't write funny situations, find the funny in situations. And remember, you have to be born with a sense of humor to write truly funny stuff, not just be an improv monkey.

You can never have seen either film and still know that The Jerk Too is a disaster. The question is not, "How did it get made," because if you throw money at anyone and tell them to make a film, they will do so.<br /><br />No. The question is "Why, oh why, did Steve Martin allow it to be made?" I think he needed the money to fight a nuisance lawsuit and was determined it not cost him anything. He knew the sequel was going to be so frightful, that out of pride, he wouldn't even count it's royalties as income. <br /><br />The only way this sequel could not be an embarrassment is to have had Carl Gottlieb and Steve Martin revive the nation's favorite poor black family.<br /><br />And "dcreasy2001" (aka Mark Blankfield?): It's just transparently obvious that you worked on this film in some sad capacity, and the only way you can feel better about your involvement is to be the sequel's lone cheerleader as an IMDb user comment. I was praying for you to veer over into satire, but alas, you were really making an effort at spin. Why not 10 stars?

This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie<br /><br />do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10

May contain spoilers.<br /><br />I say that, but anyone savvy enough to be reading this can probably figure out every plot turn right from the start.<br /><br />This is not a movie that I liked. I didn't hate it in the way of some movies that insult your intelligence, but it all felt too predictable on its trudge to the requisite happy ending. There were funny bits along the way to be sure, but few were original. At least it didn't go for the gutter.<br /><br />Christina Applegate looks fresh, and Ben Affleck works hard. Their scenes together are actually the only redeeming feature. Everyone else is a cardboard cutout, including, surprisingly, James Gandolfini, who must have made this as a favor to someone.<br /><br />All in all, it's a harmless, but not inspiring, 90 minutes.

This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.<br /><br />The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is "unintentionally funny" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.<br /><br />Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time.

A truly unpleasant film. While Rick Baker's special effects are quite impressive (if stomach-turning), it has no other redeeming features. Like many 70s movies, it leaves you feeling as if you need to take a long shower, and scrub the slime off of yourself. The characters are uniformly unpleasant, and plot makes no sense.

This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess.

I honestly have to say that I could not stop watching this movie from the second that it started. Simply for how bad it was!!! It's kinda like watching paint dry only a lot more confusing. I mean you sit there and just wait for something to happen, anything in fact, preferably something that makes the whole film make sense! At the end of the film I actually sat there wondering if there was any chance at all that I may have missed the first hour that explained everything or whether I may have inadvertently passed out during the film and missed the parts that glued the plot(if there was in fact one)together! The main thing that really confused me about this movie, is nearly at the end the main girl (if there was indeed a main girl) was in some sort of alternate reality, i mean what the hell was going on at this point?! all of a sudden she awoke and was in a mental institute, chained to a bed being drugged by doctors or something, then quicker than it would have taken me to slit my wrists, it flipped back and she was getting eaten out by some random vampire!it made no sodding sense! I'm tempted to email the makers and demand my time back, i mean i wasted 2 hours of my life watching this rubbish!i am kinda interested to know if the filmmakers themselves actually knew what it was all about! just seemed someone had edited out all the bits that could have made it make sense though i think the film would have had to have been 4hrs long to make that happen! I side completely with the other person who wrote the other review, i was duped royally with this film by its title, and that alone. I'm just so sodding grateful i didn't actually buy the film, no matter how many times iv seen it in the local pound shop. You would have thought that would have given me a clue that the film was a complete pile of steaming movie rubbish but to be honest I think £1 was way too much money to spend on this film!!!! what a sodding huge waste of time and a good razor blade, i mean i wish i OD'ed, its less painful than watching this film!!!!

This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.<br /><br />Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.<br /><br />Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.<br /><br />He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get.

(Spoilers)<br /><br />I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.<br /><br />The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.<br /><br />First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.<br /><br />Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.<br /><br />Too bad.

A young scientist is trying to carry on his dead father's work on limb regeneration.His overbearing mother has convinced him that he murdered his own father and is monitoring his progress for her own evil purposes.A young doctor uses reptilian DNA he extracts from a large creature and when his arm is conveniently ripped off a few minutes later,he injects himself with his formula and grows a new murderous arm...Admittedly the special effects in "Severed Ties" are pretty good and grotesque,but the rest of the film is awful.The severed arm is behaving like a snake and kills few people.Big deal.The acting is mediocre and the climax is silly.3 out of 10.

I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru

I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. <br /><br />I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.

Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.<br /><br />Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.<br /><br />The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.<br /><br />Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.<br /><br />Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.<br /><br />Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.

"Carriers" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of "Star Trek") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of "Coyote Ugly")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of "Fanboys") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of "The Ring 2") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.<br /><br />This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of "Runaway Bride"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of "Land of the Lost") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.<br /><br />Indeed, "Carriers" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. <br /><br />No,"Carriers" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. <br /><br />The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, "Carriers" sinks into predictability. "Irréversible" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, "Carriers" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody.

This movie is like the material S.E. Hinton was writing in the 1970s and Copola was adapting to the screen in the early 80s, and, had Trueblood actually been a product of either, the results might've been much better (especially in the acting department). Instead, we get a rather so-bad-its-funny piece of mediocrity.<br /><br />Jeff Fahey plays Ray Trueblood, a former street rumbler, I suppose is the accurate description. This was in the days of action movies that used guys in their 40s and mid30s and dressed them up in greaser threads or some kind of more effeminate selection of gang garb and they fought to lousy 80s music. Nonetheless, Ray is the lone caretaker of his younger brother, Donny (Chad Lowe in a part where he screams a lot), who he is forced to leave behind inexplicably in a train station when, on the run from the cops, he is nabbed and forced to serve time in the Marines. Flash forward to present day and Ray is back in town and looking for his brother who has also become part of the street gangs, although in a gang that was Ray's adversary and now old scores must be violently settled (and again, cops must be dodged and this time, a lady's honor defended in the action film sense) before Ray can carry on life at normal pace with his brother, Donny.<br /><br />For the most part, the film is quite ridiculous. For me, most of this has to do with far too much overacting, although not by Fahey or Sherlyn Fenn who plays the waitress he befriends. The guys in the gang and Lowe himself seem to do quite a bit of needless exaggerated as New York street toughs. Although, the bigger hang up is recycled plot lines and perhaps a kind of movie that was well past its prime as a product of 1989.

Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.

I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.

Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...<br /><br />One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...<br /><br />Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...<br /><br />...avoid this movie.

<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10

Wow. I don't even really remember that much about this movie, except that it stunk.<br /><br />The plot's basically; a girl's parents neglect her, so this sicko PokeMon pretends to be her dad. Am I the only one disturbed by that? Then, this weirdo PokeMon kidnaps Ash's mom to pretend to be the girl's. I don't care if he was trying to make the girl happy, that's just gross.<br /><br />There was no real plot. The girl was just a whiny brat who wanted things her own way. She played with Unowns, was the "daughter" of Entei and apparently could grow and shrink in age on a whim with the help of her "dad".<br /><br />That's pretty much all I can remember, but I think you can take it as a hint, and not see it. (Or if you do see it, don't expect much.) 1 out of 10.<br /><br />Seriously. If you want a PokeMon movie, rent "PokeMon; the First Movie".

This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.

This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).<br /><br />The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.<br /><br />To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.

Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends."

Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.<br /><br />I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!<br /><br />A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.<br /><br />Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.<br /><br />With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.<br /><br />This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would put this movie in the same context as the Exorcist. Where the Exorcist was subtle and creepy, Stigmata was blunt, clumsy, and way too formulaic.<br /><br />This is one of the most visually beautiful films I've seen in a while, but the imagery does not make up for the downward spiral of patronizing exposition that makes it unbearable. <br /><br />My interest in this movie was peaked when it was compared to The Exorcist, and my visit to the official web site increased that interest. The web site had many tales of "actual" stigmata throughout history. However, scene by scene, the movie is so obsessed by its quest for "genuineness" that it becomes comical at first, then outright hard to watch toward the end. I began getting suspicious when the priest charged with investigating potential miracles walks into the beauty parlor where our would-be heroine cuts hair and, evidently, flirts with priests.<br /><br />The plot: A woman without faith in God begins receiving the wounds of Christ (the Stigmata) and is baffled and upset about the ordeal. A priest is sent straight from the Vatican to investigate the case. Is Frankie possessed by Satan, or a vessel for Jesus Christ?<br /><br />The only miracle in this film is that it finally ends.

The monster from Enemy Mine somehow made his way into a small mountain community, where he has taken up residence. He's being hunted by a female doctor-turned-vigilante who is out to exterminate him. This female assassin, who looks like a refugee from a Motley Crue video, rides around on a motorcycle and tries to save a bunch of kids who have chosen to have a Big Chill weekend right smack dab in the middle of the monster's turf. Decapitations and lots of blood are primarily in place to draw attention away from the story which limps along like a bad version of the Island of Dr. Moreau (and yes, it's worse than the one with Val Kilmer).

Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.<br /><br />Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!<br /><br />Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.<br /><br />I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on.

Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.<br /><br />First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.<br /><br />It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.<br /><br />Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)

Run away from this movie. Even by B-movie standards this movie is dreadful. It is also insidious in it's theme. The main theme is that people who reject society and have no respect for anything are cool and worth admiring. People who treat others with respect are losers. Guncrazy is a movie that speaks for the disenfranchised a lot better than this movie, see it instead.<br /><br />No normal kid would do what Trent does. State Troopers do not work as they do in this film etc. Seeing this movie makes you realize why writers use the hooker-with-a-heart-of-gold cliche. Mija is a completely unsympathetic hooker,who yes, has had a terrible life. However, she is such a terrible person the audience cannot identify with her.<br /><br />Usually there is one thing a movie can be recommended for, in this case there is none. It is such a ridiculous movie it insults the person who tries to identify with the main characters. The acting is adequate by B-movie standards and the direction presents nothing new or interesting.

I just sat in the theater bored as hell, i wanted to leave halfway through the movie. The plot is simple 4 Samoan guys wreck weddings. So They have to bring a dates in order to get into the wedding. Yawn.<br /><br />The thing that peeved me off the most was the so-called crude jokes... They were highly UNfunny, clichéd and thrown in your face, to make you get into the already dull movie. The acting was below-average and i felt this movie just went on and on about nothing but a bunch of unfunny jokes and a predictable plot.<br /><br />All in all, one of the worse movies i've seen of 2006, unfunny, bad acting, just ugly.<br /><br />Well thank god a friend shouted me. <br /><br />Avoid.

I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.<br /><br /> What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)<br /><br /> The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!<br /><br /> This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.<br /><br /> The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.<br /><br /> Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.<br /><br /> And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"

I was a huge fan of the original cartoon series, and was looking forward to finally seeing Gadget on the big screen -- but I never in my wildest dreams expected something so extremely extremely terrible. The pace was WAY too fast, there was no plot, and 'wowser!' - what the hell is that?? It was 'WOWSERS!!'.

The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.<br /><br />However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much.

Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.<br /><br />"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween")

The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies

The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly

One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an "arthouse" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.<br /><br />If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck.

Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural "thriller" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).<br /><br />I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.<br /><br />How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.<br /><br />The alleged "killer cut" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.<br /><br />1/10

POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.

Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.

It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. <br /><br />I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. <br /><br />Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.<br /><br />Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.<br /><br />However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.

I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.<br /><br />As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.<br /><br />Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.

I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.

Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"

I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.

I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).<br /><br />We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.<br /><br />Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.<br /><br />Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.<br /><br />An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.<br /><br />I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.<br /><br />Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?<br /><br />One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!<br /><br />1/10.

This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).<br /><br />I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. <br /><br />Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?<br /><br />I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...<br /><br />Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...

We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.

Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie!

Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.<br /><br />- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.<br /><br />- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.<br /><br />- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.<br /><br />- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.

I can't say that Wargames: The Dead Code is the worst movie I've ever seen, as it had one or two decent moments, but I can easily say it's the most transparent movie I've ever seen. Not once did a plot device present itself without me guessing it 10+ minutes in advance. There was no subtlety to anything the movie did, no intelligence evident at all behind the scenes. Every spoken or typed line's intent was so glaringly obvious it was impossible to "get into" the movie.<br /><br />I found myself laughing at the horribly thought out plot line, and the bumbled attempts to reclaim the audience, far more often than I found myself enjoying the movie.

Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!<br /><br />But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.<br /><br />The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. <br /><br />Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. <br /><br />The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.<br /><br />For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. <br /><br />Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. <br /><br />Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. <br /><br />I even regret renting the movie.

Falsely accused, skirt-chasing chums John Wayne (as John Scott) and Eddy Chandler (as Kansas Charlie) change identities to become "Alias Smith and Jones". Mr. Wayne becomes "John Jones". Mr. Chandler's is supposed to be "Rev. Smith", but Wayne calls him "Dr. Smith". At no time are either of them as entertaining as Roger Davis, Pete Duel, Jonathan Harris, or Ben Murphy; although, Wayne can be considered infinitely more successful than any of them, career wise. Pretty blonde Mary Kornman (as Anne), grown-up from her days in "Our Gang", is a lovely interest for Wayne. She and Chandler have a couple of cute scenes with Wayne. If you're not a fan of low budget John Wayne films of the 1930s, this movie won't make you one.

I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.