Shlock-merchant Leo Fulci takes a change of pace by making a trashy, barely coherent sword and sorcery fantasy movie instead of his usual trashy, barely coherent horror.

A wimpy Orlando Bloom type called Ilias, from some society vaguely resembling Ancient Greece travels across the ocean to caveman territory on some vaguely defined quest to battle evil, where he joins up with a animal loving hunter to battle the wolf-man and mutant minions of a vampiric topless evil sorceress. Wackiness ensues. The sorceress, is oppressing the local cavemen and wants the magic bow for herself. She sends various minions, each weirder than the last, after our heroes who win through in the end, striking a blow for oppressed cavemen everywhere. This movie contains a steady stream of WTF? elements and moments.

For some reason the entire movie is shot in soft focus and the picture is further blurred by the constant presence of mist on screen. This may have been an attempt to create atmosphere or to hide how fake everything looks. Either way, it failed. There is no atmosphere, unless it is one of scuzziness and mild bewilderment and there is no hiding how lame everything looks. The wolf-man minions look like a poor man's wookie. For some reason the director fell in love with shots of them leaping through the air in slow motion, Six Million Dollar Man style, toward our heroes when they attack. There are probably about a dozen of these shots throughout the movie and it gets goofier every time. The other minions of the topless sorceress, other than the generic leather clad humans, are some lumpy white mutants who appear to be covered in cobwebs. Needless to say they are slow and unthreatening and when they speak sound like gay Hispanic, lisping Daleks. The fights are stilted and unconvincing and the special effects are woeful. Oh yeah, the music is cheap synthesiser stuff that the makers of Doctor Who would have been embarrassed to have used.

Ilias, our nominal hero is bland and forgettable. He also looks a complete wuss, especially with his midriff revealing leather outfit and big hair, and is clearly a moron. Sure, he's a dynamite shot with his magical bow but he only takes about three or four arrows with him in his mission to battle this entire continent of evil. Needless to say he runs out of arrows within a few minutes and has to be saved by more traditional sword and sorcery hero, Mace. When he meets Ilias he establishes himself as the taciturn loner type, claiming he has no friends but no sooner can you say latent homoerotic subtext they are bosom buddies, traipsing the misty hills together. Mace promises to take Ilias with him in return for bow related favours. Ilias asks where he is going. "Wherever my legs take me," is his reply. Good enough for Ilias. Mace is also animal lover and outrageous hypocrite. He proclaims his great love of and affinity toward animals, citing the usual stuff about how he prefers them to humans because humans can be soooo mean. He says he would never hunt and kill an animal to feed himself but he will steal meat off other people who have hunted down animals. He is also not above randomly killing innocent passers by for no good reason. Not long after they meet, he is testing out Ilias' bow and the movie cuts to some random caveman, minding his own business, walking along and Mace shoots him dead. There is no indication this poor soul did anything to deserve this and even Ilias, who supposedly hails from a more moral and civilised society doesn't even raise an eyebrow.

The films villainess is quite unusual. For the entire movie she is completely naked except from a g-string and a golden mask that encompasses her entire head. It's like Fulci included her to make the movies obligatory T&A quotient but decided she was bit too much of a butterface at the last minute. She spends a lot of time seemingly being pleasured by her pet snakes and dreaming about being shot by a faceless bow wielding man who is dressed like Ilias. Wow, such symbolism! Later on in the movie she wimps out when she can't beat Ilias and Mace and promises to make herself the sex-slave of some ancient warrior dude if he kills them for her. Hardly the world's most scary villain and not really a step forward for women's rights. I think he sic's the cobweb creatures on our heroes and impersonates Mace in a situation where there is no no-one else around but Mace to fool. Was he really worthy trading your self respect for, Ocron?

There are quite a few other WTF? moments. Most of them come toward the end of the movie. Ilias wusses out, I forget why, possibly his permed hairdo got mussed, but realizes the error of his ways and returns to aid Mace in fighting the forces of evil. All of a sudden, for no reason, his bow can suddenly fire out multiple target seeking bolts of energy. The bolts can also shoot through solid rock when necessary. Needless to say his makes short work of the hordes of bad guys who have captured Mace.

The climax is also rather nonsensical. Mace decimates Ocron's remaining forces using the bows targeted laser attack capability. He then is able to shoot Ocron from a kilometre away using its shoot through rock capacity. She starts dying. Her mask is ripped of revealing a hideous Muppet head. She staggers around screaming and turns into a dog and wanders off with another dog. Mace smiles. Roll credits.

Strangely enough as far as these dodgy low budget sword and sorcery movies this one is reasonably lucid and focused. Any one who has seen Wizards of the Lost Kingdom can tell you how nonsensical and meandering these movies can truly be.


Warning: This review contains a spoiler.

 Wow. Almost impressively bad. Note I said, "almost". This is nothing more than lots of random scenes strung together in a loose attempt at a story. The protagonists (you CANNOT call them "heroes") shoot innocent bystanders for their food, and also rob same for similar reasons. There's also tons of homoeroticism, which was a turnoff for me. (SPOILER: It seems as if the villainess (who only is topless and not naked as other reviews claim) gets killed early on, but miraculously recovers, adding another 70 minutes of audience-torture.) I can't shake the feeling that animal abuse occurred numerous times in this cinematic abomination. If you're in a MST3K mood, you might find this watchable, but for the most part you can forget it. Go rent the original Conan DVD instead.


This was a watershed event in my movie watching life. I went to see this in the theater when it came out. I was completely amazed at just how bad it was. Movies like this make you wonder who put the money up and who owed whom a favor - a very, very large favor. The special effects are absolutely first grade level, as in any first grader could have done them. Toy rubber bats on strings with no attempt to hide the strings, arrows that appear to be drawn on the film and look to be the shape of an arrow you'd find on a street sign, and a laughable story line. Ed Wood made masterpieces compared to "Conquest". Every film student should see this thing just so they'll know the very definition of a bad movie.


I usually talk a bit about the plot in the first part of my review but in this film there's really not much to talk of. Just a mish-mash of other FAR better sword & sorcery epics. Lack of cohesiveness runs rampant as does banality. Even the main villaness refusing to wear clothing other then a loincloth is pretty boring as she pretty much has a chest of a young boy.Mildly amusing in it's ineptitude at best and severely retarded at it's worst. Lucio Fulci was scrapping the bottom of the barrel here and it shows.

My Grade: D-

DVD Extras: Posters & Stills galleries; Lucio Fulci Bio; and US & International Theatrical trailers

Eye Candy: Sabrina Siani is topless throughout (some may consider that appealing, I did not); various extras are topless as well


I came at this film with high expectations. I was aware of Greenaway's work and 'The Tempest' and was interested in an adaptation. I first wanted to switch off after ten minutes, but felt that it would be unfair. There was a representation of a storm, but where in your mind do you conceive a small boy peeing over a toy boat? It is symbolic of what? I continued another ten minutes my finger twitching over the 'off' button, somewhere something would capture my interest. This is not Shakespeare, it is not cinema. There is a time and place for it, but I will not waste my time and there is no place for it in my studies of Shakespeare. After twenty five minutes I gave up and that was the end. I then read all the comments on this website and the pretentiousness of the film is only matched by its defendants. 'Its a painting.....then put it in a gallery', 'it's a ballet.....keep it on the stage then'. Shakespeare can be done intelligently, and the plays were performed to mass audiences, they were accessible, and this version helps put a wedge between Shakespeare and the general population at large - and I do not think that the Bard would be happy with that.


"Sir" John Gielgud must have become senile to star in a mess of a movie like this one.;

This is one of those films, I suppose, that is considered "art," but don't be fooled.....it's garbage. Stick to the "art" you can admire in a frame because the films that are labeled as such are usually unintelligible forgeries like this.

In this masterpiece, Giegud recites Shakespeare's "The Tempest" while the camera pans away to nude people. one of them a little kid urinating in a swimming pool. Wow, this is heady stuff and real "art," ain't it?? That's just one example. Most of the story makes no sense, is impossible to follow and, hence, is one that Liberal critics are afraid to say they didn't "understand" so they give it high marks to save their phony egos. You want Shakespeare? Read his books.


Every now and again you hear radio djs inviting listeners to nominate movies that the listener can't stand or never watched all the way through. This is the movie that I think of...days later.

It's got something to do with a play by Shakespeare. Not sure, but I think I bailed on this movie some 20 odd minutes into it...think I realised that my toenails wouldn't clip themselves, and they were looking at me imploringly to get cut.

This movie just seemed boring and pretentious to me.

Even though this is the first movie I've given such a low score to (which I've actually attempted to watch), I wouldn't want to put you off other movies by it's English director, Peter Greenaway. I remember thinking that his "The cook, the thief, his wife and her lover" was a truly great British film even though its content was at times stomach churning-a brilliant movie, but I can understand why people would balk at seeing it.

Another good film by Greenaway was "A zed and two noughts". Again, it had some content that pushed the boundaries of good taste, but was intriguing nonetheless.

The other film that I usually think of too late for such radio show topics is "Brazil". Never managed to watch that all the way through either-kept falling asleep!

Unless you have a taste for self-important movies which are off-puttingly highly stylised, laboriously paced and difficult to follow, then steer clear of Prosero's Books.


I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years.

Here's why:

Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen.

This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.

I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.


This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.


This is not the worst film I have seen of Peter Greenaway but it is close. That dishonor goes to the even worse Pillow Book. This director's films of 3 I have seen I find them all to be miserable. Like The Cook...,whatever positive cinematic flourishes he displays, are totally unredeemed by the repugnancy of his material and overall presentation.


This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.


I bought a DVD of this film for my girlfriend who shares the same name as the ghost girl in this film, and enjoys movies about the paranormal. The movie was shot entirely on video, so it has the look of a PBS special about it. The special effects are phoney looking, but there are actually some scary moments in the movie that got us to jump in our seat. There is a particularly effective scare involving a Virgin Mary statue.

HOWEVER, the acting is bad, the "plot" scenes are long and very boring, and I will tell you I have no clue what happened at the end. If you get the movie, rent it, if you buy it, please make sure you pay less than $5.


JESSICA: A GHOST STORY is as the name implies a ghost story. The theme is meant to be horror but comes across closer to comedy!

A woman comes who was brutally murdered comes back from the dead. This constitutes what this movie attempts to pass off as a plot. There is really nothing more to it. The movie comprises of a series of loosely connected scenes involving a guy who had an affair with this woman prior to her death.

Immediately from the opening scenes, this movie has the appearance of a "straight-to-DVD" effort. Unlike gems such as VACANCY 2, the movie has no sense of direction or creativity and certainly gives "straight-to-DVD" movies a bad name! The direction is as poor as can be with a complete lack of suspense, scares or tension. Even the drama elements are hopelessly handled and represent something more boring than even the worst soap opera you may have had the misfortune of enduring.

The acting across the board is absolutely abysmal with no one actor involved managing to show even the slightest potential of a successful acting career.

Many of the individual scenes are incredibly long, with very long pauses between dialogue exchanges. I'm not exaggerating!

The only reason I give this movie a rating of 2 rather than 1 is because some of the poor acting combined with even worse dialogue made for a few unintentional laughs. I stress the word "few" in that sentence. This is not overall one of the "so-bad-it's-good" movies like CAMP BLOOD or THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE. If you want to laugh hysterically, watch those movies. If you want to see a proper horror movie about ghosts watch THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, THE CHANGELING, RINGU, THE EYE (original Korean version), THE GRUDGE, ONE MISSED CALL or PHONE.

I advise anyone who has had the good fortune of avoiding seeing JESSICA: A GHOST STORY to keep up the good work! Just forget this movie exists. Don't spare a thought for it!


What do you get when you have bad acting, bad directing, scenes that are excruciatingly long, terrible lighting, painful editing, and awful effects? You get Jessica: A Ghost Story Seems its shot on betacam, which is fine, but the lighting has to compliment this medium. In this case it does not. There are a few CU's where the person's face is entirely in shadow. One scene in particular is the scene at the psychiatrists. It's a joke if you ask me. Some of the scenes were so long that they could have easily been cut in half... but I guess then they wouldn't have a film at feature length. The main character is incredibly flat. He's the LEAD male, so he should have some "hero" elements to his character, but he does not. He whines and is scared the entire film. I could go on, but I don't want to waste my time. Although the lighting was terrible, I must say that they did have nice camera movement. Too bad the lighting didn't compliment it. The cover of the DVD is nice, and that's where it ends. Just terrible.


This subject matter deserves a much better script, and final result, than this movie serves up. The script is full of holes because it was never conceived as a story, but rather a string of nightmare scenarios loosely knitted together. The gaps and loose ends in the story line are numerous. The scene where the kidnap victim is told that her parents are not dead, and have been looking for her since she was taken, is just bizarre. It is written as a cathartic therapy moment with the head of the shelter for runaways handing her a "missing poster" from when she was eight. In the real world, if the head of a shelter for runaways found out that he had, under his roof, a solved kidnapping, what would have followed would have been an immediate call to the police. It's a law enforcement issue not a 12 minute segment for Oprah. Everything that follows from there to the end is so short shrift that I can only conclude that the first 90 minutes was for pure gratuitous exploitation. Funny, that's what this movie is supposed to be condemning. In the end it seems to have joined in.


I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.

From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.

Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.

Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.

I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.


I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.


NO SPOILERS.

I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.

Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.

Terrible.


I watch bad movies.

This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.

I am LAZY.

Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.

I am smashing my copy of this movie.

It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.


A young man kills a young woman for no reason. The man's brother is jailed on charges that he was an accomplice, but soon escapes. Upon escaping, the seemingly innocent man kidnaps three victims and soon he ropes his girlfriend in on the plot. If this isn't bad enough, the situation quickly makes a downward spiral.

This film had some good aspects and many bad ones. Its strongest aspect was lead actress Emily Haack. Setting aside the fact she's nude in a fair amount of this film, she presents herself as a decent actress and a very strong character. I see no reason she cannot take this experience and somehow turn it into a career in some way. I was convinced she was a ruthless individual.

Also, the makers of this film were very bold and pulled no punches. Graphic nudity (both male and female), coprophagia, and extreme anal violence are not shied away from. I like my horror films to push the boundaries a little bit, and this one ignored them altogether, gladly skipping towards Gomorrah. Maybe it was too much, but I think they achieved what they were looking for.

But now the negative aspects. First, and most noticeable, this film is very low budget and the film quality shows this. I can excuse that -- the plot was decent, the acting fine and in some scenes the lower quality film actually made the movie more disturbing (a more realistic feel). So, I won't scold them for having low-grade equipment. What I will scold them for is the use of poor choices in shots. For no reason I can ascertain (besides plumping the movie), there is a large amount of footage of a cemetery. I don't really know why, and I frankly started dozing off at this point because it was so long and pointless.

I also take issue with the title. The idea here was to deceive people into thinking this film had some connection to the classic "I Spit on Your Grave". Now, there is a line that seems to imply the main character is the daughter of the woman from this other film. And the themes are very loosely the same (a woman getting revenge on men). But there is no firm connection and the reason this title was chosen was for the video store customer to think they were getting a sequel. This was deceptive and dishonest.

My last major complaint is that this plot makes no real sense. Not even a little bit. A woman is killed in the beginning for no reason. A prison escapee finds time to kidnap people to torture them, for no reason (because they wronged his girlfriend?). The same man goes from good to very evil without explanation. Likewise, the female lead (Haack) turns fro ma normal person to someone who is overly cruel and sadistic, for no reason at all, and against people who for the most part were only marginally mean to her (a neighbor offering drugs for sex is wrong, but by no means worth getting tortured for).

Don't let this title fool you, or the claims that the film is incredibly shocking. Yes, some scenes were shocking, but the vast majority of the film is dull and makes you want to take a nap. If you see this in the video store or on Netflix, just keep browsing. Or rent it, and we can sit around and vent about it for hours. You have been warned.


Picture the fugly annoying goth kids from college in a scat film, throw in a pinch of story and a whole lot of awful acting, and you are still not even close to how bad this movie is.

Shot badly, bad effects, worse acting. Contrived attempt at shocking horror. Everyone I've showed this to gets kinda depressed watching it. The sex scenes are disturbing, not necessarily for their content, but more because they're just something you want to end as soon as possible. The last sex scene is just foul, even before she gets to the guy.

I'm one of those people that loves to watch movies that people hate, which is why I picked this one up. But for your own sake, save yourself the time and avoid this abhorrence. It's that bad. I literally threw it in the garbage.


good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !

much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things:

among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).

had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.

the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).

forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now.


With a title like that, it's above and beyond my comprehension how this movie just did NOT appeal to me. Granted, there's a few decently sleazy moments and a little gore, but the way in which the movie was shot and the overall storyline just struck me as an idiotic and lazy attempt at profuse "shock" tactics... The inconsistent plot starts with a guy raping and murdering a woman stranded at the side of the road. He and his abetting brother are imprisoned up until the brother breaks out and arranges to meet his girlfriend out in the woods. He ends up forcing her into a house where they screw and he later shows her a collection of kidnapped guys in the basement. The heavily drugged captives consist of her old boyfriend who raped her, a "grabby" neighbor, and her sexually abrasive boss. He explains to her that he is going to kill them all. She winds up killing HIM and then turning her focus towards the men (or pigs) whom she tortures and kills, herself... Most of the violence and humiliation has to do with sh!t eating and genitalia destroying - all of which are far from disturbing and essentially mild. The best scene is a graphic broom handle masturbation followed by some painful man-rape... Surely, "I Spit on Your Corpse, I P!ss on Your Grave" was intended as an unofficial sequel to "I Spit on Your Grave" - based on, mainly the title, and a reference the main character gives - suggesting her mother was Camille Keaton. I personally consider that to be a wildly blasphemous assertion! This movie is a boring, amateurish mess that strives for shocks but failed miserably...


Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!


In director Eric Stanze's 'ISOYC, IPOYG', three men are subjected to torture at the the hands of a woman that they have all sexually abused. The first victim is forced to eat his own crap, before being axed to death. The next bloke ends up with a bullet in the crotch after refusing to have anal sex with the first guy's corpse. But it's the third man who gets it the worst: he has to watch the heavily tattooed 'star' Emily Haack get naked and masturbate with a broom handle (oh, he also gets the handle shoved up his butt too!).

And, unfortunately, so do we (get to see her masturbate, that isnot get a broom handle up our butts!).

Yes, 'ISOYC, IPOYG' is one harsh viewing experience, not because of its relentless violence, but because Haack, who is obviously under the misguided notion that she has the body of a goddess (as opposed to that of a roadie for Metallica) constantly gets buck naked for the camera. It ain't a pretty sight.

In addition to the non-stop nudity from an inked-up Haack, viewers also get to see dreadful direction from Stanze (who thinks that endless shots of tombstones and trees is entertaining stuff), some really bad acting, and a fat guy's penis.

Strangely enough, I give 'ISOYC, IPOYG' a rating of 3/10, which is actually slightly higher than its current 2.9 average. That's one point for the messy axe attack (which, being a gore-hound, I actually enjoyed); one point for the bit where the fat guy gets his face pushed in chocolate mousse masquerading as feces (hilarious); and one point for the sheer nerve to suggest that this film might somehow be a sequel to Meir Zarchi's superior exploitation classic I Spit On Your Grave.


...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.

A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.

Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.

The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting?

The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.

And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.

And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.

Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.

It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.

4/10


This movie is extremely boring, it tells a story of a female gas station owner and her life. Nothing exciting ever happens. The director has really "kept it real" and it feels just like a camera following a woman around as she lives her life. I had to watch other films by this director for a class, the others were not as boring. This film was also watched for an assignment...it better be worth the boringness with a good grade!! Overall, unless it's required, don't watch the film. But don't discount other films by this director, because they're not as bad...and don't discount other films about Africa, they're usually good, especially when done by a western director.


There is one really good scene in Faat Kine. The title character gets in an argument with another woman and after being threatened, Faat Kine sprays her in the face. The scene works because the act is so unexpected, bizarre, and rather funny at the same time. In that one instance, writer/director Ousmane Sembene gives the audience a character that is easy to root for, an interesting film character that could be worth watching for two hours. In the scene, he presents a brave woman who is bold in her actions. For the rest of the movie, the only other thing he seems to present is conflicting tones.

The tone is all over the place. It's true not all movies have to clearly fit within a specific genre, but I don't think Faat Kine fits into any genre. Supposedly, it's a drama, though there are moments of such broad comedy (the aforementioned spraying in the face) that it cannot be taken seriously. On the other hand, the film is certainly not a comedy with the abundant amount of serious topics Sembene has crammed into the picture. There is a way to successfully mix comedy and drama together. Unfortunately, Semebene doesn't find that balance. Instead, one scene after another just drift into each other without much rhyme or reason, leaving two different tones hanging in the wind.

Faat Kine also has the problem of running two hours long with an extremely drawn out finale. The film ends with a big party where all the characters' conflicts are resolved, only they aren't resolved quickly. The scene lasts longer than any other scene, going on for probably twenty minutes. Because the rest of the scenes up until this point have been meandering, the finale is particularly hard to endure with repetition beginning early on in the scene, making for a frustrating viewing experience.

Perhaps I am being too hard on Faat Kine. I am not the right audience for it. I felt nothing towards the characters and had no connection to any part of the story. There are people who will probably find something meaningful in the story and see strong characters. However, I was unable to do so and thus cannot recommend it.


Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director


While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.

To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.

3 out of 10 genetic disorders


THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code)

Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)

Sound format: Mono

(35mm and 70mm release prints)

A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.

Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.

Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.

(English version)


Rarely has such an amazing cast been wasted so badly. Griffin Dunne, Rosanna Arquette, Illeana Douglas, Ethan Hawke, Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken, and John Turturro, all jumped on board, only to be torpedoed by a script that seems like nothing more than a Hollywood in joke. Attaching Martin Scorsese's name to this was probably the draw, but the end result is way less than the sum of it's parts. Resembling a nightmare gone horribly wrong, each scene seems more contrived than the next. "Search and Destroy" is nothing more than abstract, stylish, self indulgent nonsense, and the entire film is decidedly dull.......... MERK


From the start, you know how this movie will end. It's so full of clichés your typical NRA member will not even like this movie. I give it 2 out of 10, only because of the acting of William Benton. I can't believe people voted 6+ for this movie. It's so biased towards a 'certain point of view' (once a thief...). People aren't born bad. Neither are they born good. They are born with a clean slate. It's society, parents and education what makes them who they are. And if they take the wrong turn, somewhere down the line, it certainly isn't going to be the American penal system that gets them back on track! Anyway, avoid this movie like the plague. I bet you have better things to do with your time than waste it on this piece of crap.


This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.

If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.


The British Public School system did not evolve solely with the idea of educating the upper classes despite that popular and widespread misconception.It was designed to produce administrators and governors,civil servants and military men to run the British Colonies.These people were almost entirely recruited from the middle classes.When the Public Schools had begun to show their worth the scions of the aristocracy were sent to them rather than be educated at home by tutors and governesses as had previously been the case.They tended to favour the schools nearer "Town" so Eton and Harrow became particularly popular with that class of parent. The vast majority of Public Schools took their pupils from lower down the social scale.Tom Brown,perhaps the most famous Public School pupil ever,was the son of a country parson,not a belted earl. Thus in late 1960s England,a country in the throes of post-colonial guilt and shedding the last of its commitments to its former dependants as quickly as Harold Wilson could slip off his "Gannex" mac,Lindsay Anderson's "If" was greeted with cathartic joy by the chattering classes and mild bemusement by everyone else. It must be remembered that the so-called "summer of love" was followed by the "October Revolution" a non-event that left a few policemen in London with bruised heads and the U.S. Embassy with one or two broken windows,but achieved absolutely nothing. So when Mr Anderson's film reached the cinemas the disgruntled former revolutionaries revelled vicariously in what they saw as Mr Malcolm McDowell's glorious victory over an amorphous "Them" despite the fact that he was ruthlessly gunned down at the end,a fate that would have undoubtedly overtaken them had they succeeded in their attempts to get into the U.S.Embassy. The film told us nothing new about Public Schools,homosexuality,bullying cold showers,patrician sarcastic teachers,silly traditions.an all-too familiar list .It was declared to be an allegory comparing Britain to the corrupt,crumbling society represented by the school.Well,nearly forty years on the same schools are still flourishing,the British social system has not changed,the "October Revolution" has been long forgotten except by those involved on one side or the other and Mr Anderson has completed his "State of the Country" trilogy to no effect whatsoever. If by any chance you should wish to read a book about schoolboys who did buck the system rather more successfully than Mr McDowell and his friends and furthermore lived to tell the tale,find a copy of "Stalky & Co."written by the man whose much-maligned poem "If" lent it's name to Mr Anderson's film,a man born in colonial India,a man whose work is quietly being airbrushed out of our literary history.And do it before the chattering classes succeed in declaring him a non-person.Perhaps somebody should start a revolution about that.


I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.

*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.

Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.

The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.

tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.

If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.

You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.

All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.

If... only I could get my two hours back.


Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.

Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.

Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.

If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson.


if.... is the cinematic equivalent of Sgt. Pepper's: Revered by baby boomers as the pinnacle of creation, and viewed as rather a silly bit of business by preceding and subsequent generations. Now that the children of the middle classes the world over are seemingly super human due to the internet, and view the prospect of boarding school as a wonderful opportunity thanks to the Harry Potter books/films, the relevance of if.... couldn't be further from modern concern. In fact, many scenes appear so alien and exaggerated as to hint at an inspiration for Pink Floyd's The Wall.

One should never hold personal bias against a film while reviewing, and the cemented date of this film aside, there are a few flaws which others have overlooked. Lindsay Anderson was known to be a fan of Luis Buñuel, on top of generally being too smart for his own good. And despite a straightforward narrative through the first and second acts, the latter portion of the piece it taken hostage by cod Buñuel surrealism and strained attempts at symbolism. Anderson wasn't capable of this feat due to his over-intelligent cynicism, failing to see that Buñuel was jovial in his work. I have not found a critic whom champions the 'Chaplain in a drawer', and am almost certain it still gets sideways looks from those who adore this film. The ending is not so much a concise punch to the established class/values system, as a wet slap on a moving target.

The British public school system was firmly for the middle classes (the upper crust being educated at home by private tutors). And the modus operandi of if.... was to check the boxes of public school life which Lindsay believed had been unexplored in film, thereby savaging middle class pretense. Homosexuality, generational cutlery, cold showers et al. In reality, such issues HAD been covered in many other great British films, if.... merely brought them to the fore. The Browning Version was a more oblique damning of such pomp, to name but one.

if.... is oddly quaint, and simply can not be viewed with modern (especially American) eyes. Kudos to Anderson for avoiding Mick and Kieth in favour of African chant, and a few brownie points for the latent homoerotic overtones. Points deducted for pretension, establishing characters who disappear, and inciting a glib revolution which came to naught.


I just saw "If" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.

I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.

Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.

If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?

Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.


Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience

What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely


That is quite an outdated movie which aims to showcase the youth's yearning for freedom in some dehumanizing British school. Oh yes it's like in the army, you learn to obey and do what you're asked to. Yes the young dream of something else but it breaks their dreams and sweeps away their optimism on the threshold of life. Great.

Basically that's how you could sum up the nice intentions in If... Nice intentions that arouses no cinematographic challenges: the result is a declamatory movie. Do you see how boring I mean?

At least that oldie helped Kubrick cast McDowell in A Clockwork Orange, a movie with a truly powerful social satire and no self-indulgent sentimentalism.


I didn't like this Bill Murray vehicle when it was originally released in the 80s, so I tried watching it again to see if my distaste for this film was down to my movie-going tastes in the 80s or was it that "Stripes" is simply a bad movie. Well, the verdict is in and "Stripes" is a bad movie.

Now, "Stripes" may have been innovative comedy in the early 80s, and it may appeal to people who have gone through basic training or who are Bill Murray fans, but its still a bad movie.

Why is it bad? Mostly because "Stripes" is supposed to be a comedy but it's just not that funny. There are some laughs, but they are few and far between. Most of the movie is consumed by the dramatic plot which is incredibly convoluted and not very interesting. This lack of comedy is especially noticeable if you're used to more contemporary comedies such as "Anchorman" which strive for laughs in every part of the movie.

"Stripes" further suffers from Bill Murray and Harold Ramis's lack of acting ability. Bill Murray is a great comedian but he was not a very compelling dramatic actor at this point in his career, and Harold Ramis is playing Harold Ramis. These two are just not good enough as actors to carry the dramatic arch of the movie.

Lastly, most of the comedy that there is in "Stripes" revolves around Bill Murray's self-centered, smart-alec man-child character so if you don't find that character funny (like I didn't) you're not going to find most of what little comedy there is in "Stripes" funny either.

"Stripes" is very much a movie of its era, it hasn't aged well and is not worth watching. If you want to watch an early 80's "buddy" comedy I would recommend "Stir Crazy." Like "Stripes" the humor in "Stir Crazy" is not as fast-paced as in contemporary comedies, but unlike "Stripes" it has aged much better and as a result is still watchable.


Possibly not, but it is awful. Even the fantastic cast cant save it. OK, I admit it started off quite funny but it seemed to plummet downhill as soon as they jumped those girls in the Generals house. Bill Murray turned from being a quick witted, humorous guy into an arsehole who was shouting things at people in the street that just weren't funny, its like he was trying too hard to be funny. His character stole a weapon (an RV? come on...) and ends up being a national hero after invading another country and killing god knows how many soldiers, for a laugh. One good point is that this film shows the inadequacy and incompetence of the US Army and shows how arrogant and imbecilic they really are, albeit unintentionally. I actually felt disgusted that this kind of propaganda crap could really be released.


*****WARNING, MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS WHICH WILL BE MORE ENTERTAINING THAN THIS TRIPE.****

Heres some good advise to anyone living in the U.K. Whenever Channel 5 has an old 80's comedy on late at night, read a book instead. I am currently in the process of recovering from a seizure, due to reading some of the comments on this film on here. I am actually shocked at the fact that someone actually said this film was realistic! All I can say is thank god the Cold War never escalated or else we might as well have given the Commie's our borders... I found this film dire in the utmost pretence, maybe it is just my British perception of what makes a film funny, who knows? But in all aspects, this film is not just awful, its teeth grindingly terrible.

I've never been a fan of Bill Murray, and its rubbish like this that justify my feelings towards him. Don't get me wrong, I loved Ghostbuster's, which was made only three years after this film. But this just sums Bill Murray up really. I can safely say that I haven't wasted my time so blatantly like this since seeing the first running of Operation Delta Force over here, though these two films have more in common than you would think. For 1 thing, they both have terrible action sequences from beginning to end, and 2nd. They are both riddled with cheesy Cliché's, throughout.

Heres one thing, these guys are supposed to be in the "U.S Army". Yet they are allowed to wallow around their Camp, Willy nilly, seducing female Military Police Officers, and subsequently shagging them silly in the Generals Quarters. Talk about Random! This film is just terrible for this I'm afraid. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no feminist sympathiser, but the fact that these two women actually fall hands over heels in love with the two characters shortly after arresting them, letting them go free... Twice, is just insulting to the female race. The fact that one tatty haired, fat lipped bum (Winger) and his hapless sidekick Ramis can simply sweet talk themselves into into the MP's underwear, to which they fall madly in love with the two of them is nothing short of ludicrous.

Then there is the training scenes, where you get to meet the Squad "Phycho" who unconvincingly threatens to kill anyone who touches him or his stuff, followed by the overweight bloke (played by the late and great John Candy) who claims he joined the army to "avoid paying $400 for anger management classes". Leading to loud mouthed Murray paying tribute to the "Giant Toe," (WTF?) 'Drill Seargent' who honestly couldn't organise a pi$$ up in a brewery, let alone his band of recruits. All this scene serves to do is to prelude loads of fight scenes, with people saying "way to go ass hole'!" all the time, etc etc.

The scenes then carry on showing the rag tag bunch making utter tits of themselves on the Assault Course, leading to a scene where one of them shoots wildly into the air at some passing birds with an assault rifle, peppering a watch tower with bullets. (Just like that. Yep, told you this film was random...He miraculously escapes undisciplined as well...) Eventually Leading up the the passing out parade, where the hapless squad make a magic turn around within the space of two hours. (Bugger me, Miracle!) Thanks to some wise words from Murray, to which they then direct a massively none military like dance routine in front of a Geriatric 'General' in front of the rest of the squads. All of this to the immense pleasure of their two Girlfriends on the stand, who really should've been arresting them... Everyone laughs it off though. This bit is nothing short of amazing though. He then chooses them to guard a new Multi-Million Dollar Prototype Armoured Vehicle in Italy (which turns out to be just a mobile home painted green with loads of gadgets on the inside), claiming "This is exactly what this Army needs!" righto...

Then there is the dire finale, where Murray and Ramis decide to steal this top-secret prototype Military Vehicle to pick up their newly acquired and somewhat Hyperactive MP Girlfriends in Germany. To which the Hapless Captain (John Larroquette) then finds out and leads the Squad of fresh recruits on a retrieval Mission for this vehicle. To which they then take a "wrong turn" en-route and end up in Soviet Held Czechoslovakia, where they are captured. (Like we didn't see that coming...) Thus begins a rescue attempt by Ramis and Murray + Birds in hand, to which is where a big fight, loads of shooting from the hip and blowing tanks up. With them coming back as National Heroes, humiliating the Russians by calling them "pussies," etc etc. The end. Thats right. No Courts Martial, nothing. They only just stole a prototype Military vehicle, drove it into a Warsaw Pact country and almost caused an International incident which could've sparked WW3!

This film is honestly more fun that being diagnosed with a terminal illness. I know its meant to be a Comedy, it got all the right actors for it, but where in the hell is it? Have Channel 5 cuts those bits out? The only redeeming feature in this film is the repetitive use of naked women taking showers, and female Mud Wrestling. (like I said, Random) Not that it helps to divert from the fact that this is an utterly crap film, of course. This film should realistically be aimed at immature 9 year old's, sadly, we have to watch it instead. 1 star out of 10 - Total Tripe. My advice, do something a little more useful with your time. Like Castrating yourself...


What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.


Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.

While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.

At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.

I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.

Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.

It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts.


From a plot and movement standpoint, this movie was terrible. I found myself looking at the clock in theater hoping it would end and relieved after 80 long minutes that it mercifully did. Basically, five characters appear in the movie, A Son & Father, son's girl friend, and two male characters of the son's age who appear and then disappear without context or explanation. The movie and scenes seemed to suggest homo-eroticism, but nothing ever actually happened to reveal this one way or another. There were a couple of brilliant scenes. At the beginning of the movie, the son's girl friend shows up at a window outside his room and they engage in an odd conversation. The photography and acting lent an incredible seductiveness to the interaction between the two, ending with her admitting to having another man who was "older". End of that story.


The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.

We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.


This film is beautiful to look at, but is like watching really bad experimental theater. The plot (if there was one) doesn't make any sense. But it is very "artistic". Lots of shots of half-dressed actors wrestling and looking deep into each other's eyes. Lots of arty shots through windows and with people out of frame. Mumbling and people wandering wistfully. Lingering close-ups of faces and bodies. By the time you get to the threesome on the roof with the cat, you'll be ready to throw a bottle of KY at the screen.

It is supposed to be about a father and son's relationship, but you will just be wishing the two of them would just f*$& each other and get it over with. If you have always wanted to see bad Russian gay porn without any money shots, your wish has been granted.


Like wearing a hair shirt. Positively, absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt one of the worst movies ever. Pure torture. Zero stars out of ten. One long, tedious, labored, pretentious, self-conscious, theatrical, and leadenly artsy scene after another. Intended to be dreamlike and impressionistic, the soul bared, it is, instead, morose mush.

Half-naked, father and son grope and whisper to each other like lovers. "Homo-erotic" is the point, loud and clear. OK, so what?

Repeated more than once by the son is the line, supposedly lifted from "Lives of the Saints," "A father's love crucifies. A loving son lets himself be crucified." The parallel to god and his son, Christ, is heavy-handed, irrelevant, and bombastic, like everything else here.

Some reference points to the theme of Russian filiality: "Mother and Son" (1997); "The Return" (Andrei Zvyagvatsev, 2003); "Little Odessa" (James Gray,1994); Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"; and, of course, Dostoyevsky, "The Brothers Karamazov."

Credits in English indicate intended international distribution, meaning that the excuse cannot be used that you have to be Russian to understand this mess.

This is nowhere near as accomplished or compelling as Sokurov's last, "Russian Ark" (2003).

As in his "Mother and Son," an equally powerful soporific, some scenes are filmed from distorting mirrors, though not as interestingly. The film is almost monochromatic, shot from start to finish through beige filters, making it as visually as it is dramatically numbing. A soft-focus haze only adds to the drugged feeling.

An annoying soundtrack drones on, never shuts up, like a tape loop. An old radio constantly plays in the background. Russian Romantic melancholy swells endlessly as "themes based on Tchaikovsky." The presence of a "sound designer" (Sergei Moshkov) signifies, of course, that all those irritating little sounds, radio static, noises, distortion, and such, are "designed."

It's hard to believe someone (Sergei Potepolov) actually wrote this thing. It all seems as arbitrary as traffic, as if improvised by bored actors, popping out of nothingness into nothingness.

Modern art has finally succeeded in signifying the thing without being the thing, so that what we behold is the idea of the idea, empty as a shell, but not even a shell, merely the idea of a shell. Could one ask for a better definition of decadence?


I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.

Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.

My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.

This film, however, was useless.

There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.

To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service.


There are two kinds of characters on THE SHIELD: people who try to do the best they can and do the right thing, and people who relentlessly pursue their own self interest and commit every mortal sin they can while telling themselves and everyone else that they are heroes, and everyone's only hope. More than any other show, THE SHIELD is about hypocrisy and self-delusion. Unfortunately, the hypocrites and self-deluders are the shows heroes, and as such have the typical genre-fiction heroes' improbable immunity to getting defeated or caught and they come out on top over and over again, making fools out of all of their peers.

The show boasts excellent camera-work. The lead ins and the fade outs are always superb. It really is a work of art to see. Unfortunately the story is a cartoony, overwrought wish fulfillment scenario of gratuitous violence, rape, and lies.

The hero, who drags everyone down with him in failed scheme after failed scheme, is wiley like a warner bros cartoon character, always escaping and making fun of all the elmer fudds (anyone who does not support him in his lies and crimes), automatically attracting any good looking woman supporting character to come on the show, always surviving any attempt to bring him to justice, and ALWAYS scraping your ears with his excruciating self justifications. If another cop detects something wrong with something he's doing, and someone gets hurt because of his actions, he always blames the suspicious cop, regardless of the fact that his schemes and elaborate lies and doomed plans are always the cause. Every time.

Like 24, this show relies on contrivances and innumerable delays to drag its story out for season after season. Boring, unbelievable long term stories are injected into the storyline every season to provide a skeleton on which to hang the bloody, perverted chunks of meat that are the characters' corrupt acts and the inevitable cover-ups.

Most disappointing though, is the writers' hubris as they try to change the viewers' sympathies back and forth, to and away form the characters on whims. Sometimes, they want us to see Shane as the enemy. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor misunderstood soul. Sometimes they want us to see Vic as a dangerous, sexual dynamo. Sometimes they want us to see him as a poor guy with a heart of gold. Sometimes they want us to see Mara as a low down vile Jezebel. Then they think that if they show her sitting and talking over her dreams with Shane, that we will find her to be sympathetic and tragic.

None of this manipulation is adequate to obtain the kinds of sympathies they want. Once they've shown these characters ruin other people's lives for their own ends, that's it. It is nonsense to keep trying to flip back and forth. But then, it is also nonsense to produce seven seasons of these bumbling clowns drawing every super model in existence to their beds and running a crime syndicate right out of the police station, right under everyone's noses.


To sat how awful The Shield is, you'd have to write pages and pages, so suffice it to say that it is a monument to bad directing.

"When Directors Go Awry" should have been the title of this production. Indeed, directors are supposed to infuse their work with a sense of visual style and story-telling that propels the story forward.

How is constantly shaking the camera and playing with the zoom lens a "style"? How is it propelling the story forward? Of course there's also the "editing by random numbers" nonsense. Apparently it's become hip to just cut randomly.

I guess it's too much work to do good editing.

Well, that made it too much work for most people to watch The Shield which languished as one of the most over-hyped and unwatched shows of all time.


I have no idea what the producers of The Shield were trying to do, but the result speaks for itself: The Shield is practically unwatchable.

Supposedly the performances on The Shield are great...

In reality, the show is so badly put together that you can't even really see the performances. For instance, the editing cuts away from reaction shots before they've had their full impact.

I don't know what intellectual rationale there is for that, but it robs the show of all emotional impact.

I'll give The Shield one point for ambition in its subject matter, but that's pretty much all I can give it.

It's a shame to see a number of talented performer waste their gift on something so strangely badly filmed.


Almost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.

The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.

Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.

Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.

Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.

It didn't.


I hate to be the one to rain on a parade (even a small one like this) but from the very first scene, you could tell this film was going to be absolute shite. Its a shame really, as I quite like Martin Freeman and Danny dyer. I was intrigued as to how they would mix in a film together, but to my dismay, they did not even have a scene together!! I think I need to repeat this - The two lead actors (who stand side by side on the advertisement posters and DVD covers) did not have one scene together!!!! They did not speak to each other and never appeared on screen at the same time. Just about sums up this poor excuse for a movie. False advertisement.

The dialogue was painful, every single character in the movie was unrealistic, and un-human like. The scenarios were far fetched, the plot was crap, the jokes were thin, Freeman tried too hard to be funny (and played a poor mans Tim from The office), nobody was likable, and worst of all, some of the characters were so annoying that it almost drove me to switch off, as I couldn't bear to watch, or listen to them any longer.

This low budget stinker was an epic fail. Even Danny Dyer couldn't inject some humour and charm into this, but bless, he tried. What a waste of time.

How anybody could rate this movie as 'ten stars' is beyond me. Ten Stars? Seriously? Come on....I won't even give some of the greats ten stars, as ten stars implies that a movie was perfect. This film was far from perfect, almost the opposite, meaning that it was almost completely dire throughout.

Watch it if you like, but if you've seen a lot of movies, and watched a lot of great movies, your review will probably similar to mine.

1/10


Oh dear. good cast, but to write and direct is an art and to write wit and direct wit is a bit of a task. Even doing good comedy you have to get the timing and moment right. Im not putting it all down there were parts where i laughed loud but that was at very few times. The main focus to me was on the fast free flowing dialogue, that made some people in the film annoying. It may sound great while reading the script in your head but getting that out and to the camera is a different task. And the hand held camera work does give energy to few parts of the film. Overall direction was good but the script was not all that to me, but I'm sure you was reading the script in your head it would sound good. Sorry.


It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............


I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents!


Really it's a dreadful cheat of a film. Its 70-minute running time is very well padded with stock footage. The rest are non descript exteriors and drab interiors scenes. The plot exposition is very poorly rendered. They are all just perfunctory scenes sort of strung together. There is no attempt at drama in scene selection but rather drama is communicated by the intensity of the actors. Please don't ask.

The plot concerns a rocket radiating a million degree heat orbiting earth five miles up threatening to destroy the earth. It's a real time menace that must be diverted if a custom built H-bomb can be fashioned and placed in an experimental rocket within an hour. Nothing very much here to report except for a mad speech by a scientist against the project because there might be some sort of life aboard and think of the scientific possibilities but this speech made by the obligatory idiot liberal was pretty much passé by then.

What saves this film, somewhat uniquely, IS the stock footage. I've never seen a larger selection of fifties jet fighter aircraft in any other film. This is by no means a complete list but just some of the aircraft I managed to see. There's a brief interception by a pilot flying, in alternate shots, an F-89 Scorpion and an F-86. First to scramble interceptors is the Royal Canadian Air Force in Hawker Hunters and F-86 Sabre Jets (or Canadian built CF-13s) and even a pair of CF-100 Clunks.

Then for some reason there are B-52s, B-47s and even B36s are seen taking off. More padding.

"These Canadian jets are moving at 1200 miles an hour". I don't think so since one of them appears to be a WW2 era Gloster Meteor, the rest F-80s. The Meteors press the attack and one turns into a late F-84F with a flight of early straight wing F-84s attacking in formation.

There's a strange tandem cockpit version of the F-80 that doesn't seem to be the T-33 training type but some sort of interim all-weather interceptor variant with radar in the nose. These are scrambled in a snowstorm.

An angled deck aircraft carrier is seen from about 500 meters. It launches F-8U Crusaders, F-11F Tigers, A-5 Vigilantes and A-3 Skywarriors. The Air Force scrambles F-86s and F-84s and more F-89s then you've ever seen in your life as well as F-100 Super Sabres and F-102 Delta Daggers.

The F-100s press their attack with sooooo much padding. The F-89's unload their rockets in their wingtip pods in slo mo. The F-86s fire, an F-102 lets loose a Falcon, even some F-80s (F-94s?) with mid-wing rocket pods let loose. There is a very strange shot of a late model F-84 (prototype?) with a straight wing early model F-85 above it in a turn, obviously a manufacturer's (Republic Aviation) advertising film showing the differences between the old and the new improved models of the F-84 ThunderJet. How it strayed into here is anybodies guess.

There is other great stock footage of Ottawa in the old days when the capital of Canada was a wide spot in the road and especially wonderful footage of New York City's Times Square during one of the Civil Defense Drills in the early 50s.

I think we also have to deal with the notion that this was filmed in Canada with the possible exception of the auto chase seen late in the picture as the Pacific seems to be in the background. The use of a Jowett Jupiter is somewhat mind-boggling and there is a nice TR 3 to be seen also. Canada must have been cheap and it is rather gratuitously used a lot in the background.

As far as the actual narrative of the film there is little to recommend it other than the mystery of just who Ellen Parker is giving the finger to at the end of the picture. And she most definitely is flipping someone off. Could it be, R as in Robert Loggia? The director who dies before this film was released? Her career as this was her last credit?

Its like the newspaper the gift came wrapped in was more valuable than the gift.


I remember watching "Lost Missile" (actually throwing a fit until my brother and several cousins at whose home I was an overnight guest agreed to watch it with me - I was, from time to time, the Eric Cartman of the 1960s - sorry, guys) and being somewhat embarrassed when the sustained wave of million-degree heat emerged as a plot device - even as a second-grader I knew that a mere missile just couldn't carry the energy around for that much heat or devastation over more than the duration and limited radius of a nuclear detonation.

My inflicting that turkey on loving relatives was a self-punishing crime.

The film's production values were very good. The acting isn't bad (apart from the Shatnerism of the actor who played governor's aide that someone else here mentioned).

But the idea of a missile Easy-Baking the surface of the Earth by means of the heat of its exhaust... no.

How'd the people at "Mystery Science Theater 3000" miss "The Lost Missile," anyway?

It's a great classic of unintentional comedy - watch it if you want something to drink beer to some weekend.


The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.

The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!!

So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.


This had all the makings of a very good film -- good actors (Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker), a good plot (mysterious missile from space threatens to burn up the planet) and lots of stock footage (if the Air Force had film of jets firing rockets, it was used). Unfortunately, it is ruined by too much melodrama and an impossible time-line.

The movie concerns a missile from space that is attacked by the Soviets and inadvertently diverted into a low atmospheric orbit. At under five miles and at a speed in excess of 4,000 miles, it emits an exhaust of a million degrees, burning up everything on the ground, including glaciers, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line bases and Eskimos.

Every attempt at destroying the missile fails.

The first flaws in this film appear early on. While we don't expect much from low-budget films, some things can't be forgotten -- like a little research. For instance, both the Soviets and the US fire anti-ballistic missiles that home in on the missile with unerring accuracy. However, the first successful ABM tests weren't done until March of 1961 by the Russians.

There is too much melodrama. Dr. Loring (Loggia) and his assistant Joan Woods (Ellen Parker) play their romance with about as much wood as a log cabin. Parker's character cries and boo-hoos at Loggia's sacrifice like she was at a screen test. Loggia is about as heroic as a bored businessman. A scientist (Phillip Pine) hams it up so much he makes William Shatner look like a thespian. A bus driver continually spits out end-of-the-world crap in scene after scene. The only good actor is the film narrator, played by veteran character actor Lawrence Dobkins ("Naked City").

All of this could be overlooked if it wasn't for the time-line. After the missile's info is sent to DC, the Pentagon brings in a group of scientists. A general (Larry Kerr) announces that the missile will hit New York City in 63 minutes. After this, there are discussions by scientists and there is a deadly lull as word is sought from ambassadors to see if the missile is an attack from the Russians and if a response is necessary.

The film shows the military being fully scrambled. Civil Defense people leave work and go to their stations. Eight million people scramble to fallout shelters while school buses pick up millions of kids (and we get to see the whitest New York City I've ever seen, though watching 50's sci-fi films made it seems like this was the standard). The press is kept in the dark for tens of minutes. Then, incredibly, a man at the Pentagon announces that the missile will hit Ottawa, Canada in 51 minutes! All of the aforementioned action happened in 12 minutes! Then, to add fuel to the fire, Loggia somehow thinks of a way to stop the alien missile. He slowly produces a caseload of plutonium, loads it in a jeep and takes it from DC to a distant missile base to put it atop a missile. Along the way, he is knocked off the road by a wild driver, breaks down and then is carjacked. He finally gets the plutonium back and drives to the base to arm the missile. Again, all this in the same 63-minute time frame.

The movie also irks the viewer by making it seem as if Ottawa might be saved, only to show men, women and children get roasted. The missile is then said to have five minutes to reach New York. Loggia is still driving to the base (4 more miles to go). He gets to the base and arms the missile, a two-minute countdown is then announced. All within five minutes. The boroughs of New York should have been at least scorched.

By the way, the missile is destroyed if you haven't guessed. The ABM warhead destroys it with a massive plutonium-based nuclear blast. Five seconds later, the blast dissipates and all is clear. Yeah, they caused a nuclear blast equivalent to 100 Hiroshimas on the outskirts of New York City and nothing happens.

The film had all the elements necessary to be a good B film, but wasted them. Loggia played his character so lamely you didn't care that he sacrificed himself in the end. You didn't care about the other characters, not even the smarmy scientist played by Pine. The tension that should have moved the film along just wasn't physically possible in the time-line allowed (it still wouldn't be today, not even with Jack Bauer).

This film is very difficult to find. As far as I know, it hasn't been re-issued on any medium and for good reason. I don't know if the film meant to be or if it was standard practice, but there's a scene where the government sends all of the best scientists, military men and businessmen into deep shelters, saying they're too valuable to lose. There isn't a single woman or minority in the bunch. Hari Rhodes is the only black man in the film and he gets a brief bit playing a piano. It was worse than "27 Days" where an alien gives five Earthlings the chance to either save or destroy the planet and he doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics.

I saw this on a special Sci-fi night on Turner Classic Movies and I don't expect it to show up again. If you do find a copy of this somewhere, you might want to put it up on Amazon.com.


This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature.


If there was a God, he would have made sure this movie stayed in the toilet were it was crapped up. This is BY FAR the worst vampire movie I have ever seen. I may never watch a vampire film again because of this movie. It makes Zombie Lake look like The Sound of Music.


Absolutely unwatchable, lowest quality film making. This film makes "Show Girls" look good. The acting is insufferable. The cinematography gives a bad name to amateurism. No wonder it went right to video and bypassed the theaters. This film wasn't released...it escaped.


This movie is just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!!


I was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying "I want to feel human again," and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him "feel human". I wish I could "feel human" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said "free". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still...


This movie was horrible. I watched it three times, and not even the whole thing. It's just impossible to watch, the story line sucks, it's depressing, and utterly disgusting. I don't write spoilers for anything, so if you want to know why it's so disgusting, see it for yourself. The only good thing about this movie was John Savage, his dialogue at the beginning, and some funny parts in the movie. The little kid in this movie is annoying, and the whole situation is bullshit. I saw this movie at movie stores around America, so I assumed it would be a good movie. Jesus Christ, was I wrong!!!! The acting is all horrible, and the nudity itself is lame and nasty. Another thing is, Starr Andreef, the other main character, hasn't been in such bad movies in the past, in fact, she was in some pretty good ones. Same with John Savage. This movie SUCKS!