First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.

Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?

I also have a few other questions too.

Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources?

who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)?

And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?

There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.

The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.

While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,

the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage).

As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.

Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating).

It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released,

but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.

The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.

the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.


well its official. they have just killed American Pie. The first 3 were absolutely hysterical, but this one and the others have been awful. I mean the story is about two college fraternity's who battle each other for its houses, I mean come on talk about a weak plot, the first three dealt with growing up, change and marriage, which are all worthy points of development in human society.

The new Stifler is the biggest joke, I know its hard trying to compare yourself with the Steven Stifler but so no cigar. I give this movie a 3 because there is 2-3 funny bits in the film.

The best character in this movie of course is Jim's dad i don't know why he keeps continuing to do these poorly developed films.


I have to say that I used to be a huge fan of the series. The first 3 were great and the others had their moments, but this new BETA HOUSE is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is a shame since this was a great series and it just keeps getting worse. I know they are made for DVD films but some effort would be nice.

There are no laughs, just a couple of good one-liners that will bring a smile if that. There is pretty of nudity and very hot chicks. But neither the sexy stuff nor the jokes really work.

To add to all that this is a RACIST film too or as racist of a film one can make without asking to be called racist. I am NOT one of those people who think everything should be politically correct. But the portrayal of minorities is very offensive.

I wouldn't waste any time on this garbage. See the previous versions, they will make you laugh not sick.


To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2.


This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.

In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.

We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).

Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?


THE WATERDANCE (1991) The main character of The Waterdance, played by Eric Stoltz, finds himself in a rehab center with some others similarly injured. And there he must face an harsh new life, confined to a wheelchair. It's an interesting, and promising premise, but unfortunately, it fails to deploy. What ensues instead is largely Hollywood schmaltz, with some interesting moments. Certainly the cast (Eric Stoltz, William Forsythe, Wesley Snipes, et al) is brilliant, and perform well here as one would expect, but their talents are wasted. The characters are mainly stereotypes of one kind or another, and most of them are thoroughly unlikeable (the Snipes character being the exception). I suppose this is some kind of attempt to break through people's ideas about the handicapped being "crippled" or "weak", by depicting them, for the most part, as in-your-face pricks, but it makes for an entirely annoying experience. Admittedly it will show you something of what those with permanent disabilities go through, in a way that is not softened or romanticized, which is useful, and a good idea, but while the process being depicted can make one a difficult person to get along with, and that's worth dealing with, it is not part and parcel to that that these characters must be, to varying degrees, despicable. They wouldn't have to be Disneyfied, either; surely there's a middle ground somewhere. By the film's conclusion, the Eric Stoltz character has come to accept his status as a handicapped person, but since he is such a flaming narcissistic monster from the beginning of the film to the end, we couldn't care less.

In addition to its character problems, the film suffers from that weird syndrome that so many Hollywood movies suffer from; the syndrome doesn't really have an official name, but you might call it "Inexplicable Forgiveness Syndrome". It goes something like this: characters abuse the crap out of each other, and then without so much as an apology, all is forgiven (an especially obnoxious example of this is in the movie The Breakfast Club, in which one character spends most of the film verbally bullying everybody within earshot; as a resultthey love him. In one of the the latest examples, Spiderman 3, supervillain The Sandman lays waste to a chunk of Manhattan, then wails on Spiderman for what seems like about 15 monotonous minutes before being waved off with what amounts to "bye, now"). The most egregious example of IFS in The Waterdance is a sequence in which, after being called the n-word by William Forsythe's racist biker character and his friends in the previous scene, the Wesley Snipes character whoops it up with the same Forsythe character in the next scene, as if nothing had just happened just a short time hence. Again, without so much as an "Oh yeah, sorry about that business back there where I, you know, called you the n-word". It makes me wonder, do these people actually watch these movies before they release them, or do they just film them with their eyes closed, kind of slap them together in the editing room according to scene number, and call it a day's work?


This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting.

The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging.

Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing.

The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.


I know that movies aren't necessarily supposed to mirror reality, but this one got on my nerves. It perpetuates ignorant stereotypes about "psychological trauma" and mental illness. The "psycho mom" thing has been done too many times before (and usually done better) and much of the rest of the plot is far-fetched as well. The acting was not horrible but nothing to rave about.

One highlight: I am a long-time fan of General Hospital and it was a trip to see one of the roles played by former GH regular, Jon Lindstrom.

Anyway, if you can overlook the bogus psychoanalytical part of it, in the same way a person must suspend reality / judgment when watching a lot of movies, then this movie might be tolerable. If you have nothing better to do and fairly low standards.

I'm sorry I spent my time watching it.


If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter.

The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.

William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.

Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.

The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.


this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.

but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer.

stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.


With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.

That song about arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there.

Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.


I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.

All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless.


Peter Sellers (one of my favorite actors) is mildly amusing in this 1970 turkey, but the script is so lame and insulting that even Goldie Hawn's youth (just after her Oscar win) cannot begin to pull this one out of the mud. As a skirt-chasing celeb in his 40's, Sellers mostly embarrasses himself to the nth degree.

A 3 out of 10. Best performance = ? Nicky Henson plays a young study type.

I hope Hawn and Sellers were paid well, because I see no other reason for tripe like this in 1970 (a very good year for films - CATCH-22, M.A.S.H., HUSBANDS, JOE, WUSA, FIVE EASY PIECES and many others). You can't win them all!


Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.

That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.

Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".

There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.

Rating:- * 1/2/*****


Annoying, static comedy with a painfully miscast Peter Sellers as a smarmy, self-centered Casanova who always has his way with the ladies. A major blemish on Sellers' filmography, and, even worse, a film that seems to have been made solely to satisfy the ego of its star. (*)


Caught part of GEORGE 2 on TV recently, but couldn't get myself to watch it through to the end. Just awful! I can't even remember the plot. All I know is that George and Ursula were not the George and Ursula of the first movie, which was bad enough. There's a lot of scrambling around, but the direction and editing were so shoddy and choppy, it was like watching outtakes or deleted scenes. Having the original voice of Ape the Ape back was not nearly enough to make me warm up to this. GEORGE 2 is probably the single worst sequel I have ever seen, and that is saying something. Jeez, because of IMDb's 10 lines rule, I have to keep typing when I have nothing more to say about this crapulastic made-for-TV sequel. Disney, hang your head in shame.


There are just so many things wrong with this movie.

To begin with, the first twenty minutes of the film could have been compressed into just five or maybe ten. The overall movie is (mercifully) short already, but this could have been made up for by giving a little more attention to the Mean Lion (how did the miss a reference to "The Wiz" on that one?) and working his subplot a little more closely into the main plot. In short, the script had the seed of a good idea, but needed quite a bit of reworking.

Second, it could have done without the crude humor. The original also had some that it could have done without, but at least there it was almost an afterthought -- here, flatulence and urination abound.

Third, the show is a little too self-aware. The original series had that well enough, as did the first movie, but here it's just way, way too much. The Brendan Fraser in-jokes were just a bit over the top (and why no mention of the "new Ursula"?). Other gags with the Narrator, especially a couple of interactions near the end, also exceed good sense.

Fourth, a bit more attention could have been given to the CGI work. In the first it was hard to tell that Shemp wasn't a real elephant (except by behavior, of course), but here the CGI stands out like a sore thumb. Ideally special effects should merely tell the story whether they're good or bad, and they at least do succeed on that count, so it's a relatively small problem, but it's still there.

All that said, Christopher Showerman's performance as George is decent enough. It lacks Brendan Fraser's charm, but Christopher only really fails in that specific comparison -- he even managed to give George a bit of personal depth, which should have been a major foul in a Jay Ward-inspired movie but wasn't here. Julie Benz as the new Ursula surprised me as being even better than Leslie Mann in the original.

Most other performances were pretty standard, not standing out in my mind as either good or bad.


When I go to see movies I would stay up and watch it or if I did not like it, I would go sleep, but this was pure crap, I actually got up and walked out!....This was poorly script and put together, I hated it. Also, they should not have taken Brendan Frasier off, he was much better. This was not as good as I had expected, considering that I really liked George of The Jungle 1, and the graphics weren't as good as the first one, for instance, the bird, and when ever he crashed in a tree. I hope that the director of this takes heed, and next movies he make, he needs to reconsider...horrible! I really would like to give Ursla a job well done, as she made the movie worthwhile (until I walked out)...overall I give this movie a 2 out of 10


This movie was on t.v the other day, and I didn't enjoy it at all. The first George of the jungle was a good comedy, but the sequel.... completely awful. The new actor and actress to play the lead roles weren't good at all, they should of had the original actor (Brendon Fraiser) and original actress (i forgot her name) so this movie gets the 0 out of ten rating, not a film that you can sit down and watch and enjoy, this is a film that you turn to another channel or take it back to the shop if hired or bought. It was good to see Ape the ape back, but wasn't as fun as the first, they should of had the new George as Georges son grown up, and still had Bredon and (whats her face) in the film, that would've been a bit better then it was.


Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess.

Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.

It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...

I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...

If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..


666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.


Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.


Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.


1st watched 8/26/2001 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Tobe Hooper): Scary, yet sadistic(which makes sense) portrayal of a relative of the Marquis De Sade carrying out the same sadistic acts and enjoying it that supposedly his predecessor did. This Tobe Hooper film really doesn't do a whole lot different than his similar in style Freddy Krueger movies with the same star (Freddy himself - Robert Englund) playing a dual role(the Marquis De Sade and his relative). It is also seems like it wants to really poke at Christianity but then loses that in the end much to my chagrin but leaving an inconsistent feel to the movie. Could have been much worse if excesses were taken in sex and violence, but they try to keep this at a minimal despite some disgusting scenes. My final thought is why would Hooper want to make this movie. It obviously took awhile to actually get distributed, then it has to be advertised gruesomely and with Hooper's name in the title to hopefully make some money on his name and his gore. It's obvious this didn't work.


Normally I would never rent a movie like this, because you know it's going to be bad just by looking at the box. I rented seven movies at the same time, including Nightmare on Elm Street 5, 6 and Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Unfortunately, when I got home I found out the videostore-guy gave me the wrong tape. In the box of Wes Craven's New Nightmare I found this lame movie.

This movie is incredibly boring, the acting is bad and the plot doesn't make any sense. It's hard to write a good review, because I have no idea what the movie was really about. At the end of the movie you have more questions then answers.

On 'Max Power's Scale of 1 to 10' I rate this movie: 1

PS I would like to correct Corinthian's review (right below mine). He says Robert Englund is ripping off lingerie, riding horses naked, etc. The guy that did those things was Mahmoud, played by Juliano Mer, not by Robert Englund.


I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody.


Will they ever make movies without nudity and sex? This came on at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what they showed. Thank God my son was outside or I would have been freaked out if he had seen the soft/medium porn! Do people who make movies not care who they offend or corrupt? Kids could have been watching after church and that is what they show???!!! The acting was good and I enjoyed the suspense but GEE! There was violence and bad guys but that is to be expected in a western movie. Randy Travis was really good in his role. If the writers, directors and producers would just quit putting on so much uncalled for sex scenes. What has to happen to get them to quit going in that direction? Where can I complain?


I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.

4 / 10.


When I look back on my college days at Ohio University, there will always be one event in which I will remember with fond memories. Channel 23 is OU's local access channel and until the last few years, pretty much played anything they were sent. This included many DIY movies ranging from a guy microwaving marshmallow Peeps and then scanning pictures of them online, to a version of Macbeth starring 8th graders who had apparently just learned how to make squibs.

However, the king, in my opinion, of the channel 23 lineup was Midnight Skater. The first time I watched it was around 2AM. I should have been studying. Or sleeping. Or watching regular TV. But no, all that is for pussies. My roommate and I watched Midnight Skater, and when it was complete, I don't think either of us believed that any of the movie had just happened. But sure enough, it was on a few nights later, and we had to come to grips that this movie did, in fact, exist.

I could go on and on about how awful it is, but its the sort of awful that makes life worth living. The plot is disjointed, the acting terrible, the everything soul scarring, but by god, if there are others watching with you, its impossible not to have a good time watching it. Its sort of like the first time you hear "Guts" by Chuck Pahalniuk. You hear it, you're disgusted and shaken, but five minutes later, all you want and desire is to make someone else experience the abject horror you just endured.

Long story short, Midnight Skater, for all of its epic flaws, makes for some very late night fun. Plus, I desperately want the Theme to Midnight Skater. Kudos to whoever wrote it and sang it. Sweet God I love that song.


A cast of 1980's TV movie and TV series guest stars (Misty Rowe, Pamela Hemsley,Clevon Little, Seymour Cassel among several others)in the story of a photographer who has dreams about killing his models. Of course the models and other people start turning up dead causing all sorts of complications.

Over done not very good thriller has enough nudity and violence to get an R rating but not enough good material to engender any real interest. This is best described as the sort of movie that gave the cable channel Cinemax the alternate name of Skinamax. I really can't see the point of watching this unless you need to see every sleazy thriller out there. (I also have to comment that this film is filled with smoking, to the point that it becomes laughable when anyone lights up)


Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)


The worst kind of film. Basically, the US Declaration of Independence was replaced with a plasma screen and this fooled the museum's security for several days. Eh?

The plasma screen that would theoretically run for less than 2 seconds off that watch battery, assuming it had a low enough internal resistance to deliver the required current, which it wouldn't.

It would be possible with a dozen large car batteries and an inverter, but that system wouldn't fit into the case. Sorry to be anal, but this isn't even close to being plausible. The rest of the film wasn't a great deal better and I'm left wondering why the budget couldn't have been donated to charity or me.


This adaptation positively butchers a classic which is beloved for its subtlety. Timothy Dalton has absolutely no conception of the different nuances of Rochester's character. I get the feeling he never even read the book, just sauntered on set in his too tight breeches and was handed a character summary that read "Grumpy, broody, murky past." He plays Rochester not as a character or as a real person but as an over the top grouch who never cracks a smile until after he gets engaged at which point he miraculously morphs into a pansy. There is no chemistry. The only feeling that this adaptation excited in me was incredulity and also sympathy for Charlotte Bronte who is most definitely turning in her grave. GO AND REREAD THE BOOK. ROCHESTER HAS A PERSONALITY. AND BY THE WAY: A "PASSIONATE" LOVE SCENE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO EAT HER FACE.


I've probably been spoilt by having firstly seen the 1973 version with Michael Jayston and Sorcha Cusack so the 1983 adaptation is such a disappointment. I just didn't get any chemistry between the 2 main stars. A lot of staring and theatrical acting just doesn't do it for me, and what was all that about putting Tim in the role of Rochester. Had the casting director actually ever read the book. Very strange! He's a fine actor but Mr. Rochester he definitely isn't! And Zelah was just, well, strange, bit of a mix matched couple. In it's favour the supporting cast were pretty good and the Lowood scenes for me were the best of the adaptation, but overall didn't capture any of the magic of the novel. Certainly wouldn't ask anyone to watch it as a true adaptation of the novel. A real let down!


Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.

It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.

Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.

So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.


I think that if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.

Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.

Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10


After a quasi-Gothic, all-fruity music video, the movie starts with Cassidy the lead singer killing herself. In a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. We don't live n that world. The insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. When I say clown, I mean actual clown. He tell them they're all going to die via Cassidy's ghost (the spirit possesses Dora, one of the band-mates) We couldn't care less as the characters are all boring, vapid, and extremely horribly acted. Written by Adam Hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one), and directed by Corbin Timbrook (who after The attendant, and Tower of blood, HAS to know that he keeps making crap for a living), this movie s a constant battle between the film's incompetence and the viewer's need to stay awake. Not enough blood to appease gore-hounds, nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. This movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Amanda Carraway gets topless

Where i saw it: Starz on Demand


One of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words 'Wanna watch the worst horror movie ever?' I always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. I had expected your typical cheesy b-slasher but this was beyond B. This is Z-slasher, the lowest of the low. With obviously low budget, extremely bad acting, bad lightning, no plot, really bad so-called 'special effects', shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like House of Wax look like Oscar-winning masterpieces. The only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless - she had some very nice tits. Most of what I said during this film was along the lines of 'Wow this is actually SO BAD', 'This is the worst movie ever' and 'I'm not drunk enough for this'. So in conclusion: don't waste your time (or money!).


Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.

Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.

This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.


This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen

Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10

Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10


I am a MAJOR fan of the horror genre! I LOVE horror/slasher/gore flicks of all kinds. Some of my favorites are the really "good" bad horror flicks. But this movies has NOTHING to warrant it's viewing!! I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that's wrong with it.

The script is horrid. The acting is horrid. The FX are not even worth discussing. The "set" is an absolute JOKE!! The sad thing is I think there MAY be some real potential in a couple of the actors, but this vehicle left them NOTHING to work with!!!

Suffice it to say I saw it for "free" & feel I was robbed!! The time you'd WASTE watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.


for the most part, On Demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies, and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen, and already have an opinion on. It was either this, or Invinicible (I like Mark Wahlberg movies), which I haven't seen, and I was actually in a movie watching mood, which doesn't happen often anymore because I've already watched all the movies i own a million times, and that's a lot of movies, and I don't have much interest in new movies, and boy, this movie made me regret it. I'm not going to put in any spoilers, I'm just going to tell you that only a FEW of the very FEW actors in this movie ,are half way decent. I think the main girl, the dead one who kills everyone, is very annoying looking, but convincing; I'd take her for psycho bitch anyday, so she fits her roll well, though it is lame. The blood isn't that great, only a few of the kills, or may I say "woundings" are alright, but you don't see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. Towards the end of the movie I was begging my girlfriend to turn it off, and being a band member, the 'recording' parts weren't very interesting either, though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. I'm done, if you want to watch this, suit yourself.


Cassidy(Kacia Brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend Neal(Jason Dibler). Cassidy was the lead singer of a "demons and death" rock band who couldn't shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend's neglect towards her(you know, I can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). She returns, however, possessing the soul of Dora(Jill Small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by Cassidy's untimely death. But, Cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected..she's consumed by this anger towards mainly Neal, but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught Dora..not Cassidy returning for payback.

Lousy micro-budget horror flick looks cheap, has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work, and boasts cheap kill-scenes which aren't effective one bit.


Well, because I'm a musician I thought, maybe I'll check this movie out on TMC, nothing else good on. One of the worst mistakes of my life so far, and it's only half done. I seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting, crappy filming and crappy effects. But nope, I don't even get the pleasure of that. Even the "musicians" weren't very good. I was hoping for maybe some laughs, but I wasn't sure if they were attempting to throw in one-liners or not. But now I have to sit here and watch the rest just until Pulp Fiction starts. Or maybe something better. And now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines


This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.

Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.

I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.

This is not one of those movies.

You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.

Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.

Laughable.


STUDIO 666 (aka THE POSSESSED in the UK) is another sub-par slasher that has the appearance of a straight-to-DVD movie.

Whilst many of the straight-to-DVD movies are fast-paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so-bad-it's-good sense, STUDIO 666 is a lamentable failure.

At the time of writing, every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. Every one of these people have hit the nail on the head.

The two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of 10 out of 10 should not be taken seriously. Obviously they've seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror.

The only really positive point I can make about this movie is that it does fare better than THE CHOKE and ONE OF THEM, two extremely mediocre slasher movies that I would not wish on my worst enemy!

The plot of this movie must have been done hundreds, if not thousands of times. The movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. A depressed singer commits suicide. Soon after, her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. The said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. The rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. You'll just have to see it for yourself, providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course.

The acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. The actress who played Dora was an exception to this. Her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. She helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. Unfortunately, some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie.

The direction was equally poor. The villains did not seem the least bit menacing, every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension, atmosphere was non-existent and the camera-work was incredibly basic. Some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the TV series, GHOST STORIES. Unfortunately for the producers of this movie, GHOST STORIES had intelligently written scripts, believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. Maybe if the producers had watched that TV series closely, they'd have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie!

The music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. It's just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. Don't get me started on that awful song played at the beginning!

Some aspects of the movie, particularly dialogue, are unintentionally funny. Unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so-bad-it's-good level.

Overall, STUDIO 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. I recommend this only to those who are fans of straight-to-DVD movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made.


As with most of the reviewers, I saw this on Starz! OnDemand. After watching the preview with my girlfriend, she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. I, on the other hand, thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. I mean, the design of Dr. Meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. After watching it, I can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story), it's best to pass over this one.

*Major Spoilers Ahead* After making their first video for their as-yet-unfinished CD, the lead singer, Cassidy, kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend Neil to notice her. 3 months later, the band is trying to decide if they're going to finish the album or not. To try and see what Cassidy would have wanted, they go to see an old psychic friend of hers, Dr. Meso, and try to contact her through him. In his card reading, Dr. Meso turns up four straight Death cards for the four remaining band members. Bad times are ahead. (I just wanted to make a point that later in the film, they do explain that the Death card really just represents change. Kudos to them on that at least.) Even without the approval of their deceased friend, they decide to go ahead and finish the album. But while in the bathroom, Cassidy's best-friend, Dora, catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. When another band-mate goes in to check on her, Dora is standing in the dark, requesting his sunglasses. That's when the killing begins.

My main problem with the film from the very get-go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. Too many warping effects, unnecessary zooms, and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. An incoherent storyline doesn't help anything either. While the narrative hangs together for the first part, once Cassidy is resurrected, everything falls apart. We have jump-cuts between Cassidy and Dr. Meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building), which show they are connected in some way or another. However, within a few minutes of that revelation, we find that Cassidy really is an independent being from Meso. She then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind Jack Nicholson as The Joker. But not in a good way.

From this point on, the whereabouts of Cassidy are shown, but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. One scene we see Cassidy standing at a desk, when a character enters in the next, she's nowhere to be found. As he moves behind the desk, we see her at the end of a hallway. Then in another room grabbing the keys (which Neil already has), then back again. Not to mention that from one moment to the next, Cassidy's mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. One moment, she wants to kill everyone (although she's only wounded 90% of the characters) - the next she's apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. Sound confusing? That's because it is. It's a jumbled mess that I'm sure the writer couldn't even figure out.

As for the performances, most are particularly wooden. Some though are interesting, but overall this isn't a piece that would be known for it's acting. The story is the driving force behind this piece.


Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.

"Savage Island" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Ilha de Sangue" ("Island of Blood")


Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.

Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).

I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.

Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.


Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.

First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.

First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.

A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.

So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie.


By the numbers story of the Kid (Prince), a singer, on his way to becoming a star. Then he falls in love with Apollonia (Appolonia Kotero). But he has to deal with his wife-beating father (Clarence Williams III!) and his own self-destructive behavior.

I saw this in a theatre in 1984. I was no big fan of Prince but I did like the three big songs from this movie--"Purple Rain", "Let's Get Crazy", and "When Doves Cry". The concert scenes in this movie are great--full of energy and excitement. Unfortunately that's a VERY small portion of the movie.

The story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before--and much better too. The subplots are, to put in nicely, badly handled. The love triangle between The Kid, Appolonia and Morris Day was so predictable and tired that I actually became insulted. His wife beating father is needed for the story, but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that I couldn't believe it. The script is terrible--lousy dialogue and some truly painful "comedy" routines. And there's tons of misogyny here--The Kid's mother getting beaten; The Kid hitting Appolonia and (for no reason) Appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. Also Williams' and Princes' characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly.

The acting is where this movie REALLY fails. Appolonia is sweet and beautiful--but no actor. And Prince is (easily) the WORST actor I've ever seen. His blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad I couldn't believe it. This movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren't really that many. The "dramatic" scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. They should have just made this a concert film. I give this a 2--only for the music.


Okay, I'm not going to critique this film in depth. I note the many elogious reviews in advance of me, and as I generally like Maria de Medeiros, I have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment - and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. But each time I see that DVD on my shelf, I sense an inner groan. Anyway, let the elogious voices override me! But for other cinephiles like me - beware.

Expressed in simplest and gentlest terms, here's my stance:

The political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life - via newspapers I read daily in my local middle-European pub. At that time, I followed the newsreports, but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. The reporters tended to report either in non-partisan terms, or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. Those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through Paris, Berlin, Prague, and various places in the U.S., all of whose issues I understand clearly at the time - but dictatorship or not, my papers tended to treat the govermentment of Portugal simply as the establishment - not as a well-fleshed out "evil empire", to use flippant Star War terms.

So, week after week, I read of disturbances, but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them, or evaluate the practices and social-economic impacts of the dictatorship, etc.

So, in purchasing this film, I had at least two hopes: to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest, and to enjoy a well-conceived drama. This film gave me neither.

The film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. And the drama - well, as I said, I want to encourage Maria de Medeiros and the Portugues film industry, but - it was trite and shallow.

I obtained my copy of the DVD from France - "Selection Official Cannes 2000 - Un Certain Regard". The box shows smiling clean-shaven actors, the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the Playboy bunny. After seeing the work, I wondered what the French could have thought of it - though as a shallow piece of "cinema verite'" with sensitive ethnic content, I can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its "honesty" but...

Look at the back of the box: "Un regard chaleuruex sur la Revolution" - a warm regard? Try describing Allende's overthrown and murder with a a "warm regard"! Try it with Czechoslovakia in 1968! Try it with the whole line-up of overthrows, and civil rebellions!

Another review: Maria de Medeiros a renoue' avec son pays, son enfance et son histoire." Rubbish, rubbish, rubbish! At least for me.

I love Portugal. In all of Europe, Lisbon, Barcelona and Prague are my favorite cities. But my love for a city and a country doesn't flesh out a vacuous film. I'll hang on to my ancient VHS tapes of Capas Negras and A Cancao de Lisboa - meanwhile, I'm stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash.


I know that some films (I mean: European films), that are very bad films, are being regarded as great cinema by certain "critics", only because they're non-American. I saw the 8.1 IMDB score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. Don't let this fool you! Unless you're one of those people that likes mind-numbing films like this, and call it great art afterwards, skip it! The film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar, Italian, film popped into my mind, the terrible PREFERISCO IL RUMORE DEL MARE (I prefer the sound of the sea)). The problem with these films is that they're not only boring, like some other strangely praised films, but that they almost play like camp. I mean, let's face it, the acting is horrible (I mean: soap opera-level), the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before, connecting several storylines: SHORT CUTS, MAGNOLIA, PLAYING BY HEART, only much better), not one realistic character in it (some true freak-seeing along the way, notice the hilarious zombie-like daughter), and so on and so on.

As if that's not enough, the film is 135 min. (count it!) long, and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. After a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence, well... This is an insult to cinema, and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in "another" language, in this case Spanish. Strange world we live in...3/10


My husband and I are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. We were very upset that the JCC is bringing this movie to its Jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character Frankie is portrayed. We went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. We demanded out money back. We would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the JCC's Achad program to apologize.

We did not like seeing Frankie - a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager - as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny's breasts.

There was no point to Frankie's character other than to say "hey, being mentally disabled is funny." Challenges like Frankie's are a serious matter. Families like mine are truly suffering.

The screenwriter needs to explain herself. Does she know families with disabled kids? Does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the JCC pool?


I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice.


Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.


This is a movie which attempts a retelling of Thai history, set in the ancient city of Ayutthaya. I decided to watch this film because I thought it was along the lines of many Thai films I've watched and enjoyed, one that has Thai actors speaking Thai and martial arts craziness. Well, it's none of that. This film is shot entirely in English, is chock full of Anglo actors, and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad....but not funny! Who can we blame for this rubbish? The acting, dialog, and most of the sets were quite bad. Some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. The special effects were also mostly bad, but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. It has one large, epic-style outdoor battle scene, where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume, but when we see the two armies collide in combat--HA! What a joke! The film does feature a couple of beauties. What a pity they didn't show a little more skin. At least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. Don't bother.


THE KING MAKER will doubtless be a success in Thailand where the similar (but superior) 'The Legend of Suriyothai' set box office records. The film directed by Lek Kitaparaporn after a screenplay by Sean Casey based on historical fact in 1547 Siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest, pedestrian scripts and story development on film.

The event the picture relates is the arrival of the Portuguese soldier of fortune Fernando de Gamma (Gary Stretch) whose vengeance for this father's murderer drives him to shipwrecked, captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in Ayutthaya in the kingdom of Siam where he is purchased by the beautiful Maria (Cindy Burbridge) with the consent of her father Phillipe (John Rhys-Davies), a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. There is a plot to overthrown the King and Fernando and his new Siamese sidekick Tong (Dom Hetrakul), after some gratuitous CGI enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness, are first rewarded by the King to become his bodyguards, only to be imprisoned together once Queen Sudachan (Yoe Hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover Lord Chakkraphat (Oliver Pupart) to take over the rule of Siam. Yet of course Fernando and Tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (Tong's wife and children and Fernando's now firm love affair with Maria) with the expected consequences.

The acting (with the exception of John Rhys-Davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. The predominantly Thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog, making us wish they had used their native Thai with subtitles. The musical score by Ian Livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old TV soap operas. But if it is visual splendor you're after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. It is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. It is just the basics that are missing. Grady Harp


Evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. I am not sure how much John Rys-Daves got, but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a ROTTEN movie. The special effects were worse then effects from the 1950's B movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. As to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. The English was terribly accented and I think no one could really even speak English they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both "life-like" and real.


This movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera, sound, film, sets, music, costumes ... but drum-roll, Gary Stretch spoke! I don't know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script, but would say it was both. Considering the casting of him in this role, I found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. I wished he'd have died in battle or one of the sword/knife scuffles.

Then, the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king didn't have dinner and sex with his Queen? Pretty lame. And to go to the extreme to kill her own son? And to then push up her lover as succeeding King? I see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes, but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical.

I don't recognize Gary Stretch from anything else, but he was dreadful. I read another user's comments about audio being dubbed, but don't think his was dubbed ... after all, he speaks English, right? It really was awful. The lines were read right off the coroner's table ... flat-line. It could be he just doesn't have the voice to carry tone fluctuations.

Aside from this, I did watch it to the end, so the movie had at least an "interest." It could have been more if the script/lines and casting had been given more work. The scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. The cast and story were all secondary. I give the film crew a 10.


Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.

I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.

The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).

The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.

I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.

I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10.


The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.

Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.

Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.


This was the worst acted movie I've ever seen in my life. No, really. I'm not kidding. All the "based on a true story/historical references" aside, there's no excuse for such bad acting. It's a shame, because, as others have posted, the sets & costumes were great.

The sound track was typical "asian-style" music, although I couldn't figure out where the "modern" love song came in when Fernando was lying in his bed thinking of Maria. I don't know who wrote & sang that beautiful song, but it was as if suddenly Norah Jones was transported to the 1500s.

The Hershey syrup blood in Phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the Kwik-n-EZ battle scenes.

But the acting. Oh, so painfully sad. Lines delivered like a bad junior high play. If Gary Stretch had donned a potato costume for the County 4H Fair he may have been more believable. Towards the end he sounded more like a Little Italy street thug. At times I half expected him to yell out "Adrian!" or even "You wanna piece of me?!".

Favourite line: When the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) "I'm going to have a baby." He responds "A child?" I expected her to retort "No, jackass, a chair leg! Duh."


This is just a bad movie. With what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. It almost were. With the heroine beautiful almost like Salma Hayek, hero fighting almost like Jackie Chan, battles and duels almost like in Crouching Tiger..., music almost like in, say, Conan... etc. Almost. But in the end it's just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. Maybe apart of John Rhys-Davies flying in duel like those warriors in Hero or before-mentioned Crouching Tiger... I am really ashamed of poor old John. He is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. So as you - so if you still have a chance just watch something else.


Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.

It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential

Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.

The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.


Warning Spoiler. . . I have to agree with you, it was almost there. This was such a bad movie, about such and interesting true story. It had such promise, but the acting was ridiculous at best. Some sets were beautiful and realistic. Others are something out of a theme park. I found myself laughing as I watched, what was suppose to be, serious scenes. I really wanted to like this movie, but I couldn't. The best part was the fight between friends that ended with the "King" dying. I liked the Queens' punishment. And, the final shot made a beautiful picture, though. There are so many better movies to watch. I don't recommend this.


The movie was to be shown here in Bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater, it failed miserably.

Apparently the story writer just don't hold water. Something was definitely missing. In my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. Accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment.

The movie just lack any substance. The only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. And a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time, such as the meaning of sacrifice, nationalism, etc. It is called the central theme.

The movie fails to answer, why would I watch it anyway?

At least some strange legendary Flying Elephants, psychic king, or the eccentric king such as "The King and I" would have been lovely, something would have added greatly to the movies' appeal. I guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie.

Once you got the appeal, then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. In marketing terms, we call it "must see". Upon hearing the title of the movie people would say, Oh, I must see it. Now where's the appeal in Kingmaker? Why not just redo the title and call it, "How NOT to be a King?" and make a black comedy of the old Siamese days, to the style of "Dr. Strangelove". That would have been much more interesting. Narrative-like experiences of the foibles of the King from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny.

Most movies today have that "must see" appeal, such as Spiderman, Men X, these titles speak for themselves. If they don't have familiar characters, some other movies such as, The Island, had an appeal itself when the advertising asks "Do you still believe there is an Island?".

Or for the movie, retitled "How NOT to be a King" might ask the question, "So do you still WANT to be a King?"

Parhat


Hollywood Hotel was the last movie musical that Busby Berkeley directed for Warner Bros. His directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. By the last few years of the Thirties, swing-style big bands were recording the year's biggest popular hits. The Swing Era, also called the Big Band Era, has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. Although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the Swing Era began, Benny Goodman's engagement at the Palomar Ballroom in Los Angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream America's youth. When Goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society-style dance music that his band had been playing, the youth in the audience went wild. That was the beginning, but, since radio, live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena, it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. In Hollywood Hotel, the appearance of Benny Goodman and His Orchestra and Raymond Paige and His Orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after Goodman's Palomar Ballroom engagement). There are a few interesting musical moments here and there in Hollywood Hotel, but except for Benny Goodman and His Orchestra's "Sing, Sing, Sing," there isn't a lot to commend. Otherwise, the most interesting musical sequences are the opening "Hooray for Hollywood" parade and "Let That Be a Lesson to You" production number at the drive-in restaurant. The film is most interesting to see and hear Benny Goodman and His Orchestra play and Dick Powell and Frances Langford sing.


This movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. Face it, you can't. Because that way there's nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot, have meaningless transitions, trite, unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool Korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd.

I wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie, really I did; I like lots of crappy movies. But once I've been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and WHY, DEAR LORD, WHY? more than a few times, I really can't take it any more.

Also, I would love for someone to explain how LA became Mordor for the last scene.


This movie was horrible.

They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department.

Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.

I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars.


This movie is likely the worst movie I've ever seen in my life -- surpassing the previous most god-awful movie, "Spawn of Slithis," which I saw when I was about 10.

Bad acting, stilted and ridiculous dialog, incomprehensible plot, mishmashed cut scenes, even the music was annoying. Did I leave anything out? Well, the special effects weren't bad -- but CGI does not a decent movie make.

I can't believe I actually spent money to see this movie. If anyone has the contact info for Hyung-rae Shim (the director), please forward it to my user name "at gmail," and I'll contact him to personally demand a refund.


I went into this movie with high hopes. Normally, I'm not too picky about my movies and creature movies are *always* fun to watch, or so I thought. I'll list the good parts of this movie: -The creature effects. All of the creatures were well-done, their movements were realistic, and they fit into the other imagery well. To be honest, the creature effects were the ONLY reason I gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. Now, the bad things: -The acting. Good Lord, I've seen bad acting, but this movie takes the cake. Not a single one of the characters is even *close* to believable. It's like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try-outs from it. I tried very hard not to giggle too loud, cause I didn't wanna upset anyone else in the theatre, but the acting really was THAT BAD. -The storyline: The entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. You can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. The plot holes, of course, are complimentary with the cheese. This is probably one of the most clichéd, not thought-out, and outright dumbest stories I've ever seen put on screen since I had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching Parasite on the SciFi channel. -The dialogue: This is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can, at every chance they possibly can. In this world, it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low-budget creature movies. It is the world of cheese and cliché. -The special effects. While the creature effects were downright awesome, the special effects fail miserably. Yes, they are better than those seen in other movies, but a lot of it is in the presentation. And this movie has no presentation whatsoever. It looks kinda like the special effects used on the Power Rangers TV show, to be honest. To sum up: Dragon Wars is worth neither your time nor your money. The concept is good, but it is trapped in the bad directing, acting, dialogue, and cheesiness of the film. Wait til the next big monster movie comes out. It's gotta be better than this, cause Dragon Wars is absolutely horrible.


How this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. The storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. Characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. No one seems to be grounded in the real world. The acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud...but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. The hero's hair probably should've gotten its own credit, it was so oddly attention- grabbing...not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. Finally, for a movie about L.A. being besieged by giant reptiles, this film is shockingly boring. What a shame! If you do see this, your mind will be constantly racing, thinking up ways that you could have taken the SFX scenes and built a far better movie around them. Sadly, it wouldn't have taken much.


First off, I have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. Its not even the low budget SCI-Fi channel movie, its just awful. Me and my friend who love action movies, Independence day, Jurassic Park, LotR, etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a Transformers with dragons, mindless entertainment. All we got was a mindless hour and a half. The CG was not as bad as I was expecting, but the plot is so awful along with the acting, it made up for it. Its basically a Chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years...Sounds like a good remake of Rain of Fire? No, The plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes, but with magic, and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. The director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. Me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience), and cant believed we spent money on this. The short trailer on TV makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. I've seen a lot of B movies like Reptilian, The Cave, Spider, and others, but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour, watch this.

Story: 1/10 CG: 5/10 Acting:3/10

I don't drink...but it would have helped before watching this movie


I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.

I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.

A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.

The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.

In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much.


...there's no one else watching the movie. My husband and I went to watch it last night. It's just a small theater, but there's usually a decent amount of people there. Not this time! My husband and I were the ONLY people watching Dragon Wars last night! Now we know why.

The movie was by far one of the worst I've ever seen. Yes, the CG was good, but that was it. The acting, script & dialog, directing, editing, etc. was God-awful! Since we were alone in the room, we felt free to talk during the movie. That is, we talked about how bad it was, that it reminded us of The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Godzilla, Mortal Combat AND The Lord of the Rings. It was like we expected to see Rita and Lord Zed portraying commanders of Sauron's army.

The creatures were ridiculous. You can't just introduce legions of dino/dragon/lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. The Lord of the Rings has a wide spectrum of characters, but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies, not in an hour and a half.

The scene transitions are horrible. I didn't fall asleep during the movie, but even though it was an overly simple plot, I found myself getting lost in the plot holes.

The characters were caucasian Americans, but spoke almost with broken English because of the badly written dialog in the script.

The final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie...failed. Ethan didn't cry when Sarah died...though he hadn't known her for very long during THIS life anyways. He didn't seem too upset to be left in "Mordor", not knowing where he was or how to get back. We couldn't for the love of God figure out where he was or how he got there either, but if he wasn't upset we shouldn't be either.

Oh, and why did the dress that Sarah's spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from Queen Elizabeth? One more thing...all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. Sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. Jack does this as well. Then why does Ethan get screwed? He's left alone, without the girl, without a map/compass/helicopter to help him get back. What's he supposed to do? Send smoke signals? And IF he gets back home, does he just go back to his job? He should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had.

Don't waste your time or money on this movie. We only stayed til the end because we'd paid for it, but as soon as the credits hit, we were out the door.