This movie was bad to say the least!!! The plethora of superb cars are disgraced to have have been showcased in this LAME movie. It starts off with a race from L.A. to Las Vegas to be completed in 1HR 45min...in a Ferrari F430. I did that in 1HR 50min in a tiny 4cylinder 140HP 1993 Honda Accord. Seriously...this movie does not do justice to these cars. Obviously these writers are just that and probably drive under the speed limit with their hands @ 10 & 2 o'clock. I remember seeing on the news how Eddie Griffin crashed a 1.5 million dollar Ferrari Enzo going 30-40MPH>>> youtube.com/watch?v=cNVrMZX2kms

And...the director ANDY CHENG is THE biggest SELLOUT!!! He brings shame to his own race. I wonder just how many people he orally pleased just to break into Hollywood. He partook in a movie that portrays Asian Americans in such a negative and FALSE way. Asian women>>cheap money grubbing whores. Asian men>>losing compulsive gamblers & thugs that get beat all the time . What the heck is all the fear about asians?? Why the need to always portray them in such a negative connotation?? I am SO sick of the way Hollywood ALWAYS portrays asians in SUCH a negative and false pretext.


I mean, I thought I heard this dialog in the movie, but it was so bad and out of place that I can't really believe it. I was laughing so hard at what must have been the worst writing and acting in human history, i was seriously worried that I might have a heart attack and die right there in the theater.

So this is the scene I am talking about, the "hero" just watched his brother crash and his brothers car exploded right there just feet away from him (the hero). The "hero" was throwing the expected "fit" at seeing something so tragic and people were trying to hold him back from running into the burning car.

In the middle of his fit and his uncontrollable rage/emotional break down he says "I am so sad" - he said that right? Am I crazy?


VILLA RIDES (1968) turns out to be something of a big disappointment! And even though Sam Peckinpah had a hand in the screenplay, along with Robert Towne, it still emerges as a leadenly written movie dryly directed by the undistinguished Buzz Kulik. Firstly, top billed Yul Brynner as Pancho Villa is wrong for the part! He's not charismatic enough to play the great Mexican revolutionary! His one note performance lacks the fire and gusto Anthony Quinn or Gilbert Roland could have brought to the role. Brynner simply looks like a Russian aristocrat dressed up like a Mexican bandit who is in the middle of the Mexican revolution instead of the Russian one. Also, second billed Robert Mitchum is totally wasted in the picture! His part as a biplane flying ace lobbing home-made bombs from the air in the cause of the revolution is a poorly written meager role that could have been played by any minor star. Mitch hasn't a decent line in the entire movie and brings to one's mind his other Mexican revolution picture the far superior "Bandido" (1956) which unfortunately nobody seems to have any interest in releasing on DVD. Besides lacking any kind of style "Villa Rides" also suffers badly without the presence of a female star! There is starlet Grazia Buccella as a young Mexican girl who gives Mitchum the glad eye but her casting is merely perfunctory. Someone like Claudia Cardinale or Jean Peters could have perhaps added a couple of badly needed notches to the faltering story line.

There are a couple of good action scenes in the movie but a couple of good action scenes do not a movie make and the less than perfect Panavision picture quality plus the over repetitive Maurice Jarre theme tune doesn't help matters.

As is Paramount's wont there are no extras - not even a trailer! Yup, a disappointing movie and DVD presentation that could have been and should have been a whole lot better.


A man brings his new wife to his home where his former wife died of an "accident". His new wife has just been released from an institution and is also VERY rich! All of the sudden she starts hearing noises and seeing skulls all over the place. Is she going crazy again or is the first wife coming back from the dead?

You've probably guessed the ending so I won't spell it out. I saw this many times on Saturday afternoon TV as a kid. Back then, I liked it but I WAS young. Seeing it now I realize how bad it is. It's horribly acted, badly written, very dull (even at an hour) and has a huge cast of FIVE people (one being the director)! Still it does have some good things about it.

The music is kinda creepy and the setting itself with the huge empty house and pond nearby is nicely atmospheric. There also are a few scary moments (I jumped a little when she saw the first skull) and a somewhat effective ending. All in all it's definitely NOT a good movie...but not a total disaster either. It does have a small cult following. I give it a 2.

Also try to avoid the Elite DVD Drive-in edition of it (it's paired with "Attack of the Giant Leeches"). It's in TERRIBLE shape with jumps and scratches all over. It didn't even look this bad on TV!


Welcome to a bad ghost story and someone's nightmare. This horror tale finds a newly married husband(John Hudson)and wife(Peggy Weber)haunted by the memory of his previous wife and screaming skulls found throughout their empty mansion and lily pond. Is the husband really trying to drive his already anxious bride insane? Or is it the learning challenged gardener Mickey(Alex Nicol)who has taken care of the mansion's grounds since the death of the original mistress of the house? This low budget horror flick has a story line that keeps you involved all the way the finale. Special effects are pretty bad even at 1958 standards. I swear at times the screaming skull sounds much like it should be in a Godzilla movie. Also in the cast as Reverend Snow is character actor Russ Conway. By the way...the lurking gardener(Nicol)is the film's director. You can catch this as part of AMC's Monsterfest.


"The Screaming Skull" opens with a warning and an offer for free burial services if you should die watching it - Now there's a hook! The story itself has a fairly interesting premise for a horror flick: scheming husband marries a wealthy woman with a history of mental illness, then attempts to convince her that she's going insane with shrill noises, mysterious knocking and skulls that turn up at inopportune times. Add to the formula a sufficiently creepy gardener who still cherishes the memory of the man's first wife who he was devoted to. Maybe it's just that the 1950's didn't have the technology to pull off some of the scare scenes needed to juice up this movie, the techniques used here seem contrived and mundane. But then again, when I first saw "House on Haunted Hill" as a nine year old, it gave me the heebie jeebies in the same way I'm sure this film did for young viewers of the same era.

Don't get me wrong, the film is not terrible, it just seems to get tedious at times. But there's some great atmospheric tension in the generally huge but unfurnished Whitlock home, and the gardens and pool are a nice touch. For me the best played out scene involves Eric Whitlock (John Hudson) going maniacal in the pond attempting to retrieve the hidden skull, he just wades right in clothes and all, in neat contrast to the mentally challenged gardener (director Alex Nicol in a dual role). It makes you wonder who the real dimwit was.

In it's own good way, perhaps the most shocking thing about the film: how about that neat roadster the Whitlock's make their first appearance in - gull wing doors in 1958! That at least made me jump out of my seat!


When you have a disembodied skull, an empty mansion, a schizophrenic wife, a scheming cad and a nutzo gardener, throw in a minister and his wife - what have you got?

AIP's answer to insomnia.

"The Screaming Skull" gets points for audacity, offering free caskets for anyone who dies of fright from watching the film. Pretty safe bet, when you're lulled into a stupor by people who think they're in a production of "Suspense for Dummies".

But Peggy Webber was a cutie, anyway. She had a few good moments of acting here and there (especially when trying to communicate with the gardener) and no one else fills a nightgown like she. But that scared face she makes - scary in itself. Whoa.

As a whole, though, there is little suspense here and everything is telegraphed like a punch thrown by a mime. You can't be scared by this film, it's impossible. It has its moments, but not enough of them.

HOWEVER, thanks to a certain Mike Nelson and his two robot pals, there are several moments of pure joy, especially in the copy THEY got hold of ("The film jumped, and it was really scary!").

One star for "The Screaming Skull", eight and a half for the MST3K version.

Talk about a "Screaming" bore....


I first saw this movie on MST3K. And although I laughed my posterior off at the jokes, I don't particularly think this movie was all that bad. Sure it was a little hard to understand it is quite obviously low budget, But it had a very Hitchcock-like plot and I can honestly say that when I viewed the non-MST3K version, I was genuinely entertained. This movie is crying out for a Hollywood remake.


*SPOILERS*

I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.


I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.

The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience.

They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")


As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.

Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.

Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.

There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.

GFT, Amazon Reviewer


*WARNING* Possible spoilers below

The film is more boring then anything else. There seems to be some attempt to build tension through badly lit shots of empty rooms and empty lawns, but none of it works.

MST3K did a fairly good job with it, but on its own the movie is mostly tedious.

Funny moments:

When the fake skull rolls out of a pile of ashes, the wife becomes hysterical and woozy while the husband (who is trying to drive the wife crazy) says in a deadpan voice "There is no skull there, there's no skull."

When the real ghost-skulls have the husband caught in a pickle, as if trapped between first and second base.


Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad.

Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.


As far as cinematography goes, this film was pretty good for the mid 50's. There were a few times that the lighting was way too hot but the shots were generally in frame and stayed in focus. The acting was above average for a low budget stinker but the direction was horrible. Several scenes were dragged out way too long in an attempt at suspense and the effects were non-existent. The attack by the skull in the pond should have been completely removed from the final cut and every attempt to bring life to the skull was obvious with stick pokes and strings. I also couldn't help but think the budget didn't allow them to furnish the house so they kept making references to the movers and that all the things in storage should be coming soon. Honestly...it would have been more entertaining if it were a worse movie. It wasn't bad enough to be a "good-bad" movie but wasn't good enough to be "good" either. Get the MST3K version...it's more fun.


THE SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know.


Well I have to admit this was one of my favorites as a kid, when I used to watch it on a home projector as a super-8 reel. Now there isn't much to recommend it, other than the inherent camp value of actors being "terrified" by replicas of human skulls. The special effects are pretty silly, mostly consisting of skulls on wires and superimposed "ghost" images.

But there's something to be said for the sets. The large mansion in which it takes place is pretty creepy, especially since it's mostly unfurnished (probably due to budgetary reasons?).

It definitely inspires more laughs than screams, however. Just try not to get the giggles when the wife (who does more than her share of screaming) goes into the greenhouse and is confronted with the ghost of her husband's ex.


- A newlywed couple move into the home of the husband's dead former wife. It's not long before the new wife begins to have the feeling that someone doesn't want her in the house. She sees skulls all around the house. But when the husband investigates, he can't find anything. Is someone trying to drive her back to the asylum that she was recently discharged from? Or, is the ghost of the dead wife trying to get the new wife out of her house?

- This is the first time that I've watched The Screaming Skull without the assistance of the MST3K crew. And, it will in all likelihood be the last time I watch it this way. Can you say dull? I'm not talking ordinary dull - I'm talking watching grass grow dull. There are great stretches of the movie where nothing happens. The screen could have gone blank and I would have gotten as much entertainment out of it. The characters drone on and on with the most monotonous conversations imaginable. The Screaming Skull could probably be marketed as a sleep aide.

- The actors don't help matters much. Most of them deliver lines with the conviction normally reserved for a grade school play. I haven't looked it up, but I would be shocked to find that anyone associated with this movie ever appeared in anything of cinematic value. I won't even go into the script the actors are given to work with. Let's just say that the characters are given some of the most idiotic lines ever uttered on film.

- You've been warned! Either avoid this one at all costs or, at least, seek out the MST3K version.


Well, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....

If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.

A good gift for someone you hate.


Now I get it. The title refers to each audience member's immediate post-reaction after 68 minutes of mental torture. Trying too hard to be terrifying, lacking good dialogue even any fear for that matter really makes The Screaming Skull more like A Snoring Dull. Albeit, the mansion and property set in black and white does set a dark tone for the movie, but that's about it. The only scary thing about this flop is that people actually made money on this! Remember the coffin guarantee in the beginning? That may be the funniest thing I have ever witnessed on screen. Sad thing is that viewers probably hoped director Alex Nichol was forcibly placed in a coffin, nailed shut, and buried alive for his lame effort. Jenny placed in this unfortunate horrific situation never really draws any sympathy you would feel for a woman whose anxiety is blamed on a haunted, cranial receptacle. Also, her husband John comes off as a condescending wannabe smooth talker, but this doesn't work and he ends up proving how tough he is by slapping a helpless cripple around! Ah, Mickeythe days before you could get a restraining order against estate caretakers like him. This guy's approach is not very good or maybe too much airplane glue. Still, despite his strange persona, Mickey probably is the only good thing going for this movie providing a slight sense of entertainment and I can't get enough of a guy saying "It was Mary!" and rummaging through pots in a greenhouse.


After seeing the credits with only one name that I recognize and that was the preacher in this film (Russ Conway), I did not expect much from this film and I was not disappointed. A man is planning on killing his new wife by convincing other people that she is insane and will take her own life. Unbeknown to the husband is that the plastic looking skull that he uses, in contrast, a ghost of a woman apparently his first dead wife has revenge on her mind and uses a real skull. A simple plot with a twist of irony at the end. If you are tired late one night and in need of sleep, this will help you to sleep that sleep.


I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene!

P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.


I am not a big fan of horror films, and have only seen a handful of them (and none of the "Halloween"s or "Friday the Thirteenth"s) - but I can appreciate a frightening horror film not because of gore. And I'm pretty sure this isn't scary.

 What's so spooky about a little plastic skull that pops up everywhere? In all of its appearances there are faraway establishing shots, so there's no real surprise in any of this film. (Not that a skull in of itself is that scary anyway, but . . .)

 The plot concerns Claus Von Bulow's third cousin (John Hudson), who marries a Donna-reed look-a-like (Peggey Webber, giving one of the worst performances ever) who begins seeing skulls and hearing the mysterious screams of a group of peacocks on her husband's mansion. Did I mention that her husband lost her first wife in a mysterious drowning incident? OOOOH!!!! Wonder who did it!!!!

 This is the same old plot about a rich boy trying to kill and/or drive their wife insane. If you want to see a well-done version of this stuff, try "Reversal of Fortune". And BTW, Jeremy Irons is one hundred times more talented than John Hudson.

 The MSTing was okay but nothing special; paired with the "Gumby" short, however, it makes for good viewing.

 Two stars for "The Screaming Skull"; eight stars for the MST3K version.

 And now, to paraphrase Mr. Von Bulow himself: "How bad is this film?" "You have no idea!"


I saw this movie on Mystery Science Theater 300. It sucked so much. If I hadn't been watching it on MST3K, I probably would've thrown it out the window. The characters were incredibly lame and it didn't provide much of a plot in my opinion.


The producers of this film offer to pay funeral expenses for anyone who dies of fright while watching this movie. They should have offered intensive psychotherapy for anyone who really enjoyed this stinker. A young couple moves into a house, where a woman who looks like the woman from the couple lived. Extremely boring, and very predictable. In the end I ended up not caring about anyone in this movie.

Avoid this one at all costs.


That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.


OK, I admit I watched this movie on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (which I am a huge fan of), but I am not one of those people who automatically gives an MST3K movie a 1/10 rating. Although I hate many of the movies they play, and some are among of the worst movies I've ever seen, I have actually been able to enjoy some MST3K movies. That being said, this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. (It is no wonder, in fact, that the MST3K writers themselves commented that this one was one of the worst. Don't believe me? Check out their site.)

To me, this movie is a good example of what NOT to do in filmmaking. The dialogue is very bad, the acting is worse, the cinematography is pathetic the direction (while perhaps being the best thing in this movie) is bad.

The pacing is the worst part in this movie. A few times in this movie, the viewer had to wait literally minutes for something to happen. While minutes may not sound like a very long amount of time, it can be in a movie, particularly in this one. I'm sure it was meant to create a mood, but I was just very bored. It truly felt like ten minutes.

If "suspension of disbelief" means "almost falling asleep during a movie", then this has plenty of that. But THE SCREAMING SKULL is just so horrible, there is no way I could have possibly even gotten interested in anything that was actually going on in the film, and thus the "suspension of disbelief" was indeed non-existant.

One of the worst, and probably the most boring movie I've ever seen.

1/10


I would of given this film a zero out of ten, but i will give it a two. Reason One is that Shah Rukh Khan appears in the film, which is not really a reason. Last Point is that Rani Appears in this film and does a smooch with Kamal. I Love Rani very much and have a respect that she is a great actress. Which is why i didn't enjoy her in this movie kissing Kamal, but its no big deal. Anyway enough of the bedroom scenes that made this film noticeable, lets actually talk about this film. Is it good or bad, I think its a completely rubbish movie that made me yawn. Me being a Fantastic critic, you can see my other 250+ review's by clicking on my name, I have great taste. The movie is not entertaining is one thing and if this is suppose to be hard hitting cinema, why is there no morale in this movie. Its a biased movie thats not a true story and it stinks. Watching Kamal kissing these actresses makes me sick, Man cant kiss properly anyway.


This movie makes a promising start and then gets very confused and muddled. Kamal Hasan has made a lot of effort in getting the period look right, pity he did not spend more time on the plot. Most of the small characters in the movie show up for no particular reason.

Overall very disappointing, I would recommend avoiding this movie.


I had high expectations for this movie and was excited about renting it but was very disappointed when I saw it. It was very poorly written and sort of just fell apart. There wasn't a lot of good anything in this movie except maybe special effects.


An interesting idea for a film, both showing the last dragon on earth and showing the struggle he and someone evil have together. When he was younger, Einon got stabbed in the heart, so Bowen (Dennis Quaid) took him to the dark lord who gave him half his heart. Now grown up Einon (David Thewlis) is now the selfish and evil king. Meanwhile, Bowen is using a new friend Draco the Dragon (voiced by Sir Sean Connery) to get rewards for "killing" dragons. But because Einon has half of Draco's hear, they both feel the pain in one of them is hurt, or killed. Also starring Pete Postlethwaite as Gilbert of Glockenspur, Jason Isaacs as Lord Felton, Julie Christie as Queen Aislinn and John Gielgud as King Arthur. It was nominated for the Oscar for Best Visual Effects. Worth watching!


This movie has such inexorable B class cheapness to all its scenes, effects etc as to make you think they spent 80% of their budget on Connery. It's like watching some Wing Commander stuff after Star Wars (quite apart from content).

Story can be described in one word: FLAT. And oh my God I can't remember a villain so uninteresting since long long ago. We're given neither a reason he's so wicked (an inborn defect, we're lead to think:) nor any real convincedness or flair to his wickedness.

If you're out for Connery rather go rent `Hunting Forrester'.


It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does!


"Diary of Sex Addict" is a pathetic attempt at a serious drama about sexual compulsiveness. Probably a movie marketing scam, this flick is a stylish shoot with a good cast and little else going for it. Bottom line, "Diary..." would have us believe that our sex addict character has the dumbest wife in the world, a stable of babes on the side who have nothing better to do than drop their panties for him at his whim, and no job in spite of being a restaurateur. At the best, this flick could have been good drama. At the worst, cheap softcore. "Diary..." isn't either and nowhere in between. This one's for the dumpster. (D-)


This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).

The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.

It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.

Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.

The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, GodYES'.

This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal.


let me first say, i watched this movie around midnight, and usually there only is trash around this hour, but this movie broke the record

first of all the main character is an old non attractive creepy guy, yet he gets to f*ck all girls that come on his path for example he goes to a shop, talks to a girl and then you see them f*ck

secondly there are loads of sex scenes, and in many of them there is no nudity at all, i would not have been surprised if one of the characters in the movie would say: fast put your clothes on so we can f*ck!

thirdly this movie should show what a sexual addiction can do to a man or a family, this movie only shows soft bad acted erotica it makes me wonder why those actors agreed to play in such trash


This movie (not a film -- clearly recorded on a cheap cam-corder) may be one of the greatest cinematic stink-bombs in history. Beware: the packaging advertises the flick as an erotic exploration of sex-addiction. The film is not an exploration of anything, and it is no more erotic than staring at one's own warts. The script is pointless and meandering, with all plot elements serving as segways between supposed sex scenes. However, even the sex scenes are lame lame lame. Except for the first, they are around three seconds long (then again, maybe my version was cut) and comically overwrought.

If you are looking for a decent film, you don't want this. If you are looking for a titillating sex-flick, you don't want this. Whatever your life's goals, desires, or perspectives, you do not want to watch this movie. How they got Rosanna Arquette, Natashia Kinski, and Ed Begly to act in this stink bomb is puzzling in the extreme.


This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.

Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.

Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?

Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.

This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.


I fell asleep on my couch at 7:35pm last night watching Larry Sanders (I usually DirecTivo it, but not last night). Woke up at 3am (invesment banker on the west coast), and was fascinated to see this on HBO2. I was shocked on how poor this 'movie' was. Seriously. shocked. So shocked that I had to write a commentary on iMDB. This is really really bad. the writing is boring, but the directing and editing are simply below those of a freshman at a film school.

Yes it is shot video. Mind you, that is shot on VIDEO, not DIGITAL VIDEO. It does look like a soap opera. The clips from skateboard videos have a more 'film' feel to them then this horror.

I wanted to describe the poor directing but i honestly cant remember anything. The shots and blocking are stupid. yes, i chose the word 'stupid'. not unconventional, not daring, not bold, not boring, just stupid. I know people reviewing this review will say "well give me an example". I cant. It was 3am. but trust me, I know you will watch it anyway, you will be drawn by the horrible reviews.


A sexually obsessed chef leads a duplicitous life: one as a "happily" married man with a ten year oldish child, the other as a sex fiend. The bulk of the documentary-like film follows him for five consecutive days and is told in flashback with Nastassja Kinski as a clinical sex therapist, listening to his story and intelligently probing him. Nastassja's role is very restrictive and she is the only principal adult character who does not take off her clothes. If she had, I would have rated this movie a big fat "F." As it is, it rates an F+, implying that it is still a failure unless one likes to be bored. It is probably a lot more interesting to spend ninety minutes cleaning out the garage. "Diary of a Sex Addict" falls into the category of films that once one has seen it, one wishes that one hadn't.


I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...

There were great script moments, such as:

Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"

To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical.


I wouldn't normally write a comment on-line, but this is the worst movie I've ever seen. Not only that it's filmed just like a soap series ("The young and the restless" is really filmed by professionals compared to this), but it also has awful cuts. It has no action. It is full of useless garbage.

Here's an example: a guy wants to kill the main character as he got fired because of him. So (after loads of crap) here they are: the guy puts a knife at his throat and says something like "You're dead now". Then the main character says: "If you kill me you're dead. I've told the police you're threatening me". So the (killer) guy goes like (just about to cry): "Oh no... the cops are following me!?!! Oh... my God".

Remember: this is just an example. I really cannot believe this movie actually exists. So: IF you want to see the WORST movie ever... go ahead, I recommend it :)


I really tried to like this movie. It deals with an important problem in any society: sex addiction.

In this story we learn that you can lose everything when you're addicted to sex. In this case, our main character and hero, for having non-stop sex with all kinds of women (crazy, kinky, neurotic) puts in jeopardy his marriage, job, and even his life.

The production values are terrible; mainly the acting. Oh, you won't enjoy ANY of the sex scenes, most of them are done in very poor taste and you might think you're watching a home made flick.

Second, the plot is just non sense. How could such a smart and beautiful wife stand all the nasty stuff from the husband? How could she believe him?! The threesome situation is priceless and will make you chuckle for a while.

Also, the scene with the black movie theater attendant is just pointless and will leave you thinking "wtf?".

Scenes like those you will find plenty.

Avoid this movie. Please, avoid it; it's not soft core, it's not a documental, it's not a dramatic feature. It's a pretentious effort form a so called documentary director or whatever.

Only Mrs. Kinski's legs on display are worth the watch. I caught it on HBO and I'm glad I didn't spend my money on it. But those 90 minutes of my life won't come back.


As many others have stated, this is a terrible movie, from every aspect of movie making. How they ever got some known name actors to take on this project is amazing.

Many people have complained that it was shot on 'cheap' video cameras. Yes, it was shot on video, but not 'cheap' video. What made it bad was the lighting, white balancing, shooting technique and editing.

There were so many different shooting and editing techniques used that it was a production mess. Harsh, inconsistent lighting, over use of hand held shooting (ala Woody Allen), choppy editing (another Allen technique), but poorly done, without real purpose.

The lack of white balance in the restaurant kitchen scenes is embarrassing; very amateurish.

The simulated sex scenes had no acting value at any level.

How this video ever made it to print is beyond me. It is worth watching if only to be amazed at how bad it is.


My husband rented this from a video store thinking it was suspense. (He never reads the synopsis).

Well, it would be funny if the thing was watchable. It simply isn't. The same thing over and over, no intrigue, and WHERE did they find the leading man?. The leading man, Michael Des Barres, is not even feasibly good-looking, especially for this role he is given. Also, sexual harassment at work is something, if you want to see, rent Michael Crichton's "Disclosure". At least Michael Douglas looked good in the early 90's.

Alexandra Paul, who is usually watchable, plays an embarrassing scene here. There are also lighting effects cheaper than your at home web cam. Don't even waste time renting this. 0/10.


Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.

Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.

Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!

ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!


Don't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.


This movie could had been an interesting character study and could had given some insight on its subject but real problem with this movie is that it doesn't have any of this in it. It doesn't give any insight-, or solutions to the problem. It's just the portrayal of 'old' male sex addict and the problems this is creating for his every day normal life and family. Why would you want to watch this? It's all so totally pointless and meaningless.

It also really doesn't help that the main character is some wrinkly 50+ year old male. You'll have a hard time identifying yourself- and sympathize for him. He just seems like a dirty old playboy, who is an a constant hunt for woman and sex. He has all kinds of sexual intercourse's about 3 times a day with different woman and not just only with prostitutes.

It also doesn't have a bad visual style, though it all feels a bit forced. But nevertheless it's all better looking than most other direct-to-video productions. Who knows, if the film-makers had been given better material to work with, the movie would had deserved a better faith.

The story really gets ridicules at times. There are really some pointless plot-lines that are often more laughable than they were obviously supposed to be. I'm talking about for instance the whole Ordell plot-line. Things get worse once they movie starts heading toward the ending. Also the whole way the story is being told, cutting back and forth between the events that happened and the main character's sessions with his psychiatrist feels a bit cheap and simple.

But as far as bad movies are concerned, this just isn't one of them. It's not really any better or worse than any other random straight-to-video flick, with similar concepts.

Still seems weird and quite amazing that they managed to cast Nastassja Kinski and Ed Begley Jr. in such a simple small insignificant production as this one is. Guess they were really desperate for work and money.

4/10


No reason to bother renting this flick. From the opening credits on, I knew I was in trouble.

It was filmed as though it was a soft porn movie, but there really isn't anything erotic about it. The look into the world of sex addiction is intriguing, but only to a point.

Boring sex scenes, bad plot, and cameos by Ed Begley Jr. and Rosanna Arquette aren't enough to save this film.


This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.

"Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.


Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')


Race car drivers say that 100 mph seems fast till you've driven 150, and 150 mph seems fast till you've driven 250.

OK.

Andalusian Dog seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Eraserhead, and Eraserhead seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen Begotten.

And Begotten seems breathtakingly bizarre till you've seen the works of C. Frederic Hobbs. Race fans, there is NOTHING in all the world of film like the works of C. Frederic Hobbs.

Alabama's Ghost comes as close as any of his films to having a coherent plot, and it only involves hippies, rock concerts, voodoo, ghosts, vampires, robots, magicians, corrupt multinational corporations, elephants and Mystery Gas. And the Fabulous Woodmobile, cruising the Sunset District in San Francisco, of course.

What's really startling is that somebody gave him a LOT of money to make Alabama's Ghost. There's sets, lighting, hundreds of extras, costumes, lots and lots of effects. Somehow that makes Alabama's Ghost SO WRONG. You watch some awful cheeseball like Night of Horror or Plutonium Baby, and at least some part of the weirdness is excusable on the basis that they were obviously making the film off the headroom on their Discover cards. But Alabama's Ghost was made with an actual budget, and that's EVIL. I mean, I've got a script about a tribe of cannibals living in Thunder Bay, Ontario, building a secret temple in the woods out of Twizzlers, and nobody's beating down MY door waving a checkbook - how did this guy get the funds for FOUR of the flakiest movies ever made?


This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.

The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.


My god this movie is awfully boring. I am a big fan of Gina Gershon, when I rented this movie I expected a romantic drama, and some great performance from Gershon. Gershon is great as always, but she is not right actress for this role, she is too good for Rade Serbedzija. The romance between Gershon and Serbedzija's characters is too unconvincing. And I absolutely hated Serbedzija's character (a wonman organizer), he is not charming in anyway in the movie. How did Dr. Lauren Graham (Gershon) is beyond my comprehension. Maybe Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro or Harrison Ford would have done a better job on this role, but they don't have the European-ish looking I guess. Any way, I was so bored druing the movie. If you are looking for a good Gina Gershon movie, check out Bound, her best film so far. If you are looking for a romantic film about a younger woman and an older man, try some Harrison Ford or Sean Connery movies. Gina Gershon is so underrated, and she deserves better chance than this, I wish her to make better choice in the future.


We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better.


My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.

I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to

If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE

MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10

RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!


When this film was released in 1997 the 'special effects', such as they are, were poor. They would have been dated even for the 1980s, and even some films made in the 1970s and 1960s have had the same or better SFX work. Certainly no-one involved in the production of this film was looking for an Oscar. It's a wild departure from director Fred Olen Ray's usual stuff, most of which has the word "Bikini" in the title (Bikini Pirates, Bikini Chain Gang, Bikini Girls from the Lost Planet, etc) and are little more than T&A flicks, but here we are with a film rated "U" and aimed squarely at the kiddies. You've got to give him credit for diversifying!! This was a minor direct-to-video cult hit which later resulted in a couple of sequels - Invisible Mom 2 and Invisible Dad. Dee Wallace-Stone (whose career went downhill fast after 1982s "E.T.) plays the 'invisible mom' of the films title and would return for the sequel. Russ Tamblyn (whose career had been in free-fall even longer since 1961s "West Side Story") plays the villainous Dr. Woorter. It's probably fair to say that most of the cast were at the point in their careers where they would be prepared to work on almost anything just to pay the bills that month - except maybe young Trenton Knight as Josh. It's rather telling though that although he worked prior to this movie, this child actor didn't work again after the sequel, "Invisible Mom 2". Maybe the film was cursed. After all, he wasn't that bad in this film. For a child actor, he's pretty good - no better or worse than any of his more experienced co-stars.

As mentioned above, the "invisibility" effects are naff to say the least, the direction is poor, the writing obvious and the acting nothing to write home about. There are plenty of worse films out there though, and for anyone under the age of about ten, this film will no doubt be quite watchable. Most adults will probably want to do a disappearing act of their own while it is on though, and I wouldn't blame them one bit!


Boy oh boy oh golly gee,

The most interesting thing in the movie was the hilarity of the bluescreen effects used to create Mom's "invisibility." They looked like they were shot on cheap video, and it looks totally unreal, and not even in a good way where its so funny that you end up loving the movie...

I did NOT end up loving this movie. The attempted "steadicam" shots were really pathetic as well. I mean, hey, if they had a low budget flick, that's fine. You can still make a great movie with a low budget. But, a BAD movie and a low budget AND effects. That makes for a bad combination. In this case, such a doomed combo created the craptastic film, "Invisible Mom." If you have kids, and your kids have no taste, perhaps they will stay awake through all of this one.


When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent.

The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner.

Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!


Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...

While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...

Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...

Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...

Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...

It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...

Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...

Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...

Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.

Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.

Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.

I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead.


Five passengers at a bus depot tell each other their scary dreams while waiting to be picked up. But is there more to these nightmares than meets the eye?

Lucky me, five bad movies for the price of one! Each segment features the very worst in acting, special effects, make up and music. And these were supposed to be scary? Hmm.. I think I've been more freaked out during an episode of Teletubbies. I swear, you'll sit there like I was, bored to tears waiting in vain for something interesting to happen. Don't bother. It never does. In fact, I even stopped fast forwarding the commercials, as they were a good deal more entertaining than the main feature. AND the ending is the ultimate cop-out. Yep, none of this actually ever happened. If only the same could be said for the day I set my VCR to record this cobblers.. 2/10


Going into this I was expecting anything really good, but after the damage this inflexed on me, I'm just happy to think strait. It's hard to think what the film-makers( HA!) this was a good movie. the stories, and I use the world loosely, are incoherent and do make any sense at all. There just stupid things that happen at random. the acting, if can be called acting is horrible I've seen batter acting in toy ads! I know it's a low-budget video-bin garbages, but still even it's not like they tried. Will after stetting thought it, I feel very sleepy and still #yawws# do, I'm going to go lie down.

WARNNING: DO NOT ATEMP TO DRIVE, WALK, READ OR DO ANY AFTER Watching CHILLERS. OTHER SIDE AFFECTTS MAY ENGULED LOSE OF ANY OR ALL METAL FUNKIONS.


OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.


"John Hughes' son wrote a high school drama! Wow!" I thought as I checked the flick's info here on IMDb, late on a Saturday night, having found myself watching the opening credits on BBC2.

I've just finished watching it, and sadly it was downhill from there on. Arguably you can't spoil a film this poor, but I'll leave the spoilers out of this review...

There's an awful lot of style over very little substance: unfortunately the style hasn't dated too well in the eight years since its release. As for the substance, the film tries to pose an interesting look at the nature of control in society through the microcosm of school-life; but beneath the shiny veneer, a remotely meaningful or relevant argument fails to materialise. Characters are painted in childishly broad strokes, falling into the kind of generic stereotypes the writer's father sought to question in Breakfast Club.

Director Kyle Cooper does a decent job keeping the pace up (perhaps relying a little too much on montages of information, which soon becomes a tiresome device, but at least pushes the story along), but his efforts don't sufficiently detract from the poor script and bizarre casting (how anyone is supposed to side with 'Maddox', when Blake Shields gurns and glowers his way through the part, I just can't understand), not to mention the numerous gaping plot holes (I'm all for creative license, but when the "bad guys" know the identities of the "good guys" making their lives a misery, but fail to act in any way to stop them, you really have to wonder why this script didn't undergo another few re-drafts before production - did Daddy even read it?).

I'm sure a younger audience might get some enjoyment from this film (and all power to them), but they're really better off sticking with Hughes Sr.'s high school output, and if the idea of school-time rebellion is what really appeals, the 1968 classic "If..." is a much more satisfying examination of the subject.


The guy did a lot of title design for a bunch of movies and I guess one day he said; I should pick a cheap scenario, try to put as much title in it as a can ( cause after all i'm a title designer ) and try to persuade people that this is in fact a movie. One of the worst i've even seen that's for sure. If you fell the urge to see nice titles, go check out some posters don't waste your time watching this.

It kinda ironic don't you think, did you saw the poster? the only part of his project that SHOULD had title work done have almost none !


OK, not possibly, honestly the worst movie i've ever seen.

this made absolutely no sense, there was no plot, no characterization, no acting, just nothing.

here's what i thought when i first saw it may 28th, 2003 **caution, this is a spoiler alert. it's also alot of me complaining about how bad the movie is::

ok so the movie begins and the characters are introduced, but there is no character explanation. as far as i knew the main character was new to this school, but apparently not. also it appeared that he lived by himself... then that he was a foster kid... then that his mother was a raging alcoholic who lived with him still. also all his friends apparently had no parents and lived by themselves.

now we come to a main plot point, this insane guy has broken out of the insane asylum and is running rampant. now our main character is obsessed with this guy and focus' intently on him for the contingency of the movie. i think i must have missed a main plot element here, there was no REASON for the main character to get hooked. even if that's the point, having no reason, why do all his friends, who are skeptical like 5 minutes before, suddenly follow him and do what he wants.

so the movie continues on, and it gets all right. they're running havoc on the school, blah blah blah. but wait a minute... suddenly everyone knows that the main character is running the 'show' here. wait a second, didn't the insane guy specifically tell the main character NOT to do that? it was supposed to be anynomous.

ah another important plot element has been skipped over... the insane guy was supposed to not be insane... everyone said he wasn't insane. but as the story goes on, he is VERY CLEARLY OUT OF HIS MIND. but i thought the news people said he wasn't... hm...

now the movie comes to a close. THAT WAS THE CLOSE? WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT? not only did the ending not answer any questions about the main character, it didn't answer any questions about the insane guy. are these people in the same situation? if yes, then there are some very basic story lines that do not tend to this. if no then what is the point in saying "that's you in two weeks."??

*end of the thing...*

that's what i thought then. that is pretty much what i still think now. it's 6 months down the line, and if i can get it for free, i might give it another chance, but i doubt it. i highly doubt it.


I'm still trying to figure out if there was a point to this film.

For content that's supposed to be so 'rebellious' and 'controversial' the things that Maddox distributes to the students are awfully lame. Students seem to be easily swayed by vague anti-authoritarian sentiments and snippets of words illegibly scrawled onto leaflets. Rebel, everybody.

I suppose it would have been too much to ask to have a teenage rebellion film where a school fire alarm doesn't get set off.

Apparently a 'huge fight up on the football fields' is a fight that consists of two people.

Characters personalities seem to wildly vary at random. A football jock who Maddox was fighting (and who subsequently got a staple on the face) is all smiles and apologies the next day.

The fact that it doesn't come to any real conclusion of the plot makes me feel that the whole thing could have been fitted into a half hour after school special. If they had cut most of the attempted pseudo-glitch soundtrack.


this film is terrible. The characters are completely unbelievable, and wildly inconsistent. The plot is awful and some of the classroom scenes are cringe-worthy and make for uncomfortable viewing.

In fact the quality of the script and characterisation would suggest that this film was written by high school students, only the utter lack of credibility to the school environment would suggest that, in fact, the writers probably never went to high school. The acting in most cases was weak too, although a lot of this was down to a poor script and plot, i am not sure that any actors could have made this film watchable.

having said that the sound track was OK, and the cinematography was nice in places (although the editing was poor).


About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true.


I came to NEW PORT SOUTH expecting a surrogate movie about the Columbine school massacre similar to Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and certainly the synopsis in the TV guide stating that a student sociopath rebels against the system did give me that impression but this is a very boring movie where little happens so consider yourself warned

The story is about Maddox , a Chicago high school student who decides to strike back at what he perceives to be an authoritarian regime . The major problem is that the character is underwritten and the actor who plays him Blake Shields is unable to embellish any script deficiencies . You have the gut feeling that Maddox should have the evil charisma of Hitler , Saddam or Bin Laden but he never comes across as anything more than a petulant truculent teenager and it's impossible to believe he could rally any disciples . The subtext of you overthrow one manipulative authoritarian regime only to replace it with another manipulative regime is too obvious which means NEW PORT SOUTH is an entirely unconvincing drama that's not worth going out of your way to see


This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought "Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?


This movie is a great example of how even some very funny jokes can go terribly wrong. i really expected at least something from this movie after seeing the add which was funny as hell but the movie wasn't half as good.

The weird part is that the jokes are actually funny, the spoofs of the smoking ban, Jo Bole... etc. are genuinely good jokes but i don't know whom to blame this movie flop on.

The prime candidates may be:- 1) The hammers ( actors) and hammeresses (actresses) and not even the funny kind 2) The director 3)The guy who cast the actors and/or the director Anyway if you are really really bored and i mean really see this movie, or else get a copy of each and every ad or teaser of this movie and laugh your butt of because those will be far funnier than the film.

p.s the only saving grace of this film is mahesh manjrekar and the funny chappu bhai


lets start off by saying that "JAWANI DIWANI" is just a pathetic movie. I agree with the last person who said "I missed the joyride". lol.

The jokes were just terrible. Performances were average. Something went terribly wrong with the film. Emraan totally deserved something better. All CELINA JAITLEY did was expose. Hrishitta bhatt was OK. Emraan hashmi was OK too.

MANN (EMRAAN HASHMI)is a desperate guy who wants to become famous. therefore, he uses RADHA and pretends he loves her, only because her father is a music director and could help him become famous (since, the father obeys everything his daughter says). One day, MANN and his friends go to GOA to have some fun. There he meets ROMA (CELINA JAITLEY) and totally falls for her looks and tries to flirt with her BLA BLA BLA.

Then, that night ROMA cannot open the door to her room, and MANN decides to help her. Seeing that he cannot as well, ROMA goes to ask for help. While she is gone, MANN is able to open the door and decides to come inside and sits on her bed BLA BLA BLA. ROMA comes in and they have a one night stand. However, in that one night- stand ROMA falls in love with him. That morning, they spot the underworld don (MAHESH)who sees it all. The don loves ROMA and couldn't stand what he saw. He orders them to get married, and being frightened, MANN obeys the order and Merry's ROMA. Then, their marriage news ends up in the newspaper. MANN is later finds out that he loves ROMA after they do a music video together. He is now trapped between love and fame. BLA BLA BLA.

the movie is horrible. The songs "SINI NE SINI NE" is fantastic the remix version is even better. "DIL DIWANA" is also great. The title track is also awesome. GUYS, AVOID WATCHING THIS MOVIE.


This movie was absolutely pathetic. A pitiful screenplay and lack of any story just left me watching three losers drool over bikini babes. At times I felt like I was watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead. I couldn't even sit through the whole movie. Emran Hashmi disappoints, and Hrshitta Bhatt is not impressive at all. Celina Jaitley was not bad. The only worthwhile part of the film is the spoof on Anu Malik and his obsession of shayaris. It was pretty hilarious. The songs "Sini Ne" and its remix version were really good. You can always count on Emran lip-locking and lip-synching a chartbuster. All in all, it seems Emran doesn't have a good script from the Bhatts to back him up this time.


Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more

Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI

Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley

Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes

Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible


God this film was just so boring apart from the music which i really loved, i mean what was the point in actually making this movie please anyone who reads this review do not watch this film, it is a waste of time.

Emraan can act but was really pathetic In this film, i am actually ashamed to be one of his fans especially in this movie, it was just really bad.

Celina is just another pretty face with no lack of talent what so ever, she can't act at all, and there was no point of her being in this film, as for the other girl Radha she was okay i guess but could have done better.

what a waste of time. please buy the great music and don't watch this movie.


A movie about dealing with the problems with growing up and being true to yourself, Blue Juice is mind candy for those who like surfing and Cornwall. Sean Pertwee is the real star of this film, while the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones plays his girlfriend and Ewan Mcgregor plays his drug addicted pal.

For those who don't like surfing or Cornwall in the slightest, you'll find that it takes a long time before the movie even hints at being interesting. The beginning is slow and spends too much time on long shots of only slightly interesting landscapes. Plus too many main characters leads to most of them being one dimensional. The plot is an interesting idea but because of the shallow characters you have no idea why they act in the situations they're put in.

Only Ewan, Sean and Catherine's characters make this a film worth being on videotape, which is why it was only released on videotape in the US after Ewan and Catherine reached mainstream fame.


Note to self- just because a film is foreign, obscure, and stars Catherine Zeta-Jones doesn't mean it's any good. Such is the case with 'Blue Juice,' a 1995 Brit flick about an unlikely group of surfing enthusiasts in what would seem (to a dumb American, anyway) an even more unlikely place to find surfers: Cornwall, England. You might be thinking this has the makings for an amusing, quirky little comedy. If only. The film is just a bit over ninety minutes but it seems interminable. The easiest way to describe it is as a sort of '90's British version of 'Grease' without the dancing, but even that makes it sound better than it is. No, the best way to take it is as a little slice-of-life set in a small town. Catherine Zeta-Jones plays Chloe, a young woman living with a surfing instructor, JC (Sean Pertwee; you remember him). Pertwee is actually the film's star, and his character is something of a surfing legend to a small group of surfing devotees, the requisite oddball group of free spirits that inevitably inhabit films like this. In this case, it consists of a drug dealer who wants to be a journalist, a former nightclub dj who wants to be a record producer, and a fat nerdy guy who, in a needlessly extended scene, gets stoned and loses all his inhibitions which of course turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to him. I can't honestly say everything that goes on in 'Blue Juice' is predictable, since it's set in a place and reflects customs and manners I'm not very familiar with, but there's certainly nothing surprising or even interesting that takes place there or with the characters. The comedy, though, IS very predictable and tired. One can sense the set-ups a mile away and almost recite the dialogue (in American form, of course) before the actors do. The relationship between JC and Chloe is every bit as hackneyed. She wants him to grow up; he wants them to stay the impetuous teenagers they started out being. He's afraid of losing face with his gang; she thinks he prefers them to her. You get the idea. As I struggled to stay focused on 'Blue Juice,' toward the end I felt, as the saying goes, that this was an hour and half of my life I'd never get back.


The only thing worse than surfers without any waves is a film about surfers without any waves. For viewers who love surfing this film will be a gigantic disappointment since the total number of minutes of surfing footage struggles to reach three.

The story is a slice of life about beached surfers who are waiting not for the perfect wave, but for any wave at all. J.C. (Sean Pertwee) is an aging super surfer who is flirting with a commitment with his girlfriend Chloe (Catherine Zeta Jones). Just as he is about to find grown up bliss with the woman he loves, three old surfing friends turn up and convince him to hit the beach looking for monster waves at the Bone Yard. The trouble is, there are no waves until the very end of the film, so most of the story dissipates itself on a meandering succession of disconnected beach happenings.

The acting is mostly mediocre. Sean Pertwee has a few comical moments, but mostly his acting was mundane. Ewan McGregor was decent as the drug dealing wild man, by far the most interesting and peculiar character of the bunch. Probably the funniest performance was turned in by Peter Gunn as Terry who turned his corpulent body into a continual sight gag. Catherine Zeta-Jones was sexy as usual, but her character didn't really have enough meat for her to show much acting ability.

There is really not much here on which to comment. I rated it a 3/10. It's a real beach bummer.


I chose this movie by the cover which was a bad move. It wasn't funny at all and the main characters were obnoxious. The girl was beautiful but the story and the acting were terrible. It had absolutely nothing to do with surfing. Terrible movie with a surf "theme" that had nothing to do with surfing and no real surfers. Catherine Zeta Jones was beautiful and the movie will probably see a resurgence just becuase she is in the limelight now, being married with Gordon Gekko and all, but if you haven't seen it don't waste your time. A bad movie with GREAT surfing, REAL surfers and AMAZING, BEAUTIFUL cinematography was IN GOD'S HANDS.


Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.

The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.

2/10


I saw this dull waste of time on HBO's Comedy Channel, so I quite innocently and obviously assumed that this was a comedy. But there is absolutely nothing funny here. A good cast is basically wasted on a script that I could have written with my left butt-cheek - after it had been beaten senseless by 15th-century Inquisition torturers. The first half is particularly bad, as it has some of the most dull, pointless dialogue I've come across in a while, and zero comma zero plot to speak of. Just the fact that stars such as Ewan McGregor and Zeta-Jones are in this little movie and yet this film has less than 1000 votes on this site, should tell you everything. A couple of nice shots of waves hitting the cold British coast, but that's about it.

This is the sort of movie that gets made just because the people who wrote it have good connections (family connections, preferably) and/or plenty of cash lying around.


This has to be the worst, and I mean worst biker movie ever made! And that's saying a lot because the line of stinkers is long and smelly!

Now at least we know what happened to Ginger after she was rescued from Gilligan's Island! A frightened looking Tina Louise(she was probably afraid someone would see this mess!)is a stranded motorist who is tormented by the most repulsive motorcycle gang in film history. But, don't worry fans! Batman, I mean Adam West as a hick-town doctor comes to the rescue! Pow! Crush! Boom! Holy Toledo Batman!

The only good points of this "bomb" are some cute women, some laughable fight scenes, and the still "sexy" Tina Louise!


How sad to see the beautiful and talented Tina Louise reduced to making this horrible excuse for a film. Tina still looked fit and attractive, but for some reason seems truly frightened. I can understand her fear; fearing that this 3rd rate stinker would somehow be released to the general public. Also, I'm a fan of the likable Adam West. Again, as with Tina, Adam looks good and in great shape for a man his age. His acting here is passable, but the script is so bad, that it's difficult to even listen to the dialog.

The movie is a rip-off of the classic Brando biker flick, The Wild Ones; out-law biker gang is out-of-control in a small hick-town. The bikers here look like a motley group and I sure wouldn't want them to date my sister. The acting is stiff and wooden, and the story-plot is as old as sand. Hellriders is hell to watch!


I was prepared to laugh throughout this movie like a Mystery Science Theater experiment, but it was just boring. It appears that the producers had many biker enthusiast friends, and from there casually decided to make a movie.

It is frequently unwatchable. Lots of footage of the bikers riding on a dirt road, with the same music played repeatedly. Unfortunately, Renee Harmon is barely in the movie. Harmon probably would have livened things up. Perhaps she had other commitments the day this was filmed.

Of course, the bikers terrorize a small town. Fights, murder, a cowardly cop, a goofy mechanic, etc. One of the bikers always wears a football helmet, a weak attempt to distinguish him from all the other outlaws.

The script has nothing to offer. One scene features a biker assaulting a woman, yelling in the lady's face "You're all the same! You're all the same!". We come back to the scene a minute later and he again declares "You're all the same!". Couldn't the writer think of something more creative to say??

At the end the good guys have killed the bad guys. We also learn that the wedding between middle-aged mechanic Joe and young Susie has been canceled. Susie is going away to college, and we abruptly learn that Joe's wedding is still on (but with a different bride). End.


This has got to be one of the worst movies ever made. Even for a biker movie, it's rock bottom. The minimal plot involves a gang of bikers taking over a small town (how original!) and the townspeople's attempts to fight them off. Why don't they call for outside help? Who knows? The fight scenes are obviously fake. Adam West and Tina Louise are in it but both have little to do and both look ashamed to be there (understandably) This movie belongs in the trash heap!


What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!


Just bought the VHS on this film for two bucks, Did I waste my money! Hey, I dig Adam "Batman" West and Tina "Giligan's Island" Louise, but hello! This third rate production is a rehash of a dozen other biker films; crazed bunch of bikers psychos ride into a hick town, beat up everybody and everything, and then are defeated in the man by a dashing hero. Adam West looks the part as a hero, but he's missing cape, and his Batman uniform. Sorry, just isn't the same. Tina L. looks really nervous and frightened the whole show, but at least we know what happened to "Ginger" once she was rescued from the island...LOL! The bikers are a motley group, and known of them ever acted again or at least shouldn't have. Hell Riders is Hell to Watch!


First of all, the reason I'm giving this film 2 stars instead of 1 is because at least Peter Falk gave his usual fantastic performance as Lieutenant Columbo. He alone can get 10 stars for trying to save this otherwise utterly worthless attempt at making a movie.

I was initially all fired up at reading one poster's comment that Andrew Stevens in this movie gave "the performance of his career." To me, it was the abysmal performance by Stevens that absolutely ruined this movie, and so I was all prepared to hurl all sorts of insults at the person who made the aforementioned comment. Then I thought to myself, what else has Stevens done? So I checked and, you know, that person was absolutely right. In the 17 years since this Columbo movie was made, apparently every one of the 33 projects that Stevens has been in since then has been utter crap, so it is doubtful that anybody has even seen the rest of his career.

If you like Columbo, see every other of the 69 titles before watching this one. Do yourself a favor and save the worst for last.


This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.


Aaron Spelling produced this made for television western that gets awfully plotty for a seventy three minute film. It plays like a probable failed series pilot.

Handsome Clint Walker is U.S. Marshal Dave Harmon, who wanders into Yuma, Arizona Territory in time to kill one of the brothers of the local bigwig rancher who is out on a trail drive.

Walker takes the other brother to jail. Walker also meets a "cute" homeless Mexican kid who sleeps at the jailhouse. One night, Andres is snoozing when a villain and another man dressed in Army blue take the remaining brother into the street and kill him, pinning the murder on Walker. Not good for your first twenty four hours on the job. Walker visits the local Army fort, and rankles the chains of the commander. The bigwig hears of his brothers' deaths, and rides back to town in time to get his chains rankled as well. The local native population, who get short changed by the Army on their beef, also get rankled in the chains area. With all these chains getting rankled, Walker still has time to woo the local hotel owner. The Army guy involved in the murder ends up dead, the local cattle buyer is implicated, the indians do a lot of hesitant speechifying, and the climax brings about an unlikely showdown as Walker must prove to the town that the villainous cattle buyer had a boss, someone we have suspected as being too helpful all along.

There is a semi-subplot involving the death of Walker's family at the hands of Army raiders, and I think this would have been the force behind the series, had it been picked up. Instead, the film ends abruptly, and I kept waiting for scenes from next week's exciting episode. Because of the fade outs for nonexistent commercial breaks, the pacing is all off on this and its story jumps in fits.

Walker is handsome, rugged, and has a voice deeper than a well. The rest of the cast is full of television actors you have probably seen in other television movies. Much of the action is pretty lame, and the violence is tepid. The first brother killed gets a shotgun blast midtorso, and falls without a scratch on him. I did not expect "Reservoir Dogs," but this is the wrong film to use to teach children about the evil of guns! Speaking of children, the Mexican kid here goes from "cute" to "aneurysm inducing annoyance" very quickly.

If you dislike westerns, then you will dislike "Yuma." If you like westerns, then you will still dislike "Yuma." I cannot recommend it.

This is unrated, but contains physical violence and gun violence.


Sunshine is a European import set in Hungary between 1880 and 1980, it's the epic story of Hungarian Jews, the Sonnenschein family. This name literally translates to Sunshine. The family has humble beginnings, then is prosperous, becomes upwardly mobile, changes it's name, and hopes to assimilate into Hungarian society so successive generations can advance professionally. The story is told through the eyes of the eldest son in each of three generations; Ralph Fiennes plays these three roles. For those who missed the WW-II and the Holocaust in Europe, the Sonnenschein' approach to life doesn't work out very well.

Sunshine is being acclaimed as an artistic success, but it is an opportunity missed. The story line, dominated by world history, is predictable and transparent; this is reinforced with voice cover narration and newsreel footage. The family 'plot' lurches from one predictable event [ie. the Hapsburgs, WW-I, WW-II, Fascism, Communism, etc.] to the next with little continuity, depth or detail. The Jewish assimilation theme is unfocused, and important sub-themes [the 'secret' diary and family philosophy] that could have given the family character and credibility are l ost until the very end. Alternatively, the filmmakers provide generation continuity using common themes of incest / infidelity.

Ralph Fiennes exhibits flashes of brilliance but his performance is far from award winning material. The "3 for 1" casting format is a viewer distraction and feels more like a cheap cinema gimmick than good theater. Sunshine is basically Hungarian "History Channel" material. It has the look and feel of Winds of War morphed with Forrest Gump morphed with Something About Sex.