By far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting.


Here's a review for people like me. This movie sucks from beginning to end. I threw popcorn at the screen and resorted to entertaining myself a la MSF2000. The plot hinges on chance happenings and relies on stupidity from people who are supposed to be smart. The lead falls for a con man and it doesn't occur to her that she might get conned????? And she's rich???? And she's a famous psychologist????? COME ON, people. She enters the bar at just the most convenient moment when everyone is assembled to talk about conning her??? That was so staged that it felt like slap in the face to even half-witted movie viewers. Rain man would have been insulted. I also admit that I despise Mamet dialogue with the kind of passion that some people have for meat-eaters, war-starters, and fur-wearers. My hatred is so complete that it defies logic. But I'll give it a shot. That it's not supposed to sound real is fine. I don't care. It's that everyone talks the SAME. Mamet can't create characters; all he can do is foist his voice on us relentlessly through different actors. No wonder his actors are so wooden. They're confused about everyone being the same character. (However, his later films do improve.)


This movie had potential, but what makes it really bad is Lindsay Crouse's acting. I've never seen her before in anything else and maybe there are some Crouse fans out there that like her in something else, but her performance in this movie is bad.

Her delivery is robotic. When she delivered her lines it appeared that she was trying to make sure she had the lines right and was simply reading off the list in her head. So, her voice has very little inflection. I can't believe someone that bad at acting was given a lead role in a movie. She has to know somebody in the biz.

Now I hate to be this mean about her, but the comment has to be "this" long and her performance is what sticks out more than anything else.

However, I liked where the story was going so I continued to watch it. The first part of the script has the makings of a good movie. But the end was disappointing as well. Maybe if her acting had been better, I would have liked it.


This is the first Guinea Pig film from Japan and this is the sickest, in my opinion. A bunch of guys torture a girl for several days before finally killing her. And at this point, I will say that these films are NOT real! They are faked horror films which try to be as realistic as possible.

The scenes are sickening but also unrealistic in many cases. For example, when they kick the girl in the floor, we can clearly see how they kick and stump the floor near the girl! And how stupid this looks! The sound effects are also unrealistic and don't make sense. Other scenes include animal intestines thrown on the girl, the girl exposed to loud noises for many hours, the ripping off of fingernails, worms placed on the wounds in the girl's body, the eye pierced and mutilated in horrific detail and stuff like that. Very sick and mean spirited film and has absolutely nothing valuable or cinematically significant. This first entry is the sickest and most amateurish Guinea Pig, although it is not as bloody as the next part, Flowers of Flesh and Blood, which tries to be as shocking as possible.

Guinea Pig: Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest thing I've seen and the closest thing to snuff there is. This is still (of course) faked s(n/t)uff, the only difference to genuine "snuff film" is that no one dies or hurts for real in this film. I cannot recommend this to anyone since thi s is so s****y and repulsive. They who consider this is a great horror film understand nothing about cinema and the real meaning of it. I watched this as a curiosity (as the other parts in the series) and now I know how insignificant trash these are. They work only in shock level and that's not too valuable cinematic achievement. Devil's Experiment is perhaps the sickest film I've seen and Mermaid in a Manhole (Guinea Pig 4) is perhaps the most disgusting film I've seen. So these are pretty extreme in my book, but that's all they are.


Ah, the infamous "Guinea Pig" series...I honestly have to say that I've been disappointed as a whole by this entire series ("He Never Dies","Mermaid in a Manhole", and "Flower of Flesh and Blood" being the exceptions...and even those aren't great by any means...), but "Devil's Experiment" just plain blows. There is nothing realistic-looking going on here, other than the climactic (or perhaps anti-climactic, depending on how you view it) eyeball piercing scene. The victim appears to not really care what is going on and barely whines or whimpers while being subjected to "hideous" (more often sometimes "hilarious") tortures. "Flower of Flesh and Blood" is a more violent and gory depiction of fake "snuff" material, but that film also falls flat on the realism level. I applaud the Japanese for pushing the boundaries, and they've really come a long way over the past 2 decades to wear the crown in "extreme" film-making, but "Devil's Experiment" just doesn't hold up. Worth a look if you are a die-hard, if for no other reason than to see what the fuss is about, but I can only give this film an extremely generous 3/10 and that's only for the needle-through-the-eye scene...


Devil's Experiment: 1/10: Hardcore porn films fall into two categories those with a semblance of plot (Gee that is one lucky pizza boy) and those without (Anal Amateurs 36). Devil's Experiment falls solidly into the latter category.

It is of course the horror version of hardcore porn. An almost completely plot less 43-minute wait for the money shot. Shot on video in 1985 it consists of three relatively non-descript Japanese boys torturing one fairly unattractive Japanese girl. The tortures range from the banal (slapping her 50 times, kicking her a hundred), the silly (tying her to an office chair and spinning her around), the fear factor (a bath of maggots and sheep guts) and finally the money shot. (A well executed eyeball piercing).

That's it, no plot, no motive, just Blair Witch tree shots and torture. The girl looks bored and with the exception of yelling, "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition" during the office chair scene I was bored silly. Staring dumbfounded at the screen, waiting for the money shot. Just like hardcore porn.


Not that I tinkle myself with glee at the sight of realistic blood shed, but when I put a DVD in expecting a bloodbath, and what I get is one bloody scene (the eyeball) at the tail end of asinine fake slapping, and spinning in a desk chair, I end up thinking "well that's 43 minutes of my life gone forever." I wouldn't considers this or Flower of Flesh and Blood "movies" so much as an exercise of will; to see if you can sit through them. Flower of Flesh and Blood had a few tough spots to watch. The Devil's Experiment did not. It was at best, stupid, and at worst...well...really stupid. Perhaps my expectation were too high. I put the DVD thinking "oh man, this is gonna be sick." After watching them fake slap the girl about a thousand times, I was watching it in fast forward.

Two kinds of people would be interested in this film. 1) People who seek out F'd up films just to see how F'd up it really is, or 2) horror completest. I sought this and the other Guinea Pig films for the latter reason, but even if I fell into the category of the former, this film wouldn't float my boat. As a matter of fact, I could imagine this film increasing one's blood lust...as in "WOULD YOU JUST KILL THE B*TCH ALREADY!!" So in conclusion, the only reason to own this film is for collection purposes. If you want carnage that traditional horror doesn't provide, get Traces of Death. Sure, that sucks too, but at least you'll get the blood and guts you expect.

The only reason I can see for anyone praising this crap is because they feel they're supposed to. No artistic merit that I can comprehend, no reason for it's notoriety, no nothing. Just a lame attempt to be shocking.


I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.

This film is invariably included in any list of the "nastiest" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.

If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true ("I found this tape..."), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.

Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.

And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm "hard"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.

The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.

Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.

It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.

I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the "it's just a film" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.

I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb.


I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.

This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.

I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.

"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.


Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.

It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.

The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.

Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.

4/10


C'mon people, you can't be serious, another case of advertising snuff when it totally isn't! This isn't even remotely scary nor is it terrifying or depraved - it is just utterly terrible amateurish videowork, made for the next party to get the girls laid.

The gore is incredibly bad, even the eye-scene is far from making me want to puke but just making me want to take the camera and hit those guys over the head. The girl is just laying there rubber-faced, not moving at all. It would have been funnier to use a real doll instead.

One season of "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!" is more frightening than this one. Don't waste your time or your money.


this movie has no plot, no character development, and no budget. it really sucks to put it in short terms. Since there is no development for the movie, it really can't even be looked as trying to be artistic or trying to make a statement against torture. Which leaves two other reasons to possibly watch it. To be shocked or to get off on it like a sick little freak. Well it falls short here too. The girl's reactions just seem dumb. it's extremely easy to tell that it's fake (honestly professional wrestling looks more realistic than the crap they try to get by with in this movie. They throw innards on her, but she's asleep for most of it, so it's just kinda dumb. The only really kind of worthwhile part is the end when they quickly cut from scene to scene just before the needle goes into her eye. But honestly the girl is extremely ugly and everything is incredibly fake, with the exception of the eye. if you want a good movie about torture, go watch Hostel and Hostel 2. Not only do they both contain realistic violence, but there is also an actual storyline that draws you in and makes you care about the people. Plus the tow movies really work on a deeper level considering themes like American fears of foreigners, issues of morality, testing how far a person can go, human instincts vs. civilization, and many other things. Plus they are carefully written and contain some good humor when the story isn't focused on the violence. These are much better choices over this piece of crap


This movie seems to have a lot of people saying it is one of the most brutal of all time. After having just viewed it, I can say it does not live up to those claims.

The idea of the movie is indeed demented. But overall, the execution wasn't at all cringe worthy. Even the final scene (the eyeball thing) isn't really that nasty. I was expecting something insane, instead it was of lower quality than gore put forth on films like the ultra low budget Violent Sh!t.

Any one wanting to see an actual movie will be disappointed, since there is no story whatsoever (though surely most people know this). Gore fans will be disappointed since, contrary to belief, the blood and guts here are few and far between. Not to mention the actress playing the victim might be one of the worst in history.

Regardless of what people say, this movie isn't that shocking, it just plain all out sucks. Avoid it.


I just finished watching guinea pig - Devils experiment. I have to say that this movie, although having very good FX, better then I expected, was NOT a good movie. I honestly cant say that I enjoyed this movie at all. Of course It is effective in its way of being a shocking, realistic, twisted 43 minutes of torture, but I found it to be very boring (and not as gory as i hoped). And also I found that the torturers were very annoying, when they talked and loughed trying to sound tough all the time, that ruined it even more (and Im sure there's some people out there who will agree with me on that one). I have now seen guinea pig 1,2,3,5 and the best one out of those in my opinion is guinea pig 2 - Flowers of the flesh and blood. I wont say much more about Devils experiment, other than Great fx, descent acting from the girl, annoying fu**ing torturers, overall I give it 4 stars on account of the FX cos they are awesome.


A found tape about 3? guys having fun torturing a woman in several inhuman ways.

Yeah, spoiler.

First of all, the acting made this short not scary at all, the woman seemed to have orgasms, not suffering. Some of the punishments were so ridiculous! what's shocking about throwing some meat or spin her in a chair? If you are shooting a nonsense tape, at least make it good. The only part to remark is the end: the hammered hand and the pierced eye, the rest of the film is really poor. To end the boredom, the supposed story about the tape being investigated, extra bullshit.


I've seen other Guinea Pig films, like Mermaid in a Manhole & He Never Dies, and while they're pretty sick, they at least have a bit of a sense of humor to them (however dark). Devil's Experiment though, is nothing more than filming a bunch of punks submitting a young girl to many methods of torture and violence and there's no plot and no redeeming values to it whatsoever. It isn't remotely scary, except for perhaps the mind-set, but it's definitely disgusting and I certainly would not call it entertainment. Now, I'm not the paragon of good taste in films and I like my trash and sleaze, but this was too much for me, really. I'm all for disturbing, in fact, I seek out things that are disturbing whenever possible, but this was a bit much. The young woman is kicked, beaten, submitted to continuous noise via headphones until she drools, and then pelted with raw meat and innards and left hanging in a hammock out in the woods somewhere. If you think that sounds great, go for it, but it certainly put me off viewing any more Guinea Pig stuff. 1 out of 10, absolutely nauseating.


This is an installment in the notorious Guinea Pig series. A short lived japanese TV-show, that got cancelled after a psychopath admitted to being inspired in the killing of a young schoolgirl by the show. This short in the series is, like all the other films in the series, practically without any story. A group of guys have captured a young woman. They tie her down and proceeds to torturing her to death while videofilming her. They beat her, pour boiling oil over her, use pliers on her and finally, in "loving" closeup, push a needle through her eye. This is the most straightforward of all the Guinea Pig movies, and one of the first. It was probably this film, more than any of the others, that gave Guinea Pig the rumour of being snuff. They certainly gave inspiration to Nicolas Cage's movie "8 mm.". These movies have gotten quite popular in horror circles. They have progressed to more polished, but equally graphic movies like "Naked Blood". They probably fill the void left by the Mondo movies, that got slightly cleaned up and became reality TV. Not recommended, but will probably allure those who will see anything once, and wonder why afterwards, I know I did.


We have reached the ceiling of implausibility with this movie. Basically, Dinosaurs come aboard this ship piloted by some weird old fart named Neweyes(which I needed after I watched this movie). Apparently, Neweyes hears the wishes of children everywhere and decides that he should grant the wish of children that Dinosaurs be brought into modern times to be seen by everybody for shameless exploitation. The dinosaurs eat this stuff that makes them smarter(Too bad the screenwriters didn't have it). By the way, does it seem weird that out of ALL the wishes of the children in the world, Neweyes grants the wish of bringing Dinosaurs to modern times? Why not grant the wishes of kids to stop famine? Disease? War? I mean come on! Doesn't Neweyes have anything better to do with all this power he has??? Finally, when the Dinosaurs get to modern times they start singing, dancing and wrecking havoc(basically the kind of thing you might see on a bad LSD trip, I mean where else could you see a T-Rex playing golf and jumping on a balloon of Spider-man?). They end up in the circus and Neweyes Brother Screweyes(???) makes the kids that have befriended the dinosaurs sign a blank contract. Why? Why would kids sign a blank contract??? Screweyes says that if the dinosaurs take some..."Brain-Drain" That he will let the children go. The dinosaurs instead of tearing apart the evil Screweyes limb from limb, give in and agree to his terms. What?! This is stupid! They could have just menaced him, made him drop the contract, eaten it then walked off with the kids. I think the filmmakers were trying to show that violence is bad, which is a moot point when finally the dinosaurs escape and a bunch of crows envelop Screweyes and apparently completely eat him. Oh yeah, that's not violent at all! We're back makes no sense, it's not fun, it's goofy, it's stupid, poorly written and contains some of the biggest plot holes ever committed to film. Even for a kid's film... this is BAD.


Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time.


When I was a kid, I remember watching this while visiting a friend of our "Uncle" Phil. We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story is a silly cartoon about a dinosaur called Rex (voiced by the wonderful John Goodman). He tells a little boy dinosaur the story about how the dinosaurs came back to Earth to live. He explains that he was part of the thing that brought them back, along with some friends. The Doctor/Professor villain of this film I think might have been responsible for them being them back, but I don't care about him. The kids might like this, but personally it is just too cheesy. John Goodman was probably the only decent thing. Poor!


LOL! Not a bad way to start it. I thought this was original, but then I discovered it was a clone of the 1976 remake of KING KONG. I never saw KING KONG until I was 15. I saw this film when I was 9. The film's funky disco music will get stuck in your head! Not to mention the film's theme song by the Yetians. This is the worst creature effects I've ever seen. At the same time this film remains a holy grail of B-movies. Memorable quotes: "Take a tranquilizer and go to bed." "Put the Yeti in your tank and you have Yeti power." I remember seeing this film on MOVIE MACRABE hosted by Elvira. There is one scene where it was like KING KONG in reverse! In KING KONG he grabs the girl and climbs up the building, but in this film he climbs down the building and grabs the girl (who was falling)! Also around that year was another KONG clone MIGHTY PEKING MAN (1977) which came from Hong Kong. There is a lot of traveling matte scenes and motorized body parts. This film will leave you laughing. It is like I said, just another KING KONG clone. Rated PG for violence, language, thematic elements, and some scary scenes.


I was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.

A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.

When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.

Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's "The Shop on Main Street" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.

The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.

We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.

Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation.


I watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.

Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?

Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off.


I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence.


Somebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for "Casablanca", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of "Casablanca" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote "Casablanca." No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as "Howard W. Koch" put into this production, which is to say only a little.

You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's "King Lear" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.

There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.

In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself.


I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so


A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.

"Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.

There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.

She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.

If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director.


Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.

Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.

Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.

I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.

Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.

Grade: * out of *****


The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.

The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.

I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.


First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust


Well, I can honestly say that this is the first time that I experienced a film that had literally no meat or potatoes in it. The entire film felt like it was just the salad with no main course. The story line was fallible and laughable, the characters were one-dimensional, the realism was out the window, and the animation was done by four-year olds. Does that cover it? I have never been more embarrassed for a concept in my entire life. I have never read the comics or seen the other programs with this character, but from the looks of the other reviews I am not off base with my observation.

To begin, the story moved too quickly. For someone new to this character and situations, I needed more built into creating the reasons instead of finding the solution. I have seen other Anime (if you could call this one an Anime) that do great things with their characters because they take the time to develop them. There was nothing set aside for Lady Death. In a few short scenes, we see her train with Cremator and instantly become this aggressive she-beast of Hell. This was hard for me to swallow, considering moments before she was introduced as this weak and feeble woman controlled by her father. Suddenly, she is immersed with hatred and can do battle with an existence that has been around for millions of years. This was absurd. The presentation of Lady Death was poor, to say the least. I felt as if she was nothing more than an animated character instead of a desperate woman with revenge on the mind. For me, it just didn't work. She was nothing more than eye-candy for prepubescent boys wanting to ogle the mass quantities of skin that she suddenly grew on her chest when training with Cremator. Oh, I felt sick just watching her. The same goes for the character of Cremator. Who was this random person? The explanation they gave wasn't enough, and instead I was left with more incoherent babbling than actual development. It is a very sad day in Hell when we forgo characters to show more violence and action, especially in an animated feature.

Next, there was Lucifer himself. Let me just say that I think I could do battle with the King of Hell and survive. He was weak, his voice was laughable, and he just didn't represent the image that I had in my mind. It was as if Disney was in control and wanted to make him semi-PC. He lacked the darkness and corrupt nature that Lucifer embodies. He was not the ruler of Hell, but instead just a lackey that had a bigger place to live. Speaking of living or dying, how can you die again in Hell? That was a concept that definitely needed more explanation. Most of the characters were worrying about dying, when they didn't even consider the option that they were already dead. That is how they got to Hell. I think it was this level of thinking that ruined the film for me. I didn't quite capture the notion that your soul was still in a solid body in Hell, but that could just be me  or maybe it was because there was NO DEVELOPMENT in this story. There was nothing built, just preparing.

The battle sequences were hysterically bad. The animation in this cartoon felt like it was made in the early 90s. There was nothing impressive about the way that this film was drawn. Why are we, America, so behind on animation? It is huge in Asia, and it is creeping in hardcore here because we keep making films like Lady Death that do not challenge or use any part of imagination. We are cheap, and this film shows it.

Overall, this film was bad. The animation coupled with the horrendous voice work was cheap. I had head somewhere that this film as in production for a long time, which is hard to understand because I think I could have made this film on my credit card. The production was horrendous as well as the story. Nothing was developed, leaving huge gaping plot holes that nearly everyone fell into. The strength of the characters was missing, and nothing was explained. I wasted my time with this one and would like to warn others so that when Death does come, you don't find yourself in my state and regretting the fact that you wasted 80 minutes on this piece of garbage.

BLAH!

Grade: * out of *****


I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined.

The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.

With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.


And it falls squarely into the category of "awesomely bad" - ie a movie drunk students would rent to get a kick out of. I was at the sci fi movie festival and all I remember is a wave after wave of hysterical laughter as this movie premiered. Other critiques will better describe this movie's fecal nature, and I felt oh-so-bad at the poor guy from the production company who had turned up, obviously to gauge the audience's reaction. What he got was the sci fi equivalent of a drunken student audience, and after a "serious" anime movie, I think it was "sky blue", the audience was in a sombre mood, and then this movie opened and within seconds everyone in the room was rolling in the isles. I will bullet point the worst parts;

Script: The funniest, and worst part of this movie, it clunks along a linear and predictable road with the occasional ill-thought-out aside. Rubbish, but eminently laughable.

Animation: Poorly done, and put together, if you can put up with drab backgrounds and gradually skimpier costumes for the heroine (I know I can!), then watch out for the montage where she "trasforms" from a Swedish peasant girl into LADY DEATH!!!

Characters: So one-dimensional its painful, there is a brief backstory (with side-splitting lines of dialogue) and little light is shone on the actual motivation behind some of the main characters.

So, in a nutshell, if you've got a captive audience and a few beverages lying around (try and make sure they're alcoholic to ease the pain), then slip this movie into the DVD and get in a "mystery science theatre 3000" mindset. There is no other motivation to watch this movie other than to laugh at it, and its not meant to be a comedy. DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE ALONE. It could possible be even more boring to watch solo than "New World" with Colin Farrell as you won't be able to have a laugh at the ridiculousness with a friend or two.


There's really no way to beat around the bush in saying this, Lady Death: The Motion Picture just plain sucks. Aside from the fact that the main character is a well endowed blonde running around Hell in a leather bikini with occasional spurts of graphic violence, the movie seems to have been made with the mentality of a 1980's cartoon based on a line of action figures. The bad guy himself even talks like a Skeletor wannabe, has the obligatory inept henchman, and lives in a lair that looks to have been patterned after the domain of the villain from the old Saturday morning Blackstar cartoon. Just don't expect any humor other than the sometimes howlingly bad dialogue. At other times it feels like the kind of anime tale better suited to hentai, yet there is no sex, no tentacle rape (Thank goodness!) and very little sex appeal, this despite the physical appearance of the title character. There is simply no adult edge to this material, unless you count the half-naked heroine and bloody deaths. Essentially, what we have here is a feature length episode of She-Ra, Princess of Power, but with skimpier clothes and more gore.


I also saw this amazingly bad piece of "anime" at the London Sci-Fi Festival. If you HAVE to watch this thing, do so with a large audience preferably after a few beers, you may then glean some enjoyment from it.

I found the dialogue hilarious, lodged in my mind is the introduction of Cremator. The animation is awful. It is badly designed and badly executed. It may have been a good idea for the producers to have hired at least one person who was not colour blind.

There's nothing else to say really, this film is a failure on every level.


This movie was a great disappointment for me. I had been waiting for this movie to come out for years, and I was a faithful follower of Chaos Comics until they went bankrupt. Not only did they cut out half the story line, but they altered information. The statement that Lucifer is Hope's Father is untrue. He did corrupt her father, but he himself is not her father. The voices also did not suit the characters, and once you hear the voice of a beloved character, the voice you heard in your mind can never be returned. I can not even remember everything about this film that was wrong. The bottom line is if you love Lady Death do not watch this movie. It just did not do the comic justice at all!!


Oh my GOD this was so bad! The story was weak - at best - and the animation was flat and lifeless - even childish. This film takes itself far too seriously...unless of course they meant to be funny. I saw this last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival and the entire audience was laughing at every scene. I think my favourite was 'shouldn't you be studying medicine at Oopsalof'! And I also think they were trying to see how many times they could cram in the character Nicalo's only line 'we will be together...it is our destiny.' I'm sorry but after the first time, the words lost all meaning.

And what was with the apple?

I recommend this as a lesson to Americans: You cannot animate, so please don't try. You only embarrass yourselves.


I was excited to hear that Cesar Montano had decided to make a movie in the Cebuano language. (Not 'dialect' as most Filipinos will incorrectly refer to it as. As Cebuano and Tagalog are as mutually unintelligible as French and Spanish are to each other.) But I was greatly disappointed when i saw this movie. Being a Canadian, of Cebuano parents, I was optimistic about the revival of the Visayan film industry when I heard about this film. I was further excited to hear that it wasn't another stupid action movie or melodrama as Filipinos love these types of movies. But alas, I was short-changed.

Panaghoy serves as an ego trip for Cesar Montano. Montano of course plays the hero of the movie. And when I say 'hero' I mean in the most stereotypical of manners; his function is to win the heart of a girl and lead the Bol-anons to victory against the Japanese. His character has no depth or complexity. He just fits the hero mold. The rest of the characters are one dimensional; they all fit their cookie cutter roles.

I'm all for slow-moving/meditative movies but this movie was just slow moving. It didn't really meditate on anything. Just because a movie is historically-themed, a drama and slow-moving doesn't make it a well-made film.

Particularly annoying is the American actor Philip Anthony. His performance was embarrassing.

If Montano wanted to revive the Visayan film industry he should have really thought this through. He said he wanted to make Visayan movies that could compete at Cannes and Toronto etc. but really, this movie would have been booed and hissed at at such festivals. To get Visayan films into the mainstream consciousness he should have at least made a movie that would have attracted audiences, even if it meant sacrificing quality. Obviously he didn't think about or get information on what kind of movies garner awards at Cannes so an audience-attracting movie would have been at least a foot in the door.

I'm afraid now that Visayan movies will not be made for a long time again because of this movie. If ever I said to a Filipino that I want to see more Visayan movies of course I'd get an answer like, "Visayans don't make good movies. Didn't you see Panaghoy Sa Suba?" Of course this is ludicrous as it is one example of a Visayan movie and probably the only example that anyone nowadays would be likely to see.

An example of movies that are meditative, not just slow moving, are the Tagalog film Blackout or David Lynch's The Straight Story. I hate to promote the Tagalog language as it is endlessly and unfairly promoted and shoved down the throats of non-Tagalog Filipinos but for the sake of calling a spade a spade I say that Blackout is a VERY good movie. These movies rely heavily on what Hitchcock called 'pure cinema'. Images without words are used to convey the story. But I bend the definition a bit for the sake of these two movies in that these movies use images without words to convey the mood of the movie. and they do it very well. Panaghoy thinks that if they simply take sweeping shots of the landscape then they have established the mood.

And what's with so many Filipino movies featuring a dying mother or grandmother???


I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing "Final Justice" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.

First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words "Venantino Venantini"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.

Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)

Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of "Son of a--" and the "deja vu" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.

One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because "they see that uniform, they won't cooperate." However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...

One final observation on the original, uncut version of "Final Justice": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen?


While not as bad as it has been made to be (I have seen MUCH worse), this is still a very lame movie. Basically a rehash of Siegel's "Coogan's Bluff", with the main difference being that Clint Eastwood's hat has more charisma than the whole of Joe Don Baker, an unappealing actor if there was one.

However, Venantino Venantini is great (and great fun) as the bad guy, sort of a budget Vittorio Gassman. He is the main reason to sit through this steampile, as the rest of the cast deliver mostly terrible acting, specially the girl. Poor old Rossano Brazzi, hard to believe he was once a romantic lead (watch "Mondo Cane" to see him running away from women). Looking here like a second-tier Ben Gazzara, he's given next to nothing to do. It's all Joe Don's show, unfortunately. And all of it scored to generic 80's "action movie" music that couldn't be more boring.

Greydon Clark can make good B-Movies ("Without Warning"), but here he trips, falls, breaks his nose and loses three teeth. Well, at least the Malta locations were nice, and there's Venantini to try to save the day. 3/10.


Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies).

Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.

At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.

Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.

It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!


If you ever hear these three words uttered to you..."Joe Don Baker", be afraid...

Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!

The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.

It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), "Mitchell" MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that!


Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever.


Joe Don Baker is...Thomas Jefferson Geronimo, a pudgy, sweaty murderous oaf in a stupid cowboy suit that Roy Rogers would have laughed at. Somehow he still has a badge, probably because he lives in Texas and they'll let ANYTHING be law enforcement there.

This greasy loser is a deputy sheriff near the Texas border. Not surprisingly, he was once a Texas Ranger but got kicked out because he seemed to think that the law was his own personal bouncing ball to be played with at his discretion. This includes shooting suspects who are over the international border into Mexico, beating up on suspects, cheating in gun fights, threatening women, starting gunfights that could have been avoided AND managing to get the life of a child threatened in the process, letting women he promised he would help and protect get killed just so that he could get out of jail, etc, etc. This guy makes L.A. cops look like saints in comparison.

When his partner is killed by a pair of wandering Italian assassins, Joe Don's character hunts them down and kills one of them. Then he takes the other to Italy at the behest of a Mr. Wilson, who rightly thinks that Joe Don will screw up big time. In record time, he loses the Italian and gets a Maltese cabby blown up in the process. This is just the first of the many deaths and major destruction that Joe Don leaves in a trail behind him as he rampages across Malta looking for Palermo(the Italian assassin).

Thus begins the mobius strip part of the movie, in which our hero gets arrested, lectured by the Maltese chief of police, goes out and causes more trouble, gets arrested, gets lectured by the chief of police...and so on, and so on. Until you want to blow your brains out with Joe Don's ivory handled pistol and be done with the horror.

Joe Don proves his uselessness not just in the first time Palermo escapes, but in the subsequent boat chase in which he goes down in just one punch. Then he gets taken by Palermo after he threatens a woman with a coat hanger. You hope that Palermo will actually get to torture him in the basement cell he's put in, but no-the stripper he threatened came and got him out, because he promised to protect her. Her throat promptly gets cut(big surprise) and Joe Don escapes into the night.

And here you hope he might have been drowned in the (yet another) boat chase. But even the ocean doesn't want him, and spits him up on a shore where he's nursed by a poor Maltese family(what did they ever do to deserve that?) he returns to the city, where he's arrested by the police, lectured by the police chief...arrrgghhh! The female police officer who's been escorting him around frees him so that they can go get Palermo. Why she would do anything so brain dead as to destroy her career for this great slob is beyond me. It's just head scratchily puzzling.

They go out to the villa where Palermo is hiding, and start a shoot out. Joe Don blithely cheats, and kills Palermo. He then utters the great and dazzling last line of the movie: "The big one has my badge. Can you go get it for me?" Thank you for that immortal line, Mr. Baker. That will go down in the annals of movie history as the most literate, amazing, wondrous last line ever uttered by a character in a film. It certainly falls into line with everything else about the character. Bravo.


Geez! This is one of those movies that you think you previously reviewed but you didn't. I mean, you didn't give a crap about it but somehow it came to your mind.

To be honest and brief; this is one of the worst, boring, and stupid slashers ever made. I can't say anything good about this piece of crap because there are barely decent sequences that could tell it's made by professional film makers.

The death scenes are horrible, bloodless, stupid. The plot is somehow good taking in account that it copied "Popcorn" from 1991.

To make things even worse, this isn't a movie so bad that it's good. It's just plain bad.

Molly Ringwald tried to do her best but it wasn't enough.


Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.

The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.

Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.

However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.

2/5


It seems like more consideration has gone into the IMDb reviews of this film than went into the source.

Here's a review without pretensions:

Just when you think nothing is going to happen, it doesn't.

Dress it up any way you like, this is a dull film, full of unengaging characters doing very little of interest.

One to put on if you want to convince an impressionable emo chick that you're like, so deep, man.

Not something to watch for your own pleasure though.

Unless.

You're.

Pretentious.


I opted to see the film at the recent Dubai Film Festival because it had been selected to the Cannes film festival's prestigious Competition section. I was surprised that Cannes could be so off the mark in judging quality.

The film, some reviewers, have noted does not have too much of gunfire--but the inherent violence is repulsive. Imagine killing your enemy/competitor in front of your young son..or forcing someone to eat a porcelain spoon to prove loyalty. There are some hints of the contrasting Corleone sons in Copolla's "Godfather" that seem to resurface here in this Chinese/Hong Kong film but the quality of the two are as distinctly different as chalk and cheese.

This film is only recommended for violence junkies..there is no great cinema here. At best it might be considered to be better than the usual Run Run Shaw production for production values.


Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable


Someone here actually compared this movie in some ways to High Noon. Now that is a real stretch! I'm a big Sinatra fan including some of his acting roles but maybe the only person who could have played this part would have been Don Knotts. First off, as someone pointed out, Sinatra just doesn't have the build for a Western bad-guy wannabe. He's just too 'slight' at this point in his life. Maybe he was about the same height as say Audie Murphy, but Murphy had a pretty solid build. Sinatra comes across as the big talking little kid who nobody ought to take seriously.

The story is uninspired and really not credible. I don't want to spoil it but I think the ending and how the townspeople react in this story doesn't make any sense. Another thing, these people constantly allow themselves to be completely lorded over by some 'bad guy'. This is just a little town, so I don't get the attraction nor do I understand why the people would let themselves be dominated that way.

There is a 'love interest' in the story and if I followed it right, she was upset when the main character refused to admit who he was so some other bad guy wouldn't kill him. Now there's true love for you. 'Stand up for yourself! Tell him your name so he will kill you!' LOL. Stop, you're killing me.

Unfortunately the basic premise of the movie isn't good enough and no matter how they tried this story didn't have a logical path to follow other than into the wastebasket. Want to know why it's not on video and never shown on TV? The critics apparently panned it in 1956 and they were right - this movie is pretty bad. I would almost bet Sinatra paid someone to deep six the thing as much as possible.

You want to see a good Western where a town stands up against a bad guy? Try Tension at Table Rock, or At Gunpoint - two really, really good Westerns with that theme. Johnny Concho is Johnny Stinko. Frank, you were the greatest singer ever - but you didn't belong in a movie like this.


Mercifully, there's no video of this wannabe western that a stay-afloat vehicle for Big Frank at a time when his career was floundering. The story of a weasel who lives on the reputation of his big gun brother and who gets run out of town by bad guys only to return to rally his townfolks with a new found courage must have been written by a back-room writer. All in all, this show stinks. The story is basically boring, ill-conceived and so naive that it can offend your intelligence. I must depart complete from the other reviewer who found it "...underrated..." The critics slammed it at the time and deservedly so. You'll have to catch it on the last show, if you up late and having a bout of insomnia. But, if you can sit through it, you've more fortitude than most of my movie buff friends.


I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.


This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back.


This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!


When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.

Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch "Haunted Boat" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.

Title (Brazil): "Viagem Para a Morte" ("Trip to the Death")


This is by far the worst movie I've ever seen. From the plot, though the shots, the "special effects", the acting, and did I mentioned the plot? Every single thing in it sucked ass!

This is a good example of what "over-doing" means and I'll try to explain:

I understand what the creator of this movie was trying to do; this was supposed to be one of those movies you can't really tell what the hell is going on up until the end. You sit mesmerized, not knowing who's dead and who's alive and who killed who and why and just when you think you got the timeline right you find out you're wrong and the movie ends - leaving you with an opened mouth for the next 5 minutes! Something like "Unbreakable" or "The Job" if you know what I mean.

But Olga Levens, the writer of this junk, yes, Olga  The writer, Director, Producer, Screenplay author, Caster, Production designer, Art Director, Costume Designer and also a double for one of the characters is some scenes... this is basically a one woman movie and when it comes to Olga Levens from "Levens Productions" you can't go wrong :-)

Well this might come as a shocker but "this time" Olga over did this big time, jumping from scene to scene, from dreams to reality... but wait! this was all a dream after all... or was it??? The picture fades and I realized none of this ever happened, the girl was all alone on the ship... actually there was no ship... no wait! There's the ship again, and the guys! They're alive! Thank god! No they're calling her to join the cruise... but then the ship disappears so maybe they're dead after all??? or maybe they never were alive to begin with???

If you understood what I just said you might like this movie - otherwise it's a boring piece of work and the only reason I set through this entire crap is to find out how the hell can they finish this movie...

Don't watch this if you value time, ever 90 minutes are a waste in this case...


I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.


I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.

As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.

I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.

I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.

* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them)


What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.

The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.

The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.


do not ever watch this film...it is the biggest pile of sh*te i have ever come across in my whole life. and thats saying something. the acting, storyline and filming were absolutely dire this is THE WORST FILM IN THE WORLD!!! seriously doesn't it even give you a hit seeing as it cost my 99p from sainsburys and it was only made in 2005? hahaha this film is like a cheap college movie you can even see the camera in the corner of the screen....although if u really wanna watch it you gotta watch the "scary shark scene"...possibly the best piece of acting i have seen in my life...ha ha. i mean seriously this is the biggest waste of 2 1/2 hours EVER!!


*****probably minor spoilers******

I cant say i liked it, but i cant say i didn't...its very strange. It has bad things in it like for example a shark that came out of nowhere with the worst CGI you can imagine,if i was the director i would cut that part for sure, gave me the urge to stop seeing the rest of the movie... For some people it will be boring cause it lacks action, feels home made sometimes... Take for example a scene that one of the friends died and next thing they are doing is what? nop,not crying...their telling horror stories to each other..*sighs*(just after crying for hes lost)

Another stupid thing was when they were talking inside the boat they had like "hundreds" of candles in the table in front of them...the boat is surrounded by some kind of rag curtains(old rags covering the windows) and sofas/Couches ...i thought it was dumb, using candles but not thinking about the surroundings, besides being in high sea alone...

The good, some scary scenes they are nicely done i liked some. Sometimes horror works better when its hidden when its behind something instead of showing of, so this movie does it good, maybe because its a low budget i don't know, but it works fine for me! You will feel tension if you forget some holes like the ones i mentioned above.

Do not expect much of it! but if you like anykind of movie watch this one, be patient, try to enjoy.. lol

(sorry about my raw English) =)

Cheers


Haunted Boat sells itself as 'The Fog' meets 'Open Water'. In many ways this is accurate. There are scares and weird looking people to keep you interested.

However the acting ability is poor at best. Showing clear signs that this is merely a bunch of friends making a horror film. Which in all credit they do to the best of their ability. When you accept the low budget makes it very difficult for special effects, with the ghosts looking pretty much like men with rubber masks on.

Many aspects of the film are creepy and strange. But it suffers for using too many twists and turns in a short space of time which just leaves you bored and confused. In terms of keeping you awake the film does it very well. Ignoring the irrelevant twisting every 5 seconds near the end, you actually want to know what is going on. And are willing to wait the 1hr 35 minutes for the climax.

This is no Ghost Ship but it'll definitely do for an evening in front of the T.V.


I saw this film yesterday. I must admit, it weren't my cup of tea. Although it's supposed to be a horror movie of its kind. But as I was watching this, I was thinking.. 'This movie isn't making any sense at all..' Where on earth did this guy in the dark coat came from? Where were the two guys were going when they left the girls behind? Where on earth did a shark came out from?

All these elements in this film somehow didn't add up. I felt as if these filmmakers wasted so much time and money on a film that was so bound to be so crap.

I've seen many good horror movies in my time, but this is one of the most worst horror flicks I've seen. At the end of the movie, I said to myself that I wouldn't watch it again.. So much pappy show in this film, I've decided to give it the thumbs down! Count me out on this one! 0 out of 10!


A girl is showering unknowing that a serial rapist is staring at her through the skylight. Detectives Martin Manners and Orville Stone is hot on his trail, but not hot enough as they find him after he kills, rapes, and eats a nipple of the girl.He's the shot to death. One would hope that this would be the end of the film. Not because it's too horrifying, but because the level of acting is atrociously horrid. Sadly it's not the end and months later the rapist is resurrected as a zombie by a coven of satanists. So he continues where he left off, with the detectives on the case again, this time a flying baby is after him too (don't ask). There has been VERY good VERY low-budget movies (Street Trash and Filthy McNasty spring to mind), but this one is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Horrible acting, crappy dime store special effects, lame attempt at comedy and oh yeah, and the ending sucks too.

My Grade: F

Eye Candy: Theresa Bestul gets fully nude; Anne R. Key gets topless


I ordered this extremely rare and highly overrated movie on ebay with very high expectations. I think I paid about 50$ for this movie. As an eternal fan of horror, from cheesy 80s American slashers to European zombie films, I told myself this was going to be great! I can't tell you how wrong I was. First of all, I thought it was gonna be pretty much gorier than it actually is. After all I've had heard about this film, I was almost scared to watch it. The murders are boring. The acting... forget it, there's no acting! The story, even if we don't care, is incredibly bad. It seems they tried to get your attention with some weird sexual scenes and naked girls, but unfortunately in this case it doesn't help the movie. Why? There's no atmosphere, and this is the worst thing about this flick. It's just bad film-making from point A to B. Though it's extremely funny and amusing to watch with your friends and a lot of beers, don't make any effort to get your hands on it. There are so many movies in this world, don't waste your time watching Necro Files!


I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.

After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.

The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.

I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD.

Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost!


It is such a strange movie, you can call it awful or if you sit with friends it can give you a killer laugh-athon. Strange comes to mind again and again. Shot amateurishly, acted even worse and the directions, maybe none. The special effects are funny but the music accompanying a flying demon baby will surely be the biggest hit. See it if you got time to kill. But don't, don't even try to take it seriously. Supposed to be a tribute to 'Porno holocaust ',. Since I haven't seen it, from the tribute I can assume it to be as bad. Should have given it 1/10, but it did give me a good laugh or two, so it gets a 3. Excessive gore, the only thing somebody worked on. Stay away if you are squeamish, more gore than laughs. Wonder if the makers had a laugh making it?


A killer, cannibal rapist is killed by a crazed cop on the scene of his latest murder. At his grave a cult have gathered with plans to resurrect him by peeing onto the grave. This of course works and he awakes ripping the guys penis off and he is back into his old killing ways with an all new zombie look. The two cops one of who is going a little crazy about the scum of the city and has a drug problem, are back on the case. Two of the original cult member also tries to stop the killer by resurrecting some other kind of dead thing. Thinking they have filed they leave but out from the grave comes a plastic baby doll that was used in the original resurrection. Sounds a bit confusing really but no its just rubbish.

The acting is terrible and one of the cops is the same guy that plays Dr Vincent van Gore in the faces of gore series and he is just as terrible as the annoying cop in this film. The other cop just about struggles to get his terrible lines out. Now I'm all for low budget cinema but this film is just terrible. If it wasn't for the very easy on the eye ladies and their nakedness I would probably have fallen asleep. There is a bit of gore but it's never more than some animal guts placed on the stomach of the victims. The zombie makeup on the other hand looks great and his foot long penis that he uses to rape his victims with is kind of funny at times. There is also a half decent scene where the killer falls in love with a sex doll. The doll with the chipmunks voice is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in a film. It is just a plastic toy on a fishing line.

The ending is extremely bad. You would expect the killer to put up much more of a fight than he does. God knows how they made enough money to make a sequel.

4/10


This is not as funny and gory as the DVD box claims. I really love twisted and wierd movies, but this one is really just dull! It's one hour of ripped off penises, flying Baby Born dolls and a lot of rape! I think the intention with this amateur sleaze, was to make a It's-so-bad-it's-good movies, but it fails. It's just bad! A few scenes are ok, but in whole it's a mess. If you like amateur splatter like this one (Only way better) I would recommend Andreas Schnass' Violent Shit 2 and 3.


A bloody maniac with cannibalistic tendencies rapes a woman. He's been shot by two policemen and then he is risen from the grave because of some sort of satanic ceremonial rite preformed by an evil heresy. The hunting of women continues by this zombie-demon. The sacrificed baby returns from the grave and wants the maniac dead again, but only with the help of the police this will come true...

A bloody 65-minute mess...Horny zombies, doll-babies, S&M, corrupted and twisted policemen, repented heretics who seek refuge in front of Jesus Christ and three text-screens at the end of the film explaining us what finally happened to the policeman who survived (yes, we ought to know!)... Two decent disemboweling shots can't save the situation. I've seen worst horror-flicks, but this one was pretty bad too. Recommended only for the die-very-hard fans of the genre.


i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it.


Well, if it weren't for Ethel Waters and a 7-year-old Sammy Davis, Jr. (here billed without the Jr.), Rufus Jones for President would be one of the worst representations of African-American stereotypes I've seen from the early talkie era and wouldn't have been worth seeing because of that. Ms. Waters is excellent here singing "Am I Blue?" and "Underneath Our Harlem Moon" while Mr. Davis shows us how his childhood experience in showbiz prepared him for his superstar status as an adult. He's so good tap-dancing here that for awhile I thought he was a little person with decades of experience. So if you're willing to ignore the negative connotations here, Rufus Jones for President should provide some good enjoyment. P.S. This marks the fourth time today I've seen and heard the song, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You" performed on film, this time by Davis. Must have been a very popular song about this time.


This must have been an embarrassment to every member of the entirely African-American cast. Every derogatory, disparaging stereotype of the black American community is featured prominently. I won't reinforce the insults by listing them here, except to mention chickens, watermelons, and dice.

One good song by Ethel Waters (and a couple of bad ones), and the fantastic singing and dancing talents of 8-year-old Sammy Davis bring the total up to something below 1 on the IMDb scale.


Being a fan of the manga and anime of Go Nagai (DEVIL MAN, DEVIL LADY, VIOLENCE JACK, etc.), I was looking forward to this one. I'd seen neither the manga nor the anime, so I had no preconceived notions going in. Good thing, too. What we have here is a series of silly softcore movies of the type that used to turn up with alarming regularity on cable channels late at night. While it's tame compared to what gets rammed down the throats of regular cable viewers (our hero's naughty bits are either tastefully tucked away behind a strategically glued-on scarf or emblazoned with a ridiculous sunburst effect), there are prolonged scenes of bondage and torture that lend the proceedings just enough smarminess to make it unsuitable for the kiddies. While I have nothing whatsoever against nude female heroes, I do dislike amateurishly made movies (there are at least four in this series). On the plus side, there's at least one stunningly beautiful actress in each of the four episodes I saw. It's no wonder Nagai's TESTICLE BOY never made it...


I'm going to spend as much time on this review as the writers did on the script. This is easily THE WORST sequel EVER made.

They KILLED Navin Johnson. Not only was Mark Blankfield's performance GOD-AWFUL, so was everyone elses!! The physical comedy was forced, flat and predictable. The script seemed to have been written by mongoloid monkeys using the pen names Ziggy Steinberg and Rocco Urbisci. How the producers managed to squeeze out such vile cinematic excrement is beyond me. They even managed to make veteran actor Ray Walston look like a talent-less buffoon. Director Michael Schultz should be ashamed of himself.

I want the 96 minutes of my life I spent watching this befouled memory of a brilliant comedy back so I can try and convict everyone involved for this cinematic atrocity.