Lame plot and two-dimensional script made characters look like cardboard cut-outs. Needless to say, this made it difficult to feel empathy for any of the characters, especially the fiancé; He looked and acted more like a cartoon. In summary, I guess you could say it was on par with your typical made for TV drama. It uses just about every cliché in the book. The tortured classical musician who wants to break-out and play salsa. The free-spirited fiancée engaged to a "bean counter" personality she doesn't love. I won't list them or else it would be a spoiler because I'd be giving away the whole plot. The dancing was OK but nothing special. I've seen worse. 3 stars for good music. The band was really tight. I saw it on YouTube. Thankfully I didn't pay good money to see it at a theater. I'm still a little shocked at how many great reviews this movie has garnished.


After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.


Fiction film (it lists as based on a story though it does have a "documented by" credit) about a group of scientists going into the wilds of Canada to try and find a Bigfoot.(They want to capture one and then attach a tracking device). Its lots of scientific mumbo jumbo mixed in what is really a dull film of a bunch of people wandering around in the wilderness. There are some attempts at creating tension and scares, but to be perfectly honest there is nothing here worth seeing outside of some great looking shots of the wilds. This is a perfect definition of an exploitation film, it promises you so much, a look at Bigfoot, but in reality it delivers very little. Recommended for insomniacs only


As a teenager, I was pretty into the whole Bigfoot thing - I read the books and followed the reported sightings. As a more jaded adult, I've largely given up on the big guy now, but don't mind watching the odd movie when I come across one. This one had a few strong points to it - mainly, the recreations of two of the more famous Bigfoot encounters - the Ape Canyon incident of 1924 and the Bauman incident of c.1850 as related to and by Teddy Roosevelt, both of which I'm somewhat familiar with from that youthful reading I did. The movie takes for granted that both incidents involved a sasquatch, whereas both incidents have more plausible explanations, but the recreations were well done. There's also homage paid at the beginning of the movie to the famous Patterson video, again taking for granted its authenticity. The sasquatch encounter at the end of the movie was also very well done and had a very creepy feel to it as the sasquatch were portrayed mainly in the shadows or as hairy feet running past the terrified men. Unfortunately, in total those four things might have composed about 20 minutes, whereas the movie as a whole is slightly over an hour and a half.

It's the fictional story (done in a documentary style) of an expedition to a remote area of northern British Columbia, to the suspected home range of the sasquatch. A computer had targeted this area based on sightings and - in one of the more amusing scenes in the movie - the computer also used "eyewitness sightings" to draw a picture of a sasquatch that looked exactly like the "creature" of the Patterson video! Aside from those 20 minutes I mentioned, we basically watch this expedition travel, which means we get to watch a bunch of guys go on a long camping trip. I've been on camping trips with the guys. Let me tell you - they've never been worthy of a movie. Interspersed among the long stretches of boredom are some nice wildlife shots (although one suspects that canned footage was used, or perhaps even captive animals performing as wild animals) and there are some spectacular scenery shots, except that the scenery isn't of northern British Columbia, it's from national parks in Oregon.

I did appreciate that we were never given a real picture of the sasquatch, so we didn't have to deal with the bad makeup that would have been part of this. 3/10


This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.

It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.


I was about 7 when this DIRE MONSTROSITY of a film was released. In the UK it was advertised on the TV in the summer of 1977 for weeks, as if it were some incredible blockbuster film. It was actually the first film I ever saw at a cinema, and I was put off going for years to come. The following week I was invited to go and see the new film "Star Wars" and I declined. To this day I have never seen it, in protest at having to watch Sasquatch! Seriously, even at the age of 7 I could tell that I was watching garbage. It's just so bad, it's almost unbelievable. Rambling nonsense that should NEVER have made it to a cinema. I was however amused to read all these years later that the director never directed again, just as well as far as I'm concerned. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!


When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)


I imagine that the young people involved in the making of "Necromancy" (aka "The Witching" plus a bunch of other titles) must have felt a little weird being on the set of a horror movie with the man who: participated with John Houseman in the production of a proletarian play ("The Cradle Will Rock"); scared people into thinking that aliens were invading ("The War of the Worlds"); and directed and starred in the greatest movie of all time ("Citizen Kane"). And now Orson Welles was starring in a third-rate flick about a satanic cult.

There's basically nothing creative about this movie. Lots of nudity, but the background music always proves really distracting. Even if the movie wasn't particularly predictable, it still wasn't worth seeing. How low Welles had sunk. Fortunately, over the final thirteen years of his life, he narrated the documentary "Bugs Bunny Superstar" (about the Warner Bros. cartoons of the 1940s) and hosted the documentary "The Man who Saw Tomorrow" (about Nostradamus). I recommend those two, but not this one. Just avoid it.

Also starring Pamela Franklin and Michael Ontkean.


Like most comments I saw this film under the name of The Witching which is the reissue title. Apparently Necromancy which is the original is better but I doubt it.

Most scenes of the witching still include most necromancy scenes and these are still bad. In many ways I think the added nudity of the witching at least added some entertainment value! But don't be fooled -there's only 3 scenes with nudity and it's of the people standing around variety. No diabolique rumpy pumpy involved!

This movie is so inherently awful it's difficult to know what to criticise first. The dialogue is awful and straight out of the Troma locker. At least Troma is tongue in cheek though. This is straight-faced boredom personified. The acting is variable with Pamela Franklin (Flora the possessed kid in The Innocents would you believe!) the worst with her high-pitched screechy voice. Welles seems merely waiting for his pay cheque. The other female lead has a creepy face so I don't know why Pamela thought she could trust her in the film! And the doctor is pretty bad too. He also looks worringly like Gene Wilder.

It is ineptly filmed with scenes changing for no reason and editing is choppy. This is because the witching is a copy and paste job and not a subtle one at that. Only the lighting is OK. The sound is also dreadful and it's difficult to hear with the appalling new soundtrack which never shuts up. The 'ghost' mother is also equally rubbish but the actress is so hilariously bad at acting that at least it provides some unintentional laughs.

Really this film (the witching at least) is only for the unwary. It can't have many sane fans as it's pretty unwatchable and I actually found it mind-numbingly dull!

The best bit was when the credits rolled - enough said so simply better to this poor excuse for a movie LIKE THE PLAGUE!


The only previous Gordon film I had watched was the kiddie adventure THE MAGIC SWORD (1962), though I followed this soon after with EMPIRE OF THE ANTS (1977); he seems to be best remembered, however, for his sci-fi work of the 1950s.

Anyway, I happened upon this one in a DVD rental shop: hadn't I noticed Orson Welles' unmistakable figure on the sleeve, I probably wouldn't even have bothered with it – since I know the film under its original title, NECROMANCY! I'd seen a still from it on an old horror tome of my father's: the actor's presence in a film about diabolism seemed like a great idea which couldn't possibly miss, but the end result – particularly in this bastardized edition – is a disaster! I honestly felt sorry for Welles who looks bored and, rather than in his deep and commanding voice, he mutters the inane demonic invocations almost in whispers!!

The plot is, basically, yet another retread of ROSEMARY'S BABY (1968): a couple is invited to a remote community under false pretenses and soon discover themselves to be surrounded by diabolists. The girl, played by Pamela Franklin, ostensibly has supernatural powers (passed on from her mother, who appears intermittently throughout to warn her – though, as delivered in an intense manner through clenched teeth, the latter's speeches end up being largely incoherent and the fount of immense hilarity every time she appears!) and is expected to revive Welles' deceased young son from the dead!! For what it's worth, Franklin – a genre regular, right down from her debut performance in THE INNOCENTS (1961) – isn't bad in her role (which requires some nudity and experiences several semi-eerie hallucinations during the course of the film); hubby Michael Ontkean, however, isn't up to the challenge of his John Cassavetes-like character. Some of the other girls look good as well – notably Lee Purcell, whose belated decision to help Franklin in escaping from town eventually proves her undoing.

Events come to a head in an incredibly muddled climax, which sees the Satanists ultimately turning on Franklin and have her take the revived boy's place in the coffin (that's gratitude for you!). While the added scenes do stick out (the hilarious opening ceremony and other would-be erotic embellishments), the overall quality of the film would have still been poor without them; then again, this particular version is further sunk by the tacked-on electronic score – which is wholly inappropriate, and cheesy in the extreme!


I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.

My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.

Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.

I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.

NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.

For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.

Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.

This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.

Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.

EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.

GOOD DAY, SIRS.


I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!


I watched the Canadian videotape of this movie as "The Witching" which somehow made its way to New York State. Audio was quite bad, I had to raise it to about 7/8 just to hear it and the soundtrack often was overwhelming the dialog. Orson Welles was a mumbler, worse than usual, and some of his dialog and of others was run through an echo chamber. A ghostly figure who keeps reappearing had her voice distorted. Some closed captions would really have helped!

A group of witches or satanists (the end credits say the group was not meant to represent any real group!) have a ritual in which they get naked and cause a miscarriage by stabbing a doll. The woman who had the miscarriage and her husband move to a town named "Lilith," where he's been offered a job at a toy factory. Despite one of the AKAs of this movie apparently being "The Toy Factory," we never see it, and it's only occasionally referred to at all.

On the way to Lilith, her husband gets impatient with some of her questions about what his new boss Mr. Cato wanted to know about their religious persuasion. He drives aggressively, and causes another car to go off the road and blow up. After the police arrive, she takes a doll that fell out of the car, the second of many handmade dolls in the movie.

It turns out Mr. Cato and all the townspeople are witches, and that they are the ones who caused her miscarriage, though she doesn't realize it. They want her because she has an innate talent for necromancy, of which she was not really aware.

Some images in the movie have some impact, but on the whole the movie is not very involving. The movie does seem a bit of a mess, and this is no doubt largely due to its re- editing and the addition of new footage. The original version, according to the end credits, was called Necromancy - A Life for a Life. The magic of DVD could let us see both versions on one disc, but re-releasing this movie probably isn't a priority.


For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby"  one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples"  but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance  undoubtedly the low point of his career  is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie.


When a film has no fewer than FIVE different titles, it usually means several things and almost always means that the film has major flaws somewhere. Necromancy has major flaws and is just out and out bad. I saw the version on video called Rosemary's Disciples. Yes, I am sure it differs from other versions, but I am not inclined to think that in any way is any other version and the few more minutes it might have - going to be really any better. The story is perhaps the biggest problem: the film opens with Laurie waking up and her husband taking her to a town where he has a new job at a toy factory for occultists(yep, it gets bad this early!). The town is called Lillith and has some guy with a rifle on the bridge to make sure only those selected by the "owner" of the town are allowed in. Soon we find that everyone living in Lillith is a witch and all follow the directives of Mr. Cato - the head of this municipal coven who wants his dead son back(hence the name Necromancy). The people in the town do witch kind of stuff - have ceremonies, some like wearing a goat's head, and promiscuity abounds(not much really shown in this area), but none of these people are very good actors. Mr. Cato is played robustly by the figuratively and literally larger-than-life movie maverick Orson Welles. Welles is misused, but, make no mistake, he is the best thing in this movie. And that is really the saddest part of Necromancy as Welles gives a pretty poor and pedestrian performance with little directorial guidance. In one scene at a party, director Bert I Gordon keeps going back to Welles watching the action of the party using the exact same frames! It looked ridiculous. As did the scene that was repeatedly seen over and over again of a woman's arm centered in swirling flames after a car crash. It looked like the arm of a shop mannequin. The story is never fully utilized as we never really know what happens: many scenes are shot like dreams or hallucinations and never confirmed. This also applies to the corny, hokey ending. The lead Pamela Franklin is pert and pretty and has some talent. Other than her performance, real slim pickings from the rest of the cast sans Welles. The direction and story were both done by Gordon who obviously had little gas left in the engine. This is not a good movie in any way under any name.


Ok, I've seen plenty of movies dealing with witches and the occult but this one was just plain weird. This movie starts out as this cult of witches led by a really bad Orson Wells playing the staring role (couldn't they have gotten somebody that looked and acted more like a Satanist) he just did not belong in this movie at all. But anyhow, the coven takes a new member and stabs a doll that resembles somebody and makes her have a miscarrage. The lady that had the miscarrage and her husband go off to a place called Lillith on busness and the lady meanwhile is seeing an image of her sister or whoever it is calling to her and warning her to stay away from there and to never use her powers there or she will die. The couple after they get settled down in the strange town discover that all the inhabitants are all witches and she becomes nosey and afraid of all of her neighbors and friends. Then strange things start to happen as the lady discovers a funeral taking place on a hill that suddenly disapears (that was creepy) as well as seeing the little boy belonging to Orson Wells at the playgroud that he later asks the lady to help him bring back to life. The lady soon tries to escape the town but only to find herself traped by it's inhabitants and powers and finds herself ignoring all of what the spirit tries to warn her about. This movie is ok, it's has it's moments of suspense but it really could have done much better than to have Orson in there.


"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.


I don't know what it is with these Brady kids. First, Barry Williams publicly brags about having sexy with his TV sister, Maureen McCormick, then about dating his TV mom, Florence Hederson. Then, Susan (Cindy) Olsen does music for a bunch of porno movies. Then Mike (Bobby) Lookinland gets in trouble for drunk driving. Finally, Maureen (Marcia) McCormick and Eve (Jan) Plum might have had a little same-sex fling on the side. Now, Christopher (Peter) Knight is pursued by a beautiful young model in her early-20s during his stint on "The Surreal Life", which at first was fun to watch, and now they are married and in a very volatile and hostile relationship. The last episode, where she posed for a bunch of nude photographs with another naked girl for a scrapbook to give to Christopher for his birthday, was not a good move on her part. And he dealt with it in a very mature fashion, just picking up and leaving to clear his head. I think he was always bowing to her every need and now he's finally taking a stand. And I hate to say it, but I think she abuses him, verbally. The way she was torturing him for an engagement ring and the way she reams him for every little thing. Also she talks openly about having flings with other women and it is obvious she still sleeps around on him with women and men, which is not something any self-respecting human being should do when already married to someone. If this were a man talking down to his wife like that, and going out every night partying and having sex with other people, everyone would be rallying behind the wife to leave him. Why should this be any different. What started out as a cute little crush on another reality show blossomed into a huge disaster. Adrianne, as beautiful as she is, is like another Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, clearly in need of some therapy because she cries like a baby over so many silly things. I feel sorry for her, but Chris needs to rid himself of her, because he is a good man who cannot afford to be humiliated like this.


I loved Adrianne Curry before this show. I thought she was great on Top Model and was really glad when she won. I also liked Chris Knight, he seems like a great guy. But this show just made me SICK! I'm so angry at both of them for what happened on that show. I don't care that they were different ages, I know age can't stand between love. But Adrianne, you had been together for ONLY SEVEN MONTHS. It didn't surprise me at all that he hadn't proposed. And I don't see the appeal of forcing someone to marry you before they're ready. If it's meant to be, then why not just ENJOY each other's company and love each other, and let it come naturally? Turning a wedding ring into a ball and chain was completely unnecessary, it's stupidly obvious that Chris loves you, with or without a ring. And Chris, shame on you for breaking down and proposing to her anyway! You've been through two failed marriages, how could you rush into another one just because she pitched a fit? I hope the relationship lasts, but I really feel that the marriage was rushed and for all the wrong reasons. Maybe now they can take a breath and find the right reasons to be married from within the marriage.


I do not watch much television and came across this show. Reality show? I sure hope this is not for real. If I was a man and had such a nag and was married to someone so snotty, It would be grounds for divorce. I think she sets a bad example of how a person should treat a person they love. That is one thing that is wrong with our world now, so many people in bad relationships, selfish and do not know the meaning of what it is to truly love another. It is self sacrificing and not something that should be on merritt. That does not give one a very good feeling, to watch what should be in private counseling. If his personality on the show is for real, then he deserves someone much better that would show real true love and care for him and appreciate him for who he is. Is this show a reality or made up for ratings???? I really would like to know. Sincerely, GB


Adrianne, should really get a life-without Mr. "Brady". She nauseates me, and has been one of the main reasons why I know longer tune in to the show. It's pretty brainless show, and every little argument or disagreement seems to be put under the scope and analyzed to death. This makes them look/sound they are anything but ready for marriage, and yet, I know these disagreements are all part of life. I guess to some people this is entertainment. If this happens to fall into next season I will feel sorry for anyone who has nothing better to do with their life but watch this trash. Though I would not be terribly surprised. can't even stand the commercials for this show anymore! I hope they're getting enough money to constantly embarrass themselves in front of a camera week after week. However, the "A" girl has one heck of great butt!


I give this marriage 3 years and thats stretching it. Adrianne Curry is fouled mouth, spoiled, controlling, loud, and her bi sexual past makes me laugh. She tells Chris he has an image to protect and must avoid strip clubs. He married her. Chris has low self esteem and from a different time warp. I have nothing against Adrianne Curry but this combination is not gonna have a happy ever after ending. Her mother said he was an old rooster and thinks this is his last attempt to recapture his youth. Here 2 very good people who are gonna end up in a nasty divorce. I don't think his old " Brady Family" is gonna fit into his new life. I see them being shut out. Chris said his friends were more important than his family. The supported him and was there for him.


I really wanted to like this movie. It has a nice prison setting, conspiracy theories, bloodthirsty zombies, a perfectly hideous 80s-touch and it is a directorial effort by actor John Saxon, who also plays a bad (you guessed it) a bad guy. It reminds me of some (beloved) Italian horror flicks. But the direction is very wooden and there is no nightmarish/frightening moment in there. It just goes on and on and on, and then it (logically) has to end. More suspense and more daring visuals and its destiny as a cult classic would have been sealed.


If you made a genre flick in the late 80s, you basically had a 50/50 chance it would either be set underwater or in a prison (sadly, we never got an underwater prison flick). Framed for murder by mafia boss Moretti (Anthony Franciosa), Derek Keillor (Dennis Cole) ends up on death row, right alongside the mob boss' brother Frankie (Frank Sarcinello Jr.). But this is the least of Derek's problems as rogue government agent (and mob stoolie) Col. Burgess (John Saxon, who also directs) is using the prison as a testing ground for a new supervirus. This is the only flick Saxon directed during his storied career. For a guy who has worked with tons of directors, it appears the only ones he picked up any tips from were the cheap-o Italian ones. Sure, it is low budget, but that can't excuse the stilted staging, shooting gaffes, or clumsy exposition in the first 15 minutes. To his credit, Saxon did make it slightly gory and he works in a hilarious nude scene (our lead falls asleep during a prison riot only to fantasize about a female scientist). Cole, who looks like a more rugged Jan-Michael Vincent, is decent as the stoic lead and Franciosa - sporting a really bad rug - gives it his all as the cliché mob boss. The end takes place at Marty McKee's favorite location, Bronson Canyon. Retromedia released this on DVD as ZOMBIE DEATH HOUSE.


I myself am a big fan of low-budget 80's horror films. This isn't the worst but still not to spectacular. The plot line is decent but drags out way too long. You're through half the movie before you even get to see any zombie action. The kills aren't very creative and the zombies aren't too crafty. I truly think this movie would have been better if they left out the zombies and just made it into some mafia flick. It's watchable but I feel that this film did steal at least an hour of my life. I'll give the film credit for being somewhat original. If you are really into B horror movies it's worth a viewing but if you're not, don't bother. But you don't have to take my word for it.


*Contains some spoilers* This movie is cheesy 80s horror in all its awfulness. The plot takes way too long to get off the ground, never steadies itself, and then just plain crashes about 40 minutes into the film. There are a few gem moments for zombie fans, but not nearly enough zombies to create a real sense of terror.

The zombies also take a long time to make their appearance. First, there's a whole half of a movie about mobs and prison gangs. The hero of the movie is an ex-Vietnam vet who gets caught up in the mob. The main mob boss sets him up and he goes to jail. In this jail, they are experimenting on the prisoners to find a way to cure them of homicidal tendencies and criminal behavior. But the badie psychotic head scientist/military guy has other plans in mind. He wants to use a slightly different version of the serum to make ....da da da.... super soldiers! After some infected prisoners kill a few guards and most of the prison has a round of infected communion wine, the military/crazy scientist guy goes "hey this might be a problem" and gives a call to the genius scientist turned investigative journalist hot babe ultra-empowered independent woman character, who of course invented the original serum. She goes to the prison to see what's going down, the military guy calls in a few SWAT teams from his secure position outside the prison, and the hero guy takes charge of the few prisoners with a heart of gold when a riot breaks out. The hero guy and the scientist/journalist lady team up to find a cure, save the warden's kids, and deal with some irate prisoners, both infected and not. Meanwhile, the mob boss guy has made a deal to get into the prison so that he can save his imprisoned brother. The military gets ready to blow the place up, and everyone inside scrambles to find a way out.

There are a lot of gory scenes where people are killed by being pressed or pulled through prison bars. There's also a creepy decapitation scene and electrocution scene involving the same infected rasta prisoner. Still, the most disturbing scene is in the early part of the film, when a gross corrupt guard rapes a prisoner.

The main highlight of this film is one scene towards the end. The hero, woman, and kids are trying to make their way to the only escape route. Their path leads them to a long hallway, on one side there is a wall and on the other are prison bars. Hundreds of bloody zombie hands reach through, gracing their hair and faces as they pass by. There's also a few good scenes of the classic "couple of zombies munching on freshly dead bodies" and "many zombies ripping one guy to shreds" bits.

Overall, worth watching if you're researching the zombie genre as it has so many zombie clichés worth noting; it's practically an instruction manual on what not to do when making a zombie movie. But if you're new to zombie flicks and want a real scare, you should look elsewhere.


After mob boss Vic Moretti (late great Anthony Franciosa) kills his lady whom has been cheating on him with Derek, their new chauffeur/ Vietnam vet, and blames it on the poor guy, Derek finds himself in jail where he has to contend with a corrupt warden, Vic's prisoner brother who runs the jail, and, oh yeah illegal experiments conducted by a shady CIA agent (great genre-mainstay and first time director John Saxon) to turn various prisoners into super-human invincible zombies. Of course things get out of hand and it's up to Derek, and the rest of the unchanged prisoners, to save the day after the infected ones take the jail over.

John Saxon is a great talented actor & as a director Saxon is a... great talented actor. To say this movie (John's sole directorial outing to date) lacks a certain visual flair would be a bit of an understatement. However, the film isn't totally without merit. The dialog, while idiotic, is just bad enough to be humorous sometimes. Sadly, this isn't really enough for the movie to coast by on that alone and it takes forever for the film to even start coming into it's own (which is fairly late in the movie). As such, the most I can recommend this film is to say that if you're a fan of Saxon (which I indeed am), it's worth one watch, just go in with low expectations and you should be fine.

Eye Candy: Dana Lis Mason and Tane McClure get topless

My Grade: D+


I love John Saxon in anything he's in. The one time he takes over the camera though he directs a movie that should have more aptly been been titled "Please Do Not Watch This Movie Called: Zombie Death House". The $1000 dollar Shock Insurance Certificate is dear Fred Olen Ray's tricky way of making you spend 14 dollars on a filmed dump churned out by a major 70's cheese legend. Ray being the front man at RetroMedia. Ray by the way makes Charles Band look hotter than stucco ceilings on a Ford Falcon. Just plain bad now, the both of them- and boring besides. It's great that Ray is digging up this old stuff and in some cases it's public domain like the rest of the dollar video hucksters but in the case of Zombie Death House- (the word "Zombie" sloppily superimposed to add ownership and interest on the part of F.O.R.) THE ONLY WAY TO DO SERVICE TO THIS TRIPE IS TO RELEASE IT ON THE DOLLAR MARKET FOR THE CURIOUS COLLECTOR AND FANS OF SAXON!!! If you wanna see real Saxon, pick up Black Christmas, Nightmare on Elm Street or The Glove.


It seems like this is the only film that John Saxon ever directed, and that he had the good sense to stop after that and stay in front of the camera. This movie is a dog, from start to finish, and it's dull and wooden with nothing much going for it. A Viet Nam war hero takes a job working for a mob boss, gets a bit too friendly with the wife and then the wife is killed by the mob boss himself & the war hero framed and sent to prison, death row, specifically. Now, this particular prison has been experimenting on inmates and is testing some formula that will turn men into the ultimate killing machine (a zombie). Of course, everything goes wrong and then there's all these infected people trapped in the prison, some of whom are turning into zombies and the rest who suddenly just don't want to be there anymore. This just goes on and on and on with nothing particularly much to show or say for itself, and I stopped it before the end, which seemed like it was coming a few times but no, it was apparently only getting set to take off on a different and equally dull path. If one watched to the end they may well become a zombie themselves, so don't risk it. 2 out of 10.


Why watch this? There is only one reason and that is for the greatness of John Saxon. I love his acting. My most favorite appearances by him are in Nightmare On Elm Street 1,3, and 7 as Nancy's father a cop, Black Christmas as a cop, and From Dusk Till Dawn again as a cop. When I was rummaging through my local mall video outlet I came across the film Zombie Death House and I quickly tossed it back but before moving on I noticed that John Saxon was not only an actor in this film but for the first time that I have ever heard of a director. This intrigued me (Also the cheap $9.00 price tag) and I and I had to have it. Upon coming home I realized that this film did not live up to Saxon's other work even his acting, which may have been muddled by the added pressures of directing. But it was not just him the other actors sucked too. It seemed as if they had all been pulled out of a recent porno shoot and told now guys you really have to act. The film even looks of 80's porn quality. I cannot in good faith recommend this film to casual viewers, but if you are an obsessed fan of the 80's who missed out on the culture that came from that era by being born to late, or a fan of crap films than this one is for. Also if you dig John Saxon as I do.


It's been close to ten years since I've seen either of the last two sequels to "Phantasm" - surely due to my still vivid remembrance of them not being very good. That being acknowledged to this day, I'm still a huge fan of the first two installments so I thought I'd go back and re-experience the 'final chapters'. Part three is definitely the worst of the series since it obviously takes itself less seriously and throws in a bunch of confusing stuff that doesn't make much sense... Again, kicking off right where the previous movie left us, Reggie saves Mike from the Tall Man who vows to come back for him later, but things aren't safe for long when they come across Jody who is inexplicably able to the take the form of a sphere. Apparently his soul is held prisoner by the Tall Man so Mike is then dragged into the sinister double-pronged Netherworld and Reg has to find him... Along the way, he meets up with a ten year-old kid and a nun-chuck wielding black chick named Rocky who assist him throughout his journey.

There's really nothing memorable about "Phantasm III" other than how stupid and forcefully "humorous" it tries to be. Only one positive aspect that didn't even help the movie and that was the return of A. Michael Baldwin and Bill Thornbury who reprise their roles for the first time since the original 1978 classic. The problem is, they pretty much make cameo appearances... Reggie Banister is of course back in his starring role, but his bumbling, love-sick attitude makes his presence far too annoying to like. Angus Scrimm also just didn't seem entirely "into" his role. He talks too much here and is nowhere near as menacing and creepy in contrast with the "quirkiness" that the movie seemed to carelessly resort to. Most people's opinion on this flick seem pretty impassive and tend to think "it's still entertaining". Maybe I'm just too much of a nit picker but I just couldn't get into this one. I remember disliking it when I was a kid and after re-watching it - I can safely say - nothing has changed. Don Coscarelli rocked the scene with his original low-budget, nightmarish, legendary film "Phantasm", which I still rank as my top favorite horror flick and his respectable sequel kept things moving and darkly surreal and GORY, but "Lord of the Dead" (stupid title) just looked too rushed and slapped together to me... The inclusion of the two new characters, Tim and Rocky (the only thing missing was Scrappy Doo!!), was a strong indication of Coscarelli running out of ideas and seeing how far he could ride the franchise...

So, it's a "Phantasm" movie with very little gore, nudity, and quadruple-barrel shot guns. Need I say more?


Phantasm ....Class. Phantasm II.....awesome. Phantasm III.....erm.....terrible.

Even though i would love to stick up for this film, i quite simply can't. The movie seems to have "sold out". First bad signs come when the video has trailers for other films at the start (something the others did not). Also too many pointless characters, prime examples the kid (who is a crack shot, funny initially but soon you want him dead), the woman who uses karate to fight off the balls (erm not gonna work, or rather shouldn't) and the blooming zombies (what the hell are they doing there, there no link to them in the other Phatasms). Also there is a severe lack of midgets running about.

The only good bits are the cracking start and, of course, Reggie B.

(Possible SPOILER coming Up)

To me this film seems like a filler between II and IV as extra characters just leave at the end so can continue with main 4 in IV.

Overall very, VERY disappointing. 3 / 10


*spoliers* do not read any further if you haven't seen this movie

Picking up after the depressing "Phantasm II" ended; The Tall Man kidnaps Mike, while Reggie and new kid Tim spend most of the rest of the movie trying to get him back, and not end up as slaves on the Tall Man's "Red Planet". This one gets really silly: the trio of thieves in the bright pink hearse were only there for comic relief, and the black karate chick (can't remember her name) was so irritating I couldn't wait to see if the Tall Man killed her character. This one sets it up to almost look like it was going to be Tim's character, who comes in late and ultimately is the hero, but ... it doesn't quite work out that way. By the very end of this story Liz is beheaded by the killer midgets, Mike gets a silver sphere implanted into his skull, the spheres get Reggie and the dwarfs get Tim, and there's no one left to stop The Tall Man. The bad guy wins - now how's that for a surprise twist at the end?

This was filmed in 1993 and unreleased until '95, and the ending of this one was at the time final, and although it's disappointing and anticlimactic it was also a fitting and appropriate ending for this weird little series. But the fourth one changes this ending and adds nothing new but more bad jokes, and an even worse and more nonsensical ending ...

*1/2 out of ****


I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's "flying balls" ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.


"Phantasm" of 1979 was a highly atmospheric, creepy, scary and very original Horror flick, and, in one word, cult. The first sequel of 1988 was gory, witty, action-packed and highly entertaining. After the first sequel however, "Phantasm" creator Don Coscarelly apparently lacked new ideas. "Phantasm III - Lord Of The Dead" of 1994 is certainly not a complete failure, it even is quite entertaining, but there is no more originality, and the desperate attempts to bring in something new, are at times tiresome, which makes it quite disappointing in comparison to its predecessors.

- SPOILERS -

Quite in the beginning, we are introduced the secret behind the mysterious sentinel spheres (the brain-sucking flying silver balls) is unraveled. Thenceforward, a number of unnecessary and annoying new characters (such as Tim, a "Home Alone"-style little kid who happens to be great at shooting, an Rocky, a tough and super-cool nunchaku-swinging black chick with a crew cut) are introduced. The film also has its qualities - Reggie Bannister is again very cool as the pony-tailed, guitar playing Reggie. Angus Scrimm is still quite creepy as the Tall Man, but the fact that the Tall Man talks a lot more in this film, makes him loose some of his creepiness. The character of Mike is played by A. Michael Baldwin again (he had been replaced by James LeGros in Part 2), which, in my opinion, doesn't make much of a difference. The gore also keeps the film interesting enough to watch, but it is still a disappointment, especially because the attempts to make up for the lack of ideas get annoying quite quickly.

All things considered, "Phantasm III" is an acceptable time-waster, but it is definitely disappointing compared to its predecessors. Fans of the first two "Phantasm" films can give it a try, but I recommend not to set your expectations too high.


In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so farthe fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.


This entry is certainly interesting for series fans (like myself), but yet it is mostly incomprehensible. The plot is confusing, as is the sequel continuity. Some striking effects, to be sure, but we never find out what it all really means.

Try to see the "NC-17" workprint version which contains the gore that was cut to be re-rated "R".


I despise horror movies, that is no secret. No plot, bad acting and gallons of blood are staples of these mistakes of cinema, and this "movie" is no exception. I cannot believe some cable stations actually run this garbage. (This particular garbage was released straight-to-video, as I recall.) As mentioning any other movie would be a great insult to that other movie, I say this: All of the Phantasm movies, all of the Jason movies, Freddy movies, Chucky movies, and most of the Michael Myers movies can be summed up in one word: TERRIBLE!!!

Rating (Phantasm III): 0.5/10


So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.

First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.

We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.

Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.

There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.

Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.

The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.

The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.

Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.


Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.


This is yet another bad movie that you should probably avoid watching. The plot could be a lot "thicker" than it actually is and would be better made as a blockbuster type movie.

The acting leaves something to be desired, though you can not quite place your finger on what it is.

This is one of those that you watch on late night TV, perhaps on USA, simply because you can not get to sleep. Watch it if you want but do not expect too much from it.


1st watched 12/24/2009  4 out of 10 (Dir-Robert Ellis Miller): Emotional Christmas fluff that doesn't really get specific enough to explain how the real story happened in this factual-based incident of a man who is wrongly put in jail trying to get a job for his family to make Christmas happen for them. The three kids in the family then run away from home on a trek to Washington D.C. to enlist the then President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. This trek provides some side stories like their positive encounters with a hobo and a puppeteer, which makes the story kind of like a Disney "animals on the run" movie and doesn't quite fit here. At the ending, there isn't any details given as to how the President helped the family and this is another downpoint to the movie, in my opinion. The movie does eventually bring tears, but it takes too long to get to this. The movie isn't supposed to have been an original TV movie(according to IMDb) but it has the obvious fade-outs that make it look this way  so I'm not sure their information is accurate. All in all, this is a simple movie(that could have been more complex) with a happy Christmas-like story but blandly played and without a lot of substance.


This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.


I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons.


In 2004, I liked it. Then it became very stupid. It suggests that kids are brainless. It insults children. Cartoon Network used to be great. One of the shows I liked was Hamtaro. It did manage to be interesting and imaginative in its approach to children programming. The show (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends) is like putting 20 spoons of sugar in your Sprite. It seems as if today's television producers are only interested in making money, rather than engaging the imaginations of children and making money! Lately, my children are tuning in to the old shows (60's) to find something interesting to watch. Perhaps, in the absence of originality, for television to look to its past and recycle children's programing from days gone by.


This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor)

Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee


The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances.


I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.

If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me.


What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first.


I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.

I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.

It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.

It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.

The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.

The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.

Overall, a waste of time.


an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry


Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.

Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played "Sulley"). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.

However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking "THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!".

I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the "Scary Movie" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something!


Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, "yeah! now there's an ending!" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!!


I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....

Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.

I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING!


Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie.


I stumbled upon Nine Dead recently and read the current reviews thinking I could deal with an average movie. This movie however was slightly below average, yet watchable. The script was poorly written and the acting was at average for a B-level movie with a couple standing out as pretty good. The plot borders on that of Saw, teach people what they did wrong in a situation and try to make them appreciate life more, but that is really where the comparison ends. Nine dead tries to have heart and purpose behind simple ideas that are not new. The main fault that I found in Nine dead, was the slap in the face to the viewer of flashbacks that occurred 3 minutes before in the film and were completely unnecessary and a completely inadequate ending that people won't see coming, in a bad way. Barring any spoilers I have seen the worse of bad movies and even they didn't end this poorly. Decent flick, bad acting and ending though...


I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.

The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.

There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.

A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.

2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.

3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.

And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end!


you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.***


While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.

There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.

If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.


86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.

I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.

Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.

As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.

Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.

On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.


The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.

This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.

All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn.


I saw this movie not knowing anything about it before hand. The plot was terrible with large gaps of information missing. The movie didn't have the "battle of wits" feel to me. The actors just spewed out mouthful's of nonsense, at times causing me to gnash my teeth in agony as they droned on and on. The plot was predictable except for the stomach sickening homo erotic scene at the end (I'm not homophobic but made me physically sick to my stomach), even the ending was predictable. And you could tell the detective was Jude Law in a costume, everything from the fake accent, terrible dental work, costume shop facial hair, everything pointed to it being a disguise. The whole movie just felt like wasted time out of my life. This movie had the feel of a puppet show with Jude Law and Michael Caine as puppets and the house as the window to view the show, really boooring in my opinion.


Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.

The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.

Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.

Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.

despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work


This reworking of Anthony Shaffer's classic play did not last long in cinemas. Having recently suffered through it on cable, I still congratulate myself for not wasting money on a ticket. Director Kenneth Branagh, writer Harold Pinter, and star/producer Jude Law deluded themselves that their prestige alone could sustain this travesty through an interminable 93 minutes, without the fun or class of the longer original.

Michael Caine enhanced his reputation playing the second lead in the marvelous 1972 film. He now seems intent on destroying it by attempting the lead, played in that version by Laurence Olivier. (Both were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, but lost to Marlon Brando in THE GODFATHER.) Looking puffy and washed-out, Caine glides through the part with less depth than he displays as Batman's butler. He had already lowered himself to a guest appearance in the atrocious remake of GET CARTER. What's next -- ALFIE II, or SON OF THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING?

But then, no one benefits from this inane adaptation by Pinter, who thinks that frequent cursing and an added sexual angle can compensate for the absence of Shaffer's witty character interplay. Branagh's direction relies on bluish lighting and a soulless set design that wouldn't hold up in a second-rate nightclub. Neither the shadows nor the tight, overacted close-ups can help Law overcome his dull screen persona. The result is a failure both as straight drama and as detective thriller, almost making you forget the purpose behind the title.

Fans of the original stage production (with Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter) and the Olivier/Caine film would do well to regard this enterprise as a bad dream. The late Mr Shaffer, who wrote the 1972 screenplay, as well as Hitchcock's FRENZY and several Agatha Christie adaptations, must be turning in his grave, wishing he could plan a real murder or two!


At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.


Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Sleuth didn't need a remake. It's a thoroughly well made film that stands up well to this day. However, given that the modern day remake machine is currently in full swing; I really can't say I'm surprised to see the film updated for modern audience. The plot remains identical to the original film and at its core we have the story of a young man, Milo Tindle, who goes off to see an older man, Andrew Wyke, to discuss a divorce as the younger man is having an affair with the older man's wife. From there, a game of cat and mouse ensues. Its clear right from the outset that director Kenneth Branagh wanted to add a different touch to this film and he does so by way of the central location, which has been changed from the charming games-ridden country house of the original to a technical marvel kitted out with layers of security equipment. I'm glad that the director chose to make this change as nobody wants to see a remake that directly copies of the original; plus there's the fact that the location is well used and always nice to look at. Unfortunately, however, the positive elements of Sleuth 2007 end there.

The original film was over two hours long, while this remake is only just a shade over eighty minutes. Naturally, therefore, that means that this version has less about it; and unfortunately it's the characters that suffer. The plot is also rushed and we get into the first twist in the tale far too quickly and before we are given any chance to actually understand why and how these events can be taking place. The film does not build the characters, or the rapport between them, enough to make sure that their relationship makes sense. One major thing that has been changed about the older character is his obsession; in the original he was obsessed with games which turned out to be VERY important once the twists come into play. Here he has some kind of security fetish that doesn't really mean anything by the end. Kenneth Branagh's handling of the film allows for a classy score but the class ends there. The original thrived on it, but this film is happy merely to soil itself with expletives on numerous, and mostly unwarranted, occasions; which cheapen the whole thing. The final twist in the tale is completely different to how it was in the original and ensures that the film boils down to a really hideous conclusion. After spending two hours with the original I understood, respected and liked both characters presented in the film - after eighty minutes of this, I hated them both. I do have some respect for Branagh for not merely rolling out a carbon copy of the original film; but this is not a good adaptation of the great Anthony Shaffer play.


It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.

During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.

The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007).


A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.

A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.

The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.

This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act.


I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.

i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.

the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.

i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.

the entire film features only law and caine.

i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8


I loved the original. It was brilliant and always will be. Strangely though, I actually looked forward to seeing the re-make. I'm usually a little bit against re-makes because there's far too many of them, but somehow this intrigued me. I was really enjoying it to begin with. Caine brilliant, as usual, and Jude Law managing to hold is own next to him. It was quite clever how it was modernised and it was working. What stops this from being really good is the last seven minutes. It goes completely away from the original, so far in fact that is ceases to be clever and just gets annoying. The end in the original was fantastic! So much tension was built up and it was unbelievably clever! This? It grows not in tension but in frustration as it seemed they decided to make Caine's character a homosexual. It was if they were trying far to hard to be different. And then... BANG! Law's dead. Roll Credits. This film is worth the watch simply for the performances, but those last seven minutes really do drag it down. What a pity....


Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location.


I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.

I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:

1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...

I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...

* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.

That's about it...


First of all when I saw the teaser trailer for Wendy Wu, I was definitely excited. Brenda Song, one of the hottest girls on Disney Channel, would be doing martial arts and I was fine with that... until I saw the movie. The action was poorly constructed, the movie couldn't have realated to anyone, the fighting was unrealistic and it sucked... along with the plot. If you really think about it's a wannabe Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a girl who is the descendant of other warriors who were women, a girl wants to ignore her calling and wants to become homecoming queen, the watcher who bug's her to prepare for a big fight against some ancient evil. The idea just wasn't all that original, the movie is waste of time.


I'd give it a 2/10.

I was really, really disappointed.

The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.

Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.

In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on.


This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.


I thought the movie (especially the plot) needs a lot of work. The elements of the movie remains westernized and untrue to the attempt of trying to produce an eastern feel in the movie. I'll give three out of many of the flaws of the movie:

First, when Shen told Wendy that he would help her study the history of China, I was really happy that the audience would receive some information about Chinese history; but it turns out that the movie did not exactly show Wendy actually studying Chinese history; yet instead, the movie only shows Wendy practicing the method of remembering what she had studied, which frustrated and put me in dismay.

Second, which really bothered me, is how the characters kept mentioning about moon cakes -- moon cakes this and moon cakes that and how good it tastes. Yet they didn't really mention the real significance of it. The only they they talked about that had any relevance to the moon cake was the Autumn Festival, which they did not explain or go in depth. They could have mentioned the myth that correlates with the moon cake -- the Moon Lady. The myth starts of with how there once exists ten suns and each would rotate rising, but one day all ten suns rose up, drying up the land with the rising intense heat; so the Divine Archer, Hou Yi, shot nine of the ten suns, leaving only one sun (there are different versions where the Hou Yi shot the eight out of nine suns). Because of his heroic contribution, he was given the pill of immortality so he could live on forever in case the ten suns do rise up again, but his wife, Chang-O stole it. After stealing it, she fled to the moon, where she met a hare. She then came upon an idea and told the hare to pound the pill into many piece so she could spread the pill all over earth, giving everyone immortality. (There are a few variations of this story but throughout my childhood, I, most of the time, heard about this version). I thought details such as this would make the plot more culturally Chinese oriented.

The last thing I would point out is the last battle scene of the movie. The teachers that were possessed by the monks were fighting the Terra-cotta Warriors (the life-like statues of the soldiers) went against the idea of how important Chinese history is to the Chinese. The Terra-cotta Warrors serves as a connection of China's past and it was very westernized (where evil must be killed in anyway possible) that the monks in the movies were willing to destroy that connection. It would be understandable if Wendy, considering she is Chinese-American and doesn't have full Chinese knowledge, had no problem destroying these priceless artifacts.

The whole movie was westernized because it seemed that all the monks and Shen want to do is fight... I mean, it's rated TVPG due to violence, which goes against the Confucius thinking of cooperation and harmony. It would seem more accurate that the monks try to avoid violence and try to work things out peacefully before having to resort to violence.

All in all, all of or either of the producer, writer, or director did not do their research thoroughly and did a messy and effortless job instead. I would suggest that they either stop airing this movie or that they re-shoot the movie so it contains more accurate information; however, I would give it credit (2 stars) for removing one stereotype of Asians and Asian-Americans of being smart and quiet.


I thought this movie was terrible. I'm Chinese, so I thought everything was totally wrong. Many of the facts were incorrect. The only thing right about Chinese history in the movie was when Wendy's mother explained to her husband about the statues that guarded ShiHuangDi. I also thought the fight scenes were very cheesy and fake. Many of the actors and actresses were not very great. Some of the jokes that were supposedly "funny" were really stupid. I think this movie should receive the worst possible rating it could get. Disney has really got to get more information about Chinese history if they want to create an extravagant movie. Mulan was quite accurate. Watch this movie if you want to waste some time.