THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.

Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.


"The Secretary" is one of those cheesy, cliched, "thrillers" that one is subjected to watching on a Sunday afternoon, when there is virtually nothing else on. While the plot (a demented woman becomes jealous of all who succeed over her in the office and decides to do whatever she can to stop them) may be one of a kind, I recognized countless plot twists, probably taken from other TV movies that I had been subjected to for the very same reason.

To make matters worse, I was not wild about the cast. Mel Harris is one of those actresses who appears in so many TV movies as either a "mom" or some sort of "victim" of foul play or abuse, that one must wonder the kind of life she leads. In this one, she gets the joy of playing a mom AND a victim of psycho secretary Sheila Kelly, who was not a very good choice as the villain. While Sheila Kelly has made some good career moves(Singles, Breaking In, and I guess, Law and Order), she is also beset by a string of pitiful TV movie roles, and this one just adds to it. As for the others, I don't have any clear memories of them, so that must say something.

This one WILL play on the Lifetime network(I think that's where I saw it), but don't bother watching it, unless you are too bored for words. Not that it will make you any more excitied...


A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.

My Grade: F


I will keep this as short as possible as this piece of crap barely warrants a mention. ZOMBIE 90 is one of the worst films ever made - right up there with Schnaas' other horrible zombie entry - ZOMBIE DOOM (aka VIOLENT SH!T 3). These films suck so bad that everyone involved in their creation should be shot. I somehow managed (barely...) to sit through ZOMBIE DOOM - but ZOMBIE 90 is so horribly inept - even when compared to Schnaas' other horrible film - that I had to fast-forward through everything after the first 10 minutes. ZERO acting skills, inept gore, horrible camcorder-style camera-work, ridiculous dubbing...it just goes on and on. I really can't find a single thing redeeming about this garbage - and I can usually find SOMETHING redeeming in just about ANY film. This truly is one of the worst films ever made - You've been warned...1/10


Beyond dirt cheap, this shot-on-video exercise in ineptitude was difficult to get through. It's got the typical gore that you'd expect in a zombie movie, but none of the required atmosphere to make it worth while.

What's strange is that this is an amateur German video, and the version I saw is English-dubbed! The dubbers seem to be American fans (penpals of the Germans?!) who can't decide whether they want to play it straight or turn it into a comedy. One character (a white German, of course) is dubbed by a black guy apparently, who speaks with thick ebonics! 'Kno wahm sayin', Comrad?


What in God's name happened here? How does one go about creating what is practically a cheap knockoff of Redneck Zombies? Was Zombie '90 ever supposed to entertain someone ...anyone, or even make a dollars profit? But mainly, what happened here?

Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence was directed by a lunatic by the name of Andreas Schnaas, who specializes in earth-shattering gore films, such as Goblet of Gore, and Anthropophagus 2000, and some of which contain profanity in the titles. In the gore department, this one isn't much different than the rest. Although, the level of ineptness ...well, earth-shattering.

Zombie '90 Extreme Pestilence is as bad as Peter Jackson's Dead-Alive is gory, think about it.

Getting too specific with the story would be a waste of time. An accident, involving chemicals causes the dead to come back, and eat the living. Never has the concept been treated in such a manner. The gore effects are a whole, new low. Just a Z-grade nightmare. I can't tell whether, or not this was originally meant to be funny, somehow, I doubt the English dubbing was being very true to the original script, but stranger things have happened. The whole thing just reminds me of a shot-on-video introduction to a Troma movie, except it lasts a hell of a lot longer.

I've seen only one film that was worse than this, The Chooper.

For proof that Andreas Schnaas is an actual director, I would highly recommend Nikos The Impaler If you think you have no standards in what you look for in a bad movie, give Extreme Pestilence a try, but you've been warned. It takes nerves of steel to make it all the way through. But if gore is all you're here for, then you might be able to stomach this one. Other than that, no atmosphere, no, and I mean NO budget, no entertainment value, but mostly, no pride. Show some pride, Schnaas. 1/10

Updated 7/5/09: After a few more viewings of Zombie '90, I've had a change of heart, or I guess I just get it now. Zombie '90 is hilarious, so nevermind the harsh words, Although, Extreme Pestilence still only deserves one star.


This review is based on the dubbed Shock-o-Rama video released on an undeserving world in 2002. How bad is it? It's awful, which is what a '1' represents on the IMDb scale--but it's much worse than that. It's nice to imagine that an original German-language print might improve matters--the comedic English-language dubbing isn't funny at all--but truthfully, this is one of the worst amateur films of any genre you're likely to see. The zombies in the film are as slow and clumsy as ever, and they don't seem to have the ability to speak or think about anything beyond their next meal. However, they're also intelligent enough to operate chainsaws and malicious enough to know that western taboos about genitalia will no doubt enliven their dinner table conversation. George Romero's Land of the Dead posited a zombie nation that retained a shred of social coherence; here, zombies are nothing more than an empty canvas for the perverse imaginings of director Andreas Schnaas. Utterly without redeeming social value, and even worse, entirely lacking as entertainment, Zombie '90 is a bad joke on anyone who wastes money on it.


This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..

As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.

The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..

I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.

It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.


Wow, not only is this film a "new lesson in real bad taste," but also a lesson in "real bad film making." Don't get me wrong, I appreciated the concept of 'Zombie '90: Extreme Pestilence,' but at the same time one must realize when a movie is terrible. In case you missed out on the storyline, the plot of 'Zombie '90' is about a government plane carrying toxic chemicals that so happens to crash into the wilderness, causing the chemicals to spill, turning locals into hideous looking zombies. The next thing you know, zombies are all over the city eating people alive, while a goofy-looking doctor and a government agent are trying to figure out the disease that's making these people eat one another - hence the name "Extreme Pestilence." From then on, all we see is zombies having a field day on every local in sight - nothing but extreme and sickening disembowelments and dismemberments accompanied by endless buckets of guts and gore. Since this is a German film, the film had to be dubbed into English and when you're not laughing at the feeding frenzies of the zombies, the voice-overs are quite hilarious and entertaining as well. As user UnratedX mentioned *SPOILER* *SPOILER* *SPOILER*, there is a scene in the film that crosses the line between what's acceptable and not acceptable, hence the scene in which a woman, who is carrying her infant baby, is being wheeled around in her wheelchair by some dude and a horde of zombies come out of nowhere and attack them. One zombie grabs the baby and rips it into pieces, eating its organs as you hear the baby crying. Wow, that is a new lesson in REALLLLLLLLLY bad taste. Atrocious I tell you, atrocious.


First, I am not really a fan of the whole "things eating flesh in disgusting new ways" genre of film but I am a bad movie afficionado so my next door neighbor said he had the worst movie ever. This one. So we start watching it. First and foremost - it is recorded on a camcorder sans tripod! Second the voice of the skinny white doctor is dubbed by a large black man! Third, none of the dialogue makes any sense. Fourth, the zombie scenes, though unconvincing and chockful of poor makeup and tomato paste, lead me to believe the director (and my next door neighbor) are in need of psychological help. It's funny for about 5 minutes but it gets old fast. It's so amateurish it's like watching a poorly dubbed high school video yearbook.... with zombies. A note to anyone involved with this movie - I want the 20 minutes of my life I spent watching this, before I fell asleep, back.


This movie is god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid movie.


This really is one of the worst movies ever made. I consider myself a HUGE zombie film fan and usually tolerate bad acting, lame "special effects" a dumb story and whatever you may encounter in second rate movies, AS LONG as the film has a good atmosphere/story/suspension or whatever to offer. This one has basically no positive aspect to it and is third or fourth rate, maybe worse. Some friends of mine and myself made a small movie during a week´s holiday and definitely did a better job (no zombie film though).

This flick is not even funny, not speaking of anything else. Really bad and redundant special effects, zombies that look like normal people (except for a white additional skin pulled over their faces), WAY TO MUCH fake blood (I like realism a lot, the combination of realism and Zombie films being debatable, but the presented gore is just plain silly). The camera stays quite long with feedings scenes, it gets boring and you cannot help but wonder, why the zombies use WEAPONS (!) to kill their prey. I will not go into the details of the dubbing (others have done so). Although I am from Germany myself and am at least a bit curious about the original version, I will NOT waste more of my time with this movie.

Keep away from it, as far as you can.


A movie best summed up by the scene where a victim simulates disembowelment by pulling some poor animal's intestines out from under her T-shirt. Too terrible for words.


I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains.

If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!


Like some of the other folks who have reviewed this film, I was also waxing nostalgic about it...before I had the misfortune to actually watch it again. Alas, my childhood memories of this film were completely untrustworthy, and The Perils of Pauline is now revealed to be an embarrassing exercise in banal, racist, and plain boring film-making. Even the presence of old pros Edward Everett Horton and Terry-Thomas can't overcome a rancid screenplay, a horrible theme song, and some wretched 'special effects'. In addition, the stereotypical depictions of African and Arab characters make for painful viewing, especially considering this was produced in the immediate wake of the Civil Rights movement. Michael Weldon's original Psychotronic Encyclopedia reports that The Perils of Pauline was originally produced for television but inexplicably ended up getting a theatrical release. Judging from the results, that is a completely believable (and baffling) scenario.


While not exactly offensive, the 1967 version of "The Perils of Pauline" is certainly moronic. The title might lead you to expect a tribute to Pearl White (the original Pauline in the 1914 silent 20 episode serial) but for that you would be better served by the 1947 version starring Betty Hutton. This 1967 version is like a mix of "Casino Royale" and the weakest of the Elvis movies. Worst of all it is not a blend of these but more like someone scotch-taped together segments from each so that the thing skips back and forth between the two styles.

What unity there is in the production comes from the pairing of Pamela Austin (Pauline) and Pat Boone (George Steadman), a good match because both lack even the most basic of acting skills (imagine Mandy Moore playing opposite Dan Quayle).

Austin would later play opposite John Aston in "Evil Roy Slade", with the talent disparity between them actually painful to watch. In the mid-60's she was the "Dodge Rebellion" girl, as such she was featured in a similar series of perilous situations-imagine Sandra Dee in a dark blue jumpsuit. When the automaker's ad agency replaced her with the "Dodge Fever" girl someone got the bright idea to showcase her in a feature film.

What story there is here begins with Pauline growing up in the Baskerville Foundling Home run by the actress who played Mrs. Chatsworth Osborne Sr. on "Dobie Gillis". George falls in love with her (Pauline-not Mrs Osborne) and sabotages several opportunities she has to be adopted. George leaves to seek his fortune and 19 year old Pauline gets a job tutoring a young oil rich Middle Eastern prince. When he tries to add the attractive blonde to his harem she runs away and goes from peril to peril. These include African pygmies, a 99½ year-old millionaire who wants to freeze her until his one year-old grandson is old enough for marriage, the movie industry, and the Russian space program.

All this is intended to be silly and charming but manages only the silly part. There is some effort to incorporate a silent film look to the action sequences by simulating the under- cranking of a camera (which speeds up the action). Unfortunately everything else (film stock, production design, editing) is depressingly 1960's. Nothing here even approaches the images of Pearl White strapped to a log moving toward a buzz-saw or tied to railway track waiting for the approaching train.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.


I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.


This is one of those films that's more interesting to watch from an academic perspective than from an entertainment perspective. I do my ratings based on how much I enjoyed or was entertained by the movie, so I'm giving it a 4. If I were to rate it as an academic film, though, it would get a 10.

It is shot in a very interesting manner, like a pseudo-silent film with elements of sound effect and reality. It's meant to convey disjointed memory and fragmentation of the mind, and it is interesting in these respects.

However, the film has a lot of disgusting elements to it that I didn't find all that entertaining. They're mainly just disturbing. It has some very interesting imagery too, and some interesting concepts, but some of the character relationships (especially between the mother and son) are pretty disturbing.

In all, this film will either appeal to you or it won't. For me, it was interesting from an academic perspective, but it wasn't a good watch, and I'll probably not go back to it a second time.

4/10 if you're looking for entertainment. 10/10 from an academic standpoint.


I should have never watched this movie. The style of filming may be considered artsy to some, but it is considered migraine-inducing to me. I think it may have had an interesting plot, but since I couldn't watch it for long stretches at a time I missed a lot. The flickering pictures and stop motion filming branded my brain. I stopped watching mid way through and won't be back for a second try. I suppose if I were home alone in my own lighthouse some dark and stormy evening, this might be just the ticket... PS Not sure if the lighthouse/ film style thing can be considered a spoiler, but I don't want to be blacklisted on my first review ;)


I didn't know this was a silent movie with narration. I don't care for silent movies - the corny humor, flickering lighting and film, etc. I'm sure that attributes to the low score I assigned it. It was about chapter 8 before I found any interest in this story and had I had popcorn I may have thrown it at the screen. Maybe this appeals to the sci-fi crowd? The only thing missing was a zombie scene and a brain transplant. I went with two other people on a Friday night and there were a total of 6 people in the entire theater. Isabella Rosselinni narrated this movie - the one enjoyable aspect of the movie. No one left commenting how much they enjoyed this nor appreciated the unusual approach to telling this story. I cannot recommend this movie.


This is a wonderfully goofy example of a self produced, written and directed vanity project ...while I was working as a crew member John Carradine commented to me (before the burning at the stake sequence): "This is the worst piece of sh*t I've ever worked on ...and I've worked on a lot of pieces of sh*t." Also An interesting moment earlier when Jim Mitchum was having trouble with his lines and started cursing in the courtyard location of the Santuario (a religious shrine in Chimayó) - at which point one of the local "vato loco" low-rider onlookers growled "...show some respect man", which apparently caused Jim to remember where he was, as he then made a very profound and heartfelt apology for his inappropriate behavior. In any case the crew did the job on deferment and were never fully paid - but came away with plenty of particularly bizarre stories - like the night we caught the producer/director's 10 year old son entertaining himself by constructing miniature Burmese tiger traps for us to break our legs in. Like they say: "Ya gotta' love the Biz..."


Hey HULU.com is playing the Elvira late night horror show on their site and this movie is their under the Name Monsteroid, good fun to watch Elvira comment on this Crappy movie ....Have Fun with bad movies. Anyways this movie really has very little value other than to see how bad the 70's were for horror flicks Bad Effects, Bad Dialog, just bad movie making. Avoid this unless you want to laugh at it. While you are at HULU check out the other movies that are their right now there is 10 episodes and some are pretty decent movies with good plots and production and you can watch a lot of them in 480p as long as you have a decent speed connection.


Monster is a mind numbingly awful movie about an evil American concrete factory (are there any else in Hollywood?) polluting the waters of the small Colombian town of Chimayo somehow creating a catfish-like beast with a predilection for lamb and loose women. James Mitchum is Bill Travis the man who is sent down to Chimayo by his foul-mouthed boss Barnes who himself can't keep his hands off of his secretary's rear to get to the bottom (pun intended) of the story. While in Chimayo Bill must contend with an annoying reporter who apparently broadcasts all of her stories in perfect English directly back to America. I guess in the seventies there was a market for news from small South American towns. There is also a radical named Sanchez that wishes to sabotage the factory for polluting the water which, by the way, also supplies the town with jobs for the locals, but why let cold hearted economics get in the way of touchy-feely enviro-marxism. Pete the factory boss is unwittingly aided by the monster when he has sex with his ex-girlfriend on the beach, tells her that he is seeing the mayor's daughter Juanita and it's over between them, then she is promptly eaten that night. A little side action without the evidence. My hat is off to you Sir. John Carradine rounds out the cast as a priest that believes the monster is sent by God to punish sinners. You can see the contempt he has for being in this movie in his face. Might as well filmed him running to the local currency exchange to see if his check didn't bounce.

Supposedly based on a true story, so much so they say it twice in the opening credits, this film is awful on all fronts. Filming began in 1971 and was abandoned until eight years later when Kenneth Hartford put his foot on the throat of Monster by adding his two annoying children as new characters, even putting his daughter, Andrea in top billing with Mitchum and Carradine. The sound quality is nonexistent and most of the scenes seem as if someone smeared tar over the camera before filming. This is made even more tedious during the many scenes done at night. The monster itself is laughable as it rears its ugly rubbery head for the anticlimactic ending. James Mitchum along with his brother Chris are proof that nepotism in the acting industry needs to be curtailed. Utterly unwatchable dreck. Shame on you John Carradine.


Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.


I could barely keep myself from either nodding off or just turning off this turd, but I decided to stick it out if only for the reasoning that maybe *something* would happen. This is the work of a writer/producer/director/special fx, Kenneth Herts, who wants to make a statement on ecological damage while making a monster movie. That's what he wanted, anyway. What it turns out to be is a lot of acting, either slightly hammy or just mundane and without much merit, and scenes that seem to repeat themselves as the monster ATTACKS in the river waters (oh, and what luck, a woman just happens to be naked in it... even though there have already been DISAPPEARANCES!)

This is just nonsensical stuff, but I suppose it's not too harmful; it's not very obnoxious at the least and once or twice we get a semi-interesting peek at Brazilian "culture" (which is the father walking through town with his flock or other pieces of a semblance of 'hey, this is NOT America!'). But whatever hope the director had in casting Mitchum or Carradine is squandered on at best pedestrian and at worst excruciatingly banal and dumb dialog. It doesn't help that when we finally get something of a good look at the monster and the "action" happens, it too is stupidly staged and with only sleazy appeal. Usually I would feel sorry for a filmmaker who had a lot of problems getting a particular picture finished- in this case it took the better part of the mid 70s- but with Monstroid or Monster or whatever it's called... nah.

If you happen to get the Elvira DVD double-feature of this (bad print with bad transfer quality) with Blue Sunshine, make sure to skip this one. Unless, of course, you're an Elvira die-hard and can't help yourself to hear her luscious commentary; personally, I'd rather get Joel or Mike Nelson with the robots from Mystery Science Theater on this roast turkey.


"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)


This has got to be the cheesiest, stupidest, most retarded monster film of all time. It's a complete joke that this even surfaced into theaters. This is sort of like watching the Loch Ness monster in rural America. This movie deserves to be thrown in a toilet and completely forgotten. John Carradine, shame on you. The people involved in this moronic pile of trash need to be lobotomized. Wait! Maybe I'm giving them too much credit. I'm sure they were lobotomized before the filming. How else can one explain the utter and sheer stupidity that this bucket of crap contains. Don't waste a minute of your life watching this. Don't even waste your time sending a review.


This could be a cute movie for kids My grandson watched it once. he was watching it a second time I was watching some of it with him.

When the little bear gets lost on the ice burg and he is in the water he is trying to get to a piece of ice it says "Come back stupid ass fool".

I don't want my 3 year old grandson watching movies with words like this in it.

That is why its rated for children. Should be child friendly. That is what I would expect. put out by warner brothers and G rated I would expect this to not have cuss words in it. The words don't even fit the movie in most places as it seems added later. And the movie drags out in many parts.


What a load of rubbish.. I can't even begin to describe how awful this film was. The rating it has here is really hard to believe.

Avoid... Particularly if you enjoyed the first ginger snaps. The first one was well written, well directed, well executed.. a brilliant film with a fantastic aesthetic and atmosphere. The second one was 'alrite'- decent as a self-standing film, but clearly not up to the level of the first... The third is an insult to the series, period. I rate the films: 10, 6, 1. It's that bad.

Oh, and yes it really is set in the past, the sisters are still called Ginger and B Fitzgerald... all muddled in with some half-assed native American mythology. The sisters don't have any real story, or progression, or even a clear relationship... They're just trying to survive and be 'together forever'. That's about as deep as it gets.

Staggered that the girls agreed to be in this pile-of-shite, after reading the script.

Oh and another thing, staging of action was terrible- people appearing from nowhere regularly, like the girls turn around and there's an elaborate candle-lit setup with a mystic native American woman just sitting there, about to go into a speech. Sets were terrible, couldn't get away from the fact that it was all obviously based in a set, which really didn't help. Also, there was consistently snow outside the camp, but not a trace inside (..on the set).

Arrghh,,, so bad! I really was hoping it would be at least as good as the second one.


Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.

Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their "immortal soul" can be resolved later.

Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.


For a good half hour or so, I remember myself thinking: "Hey, this could very well be Bill Rebane's best achievement ever!". The opening sequences are atmospheric, there immediately are some scary moments to enjoy and our director even refers to his own notorious stinker "The Giant Spider Invasion" in a playful way. The concept is shamelessly stolen from William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill", with three old and extremely bored millionaires luring nine losers to an isolated mansion to win $1,000,000 in an elimination game. Naturally, the participants start vanishing quickly and one by one, and it takes the remaining greedy boneheads too much time before they realize either the old folks are sadists...or there's another murderer amongst them. The film begins & ends with an odd narrator telling a lot of senseless stuff that isn't relevant or even interesting to the plot, but there's some nice T&A to admire in the first ten minutes and that dumb bimbo (Shelly, I believe she's called) is really hilarious to observe. After the first half hour, naturally the inevitable happens and "The Cold" turns into a textbook Rebane-production with retarded plot twists, the dumbest dialogs ever and a total lack of excitement. There wasn't any budget for bloody murder sequences but our multi-talented director (?) tries to compensate this with endless footage of disco dancing girls and an amateur rock band. The film also has four or even five different climaxes and none of them are a slight bit satisfying. Maybe it was an inspiration for LOTR: Return of the King? Avoid this film, you'll live longer and happier.


This movie had what sounded like a good premise: 9 people facing their fears to win one million dollars. Unfortunately, it did not turn out to be a good movie. There are several scenes that are way too long and really pointless like the dancing scene. A few scenes are just an excuse to point the camera at female body parts. The acting is bad, but some of the lines are amusing in their awfulness. What's really strange is that towards the end of the movie it turns into like a 5 minute western, and at the end, the twists, of which their were several, don't make sense with the rest of the movie. It seemed as though the director just added stuff on because he thought it would look cool, while conveniently ignoring the plot of the movie up to that point. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The only creepy thing was the old people dancing down the hall, but that doesn't even come close to making up for the rest of this mess.


This is one lowly film. It has no real plot. We never are made privy to motivations, other than wealth. The characters are some of the worst actors ever to be put on film. The threat seems to be supernatural, but then it's being controlled by these three older people. Why are they doing what they are doing; in order to strike fear into other members of the group? I don't know. There is some mist from a fog machine that rolls around in the halls and everyone seems to be scared of it. Does it do something? I don't know. There's some nudity for its own sake. I'm always surprised to see this in films this old. Things have actually settled down in this regard these days. Anyway, the people run around like chickens, ready for the ax. They have no plan; no resources; no nothing. There are about five silly climaxes in the film. Who are these people and "is" there a ghost or demon. What happened to the other people? I challenge anyone to tell me this with any confidence. What a mess.


This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie.


This complete mess of a movie was directed by Bill Rebane, the man partly responsible for the truly infamous anti-classic Monster a-Go Go. As I was nearing the end of The Cold I came to the unbelievable conclusion that this film was in fact even worse than that 60's shocker. The story  such as it is  is about three eccentric millionaires who invite a group of people to their remote mansion to play a series of macabre games. Whoever manages to last the pace and survive to the end will win $1,000,000. It's a very simple plot but Rebane still somehow manages to make proceedings verge on incomprehensible. Things happen. Characters are completely forgotten about. Nothing makes too much sense. And then it ends. Weirdly. I mean what the hell was that ending all about exactly? I guess you are left to draw your own conclusions. Production values and acting are without question of a pornographic movie standard. In truth Pamela Rohleder (Shelly) isn't even that good. She is so unbelievably terrible she's compelling. Sadly the same thing cannot be said about this crap-fest as a whole, it's just a bargain basement rotter.


A real head scratcher of a film by Bill Rebane who appeared to be getting worse in his trade throughout the eighties. Three crackpot millionaires invite nine people to a remote hotel to compete in a last person standing contest in which the final contestant will be given $1 million provided he or she makes it that far. A series of lame pranks are pulled on some of the guests while the others engage in what most adults would do under the circumstances namely get shatfaced at the hotel bar. Most scenes are merely an excuse to focus the camera on various female body parts including an opening dance number that is a crossover of American Bandstand meets geriatric aerobics complete with hookers. If there was any hesitation that white people can't dance this scene hammers the final nail in that coffin. Pay close attention for the nipple slip. This continues on for about forty-five minutes until Bill Rebane begins throwing darts at various plot twists and whatever he hits becomes the inspiration for the next scene making this one incoherent mess. It's a game until it's not a game. The three old coots are in complete control until they're not. The hotel is possessed by a supernatural force until it becomes just props. They're dead until they're not. Even the narrator at the end replies that he doesn't know what the hell happened. I defy anyone to reason where Rebane was going on this one. The acting is dinner theater caliber minus the dinner. Most of the actors probably went back to their day jobs at the local Stuckey's. I give it a few points for the scene where the yuppie broad opens the closet and a skeleton is inside skull humping himself. Let's see Gone With the Wind do that! This Chilling Classics collection is really becoming the bane of me. Bane, Get it! Like Rebane! I hate myself.


This God forsaken film is about three dumb millionaires who gather a bunch of people to play a deadly game, and the winner gets a million dollars. First of all, the acting is terrible, and the movie makes absolutely no sense at all. It is not scary in the least bit, it is so stupid that it made me laugh, which is why it earned that 1 star.The movie is not violent at all, but is pretty sleazy and focuses mostly on the women's breasts the whole time, and some of the characters are very annoying and whiny. Plus, the monsters in this movie are so cheesy and fake and not scary that it just makes you want to throw something at the screen. Last, but not least the ending is terrible. I don't want to give it away, in case you actually are strange enough to see this piece of junk. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!!!!!

Not Rated (But should be R) for Nudity, Profanity, and Mild Gore.


To anyone not familiar with c.S. Forrester's book this film should be interesting. It is colorful, well acted and depicts high adventure, but to those of us who know the original stories it is appalling. I could hardly sit through it.

For some reason screen-writers seem compelled to rewrite the stories they are working on. Of course, the spoken word is different from the written word, and there are some episodes that would be difficult to film. But, why do the screen-writers rewrite the story instead of just adapting it? In this case the writers out-did themselves.

Just a few examples: There was no mutiny on the Renown. The officers did take over the ship after the half-insane Captain was driven completely mad when he fell through a hatchway -for reasons implied but never given. There was no court martial. The court of inquiry was conducted in an almost congratulatory atmosphere. Captain Pellew does not appear appear in this part of the Hornblower saga, nor does Col. Ortega's wife. Hornblower, himself, was never in the brig either on the ship or on shore. There are plenty of such manipulations of Forrester's story.

On a purely technical basis, I think the film's repeated use of the flash-back device hurts the continuity of the story.

Why, oh why did screen-writers have to mess up a good story?


As with the other episodes in this made-for-TV series expanding on the many adventures of the sea legend, Horatio Hornblower's super human infallibility ruins all chance for suspense.

As little Wesley Crusher ruined many seasons of THE NEXT GENERATION, Horatio Hornblower invincibly saves every situation. Each and every clever solution inevitably comes only from the lips of Horatio Hornblower. Immeasurably superior, Hornblower's main trouble in this movie series seems to be tolerating the many error ridden characters above and below him in the chain of command. A perfect being makes for dull story telling. So superior is our hero, that even those who attempt to help him are powerless to do something correctly unless Hornblower is there to direct and control their every move.

What is the sense in telling a story about any person who cannot do wrong and will repeatedly win at everything every single time? What is the point of watching such a story?


Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling?

Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book).

Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?


What is this ? A low budget sex comedy ? Anyway it describes perfectly the people in Spain. They could come up with a better idea, I mean they do this kind of movies since the 60s.. and people like them ! This is neither a teen comedy nor a family one (you can't let your 12 year old watch 2 guys in bed kissing, he'll never want to go to Spain). This should be rated "R", because only people 35+ seem to laugh watching :S I'm truly disappointed, maybe I don't like gays (which is quite an important part of the movie).

Foreign humor is awful in films (except Kusturica), stick with doing dramas! If you want a new comedy try Talladega Nights


My giving this a score of 3 is NOT what I would give the original Soviet version of this film. It seems that American-International (a studio that specialized in ultra-low-budget fare in the 60s) bought this film and utterly destroyed it--slicing a two hour plus film into a 64 minute film! Plus, much of this 64 minutes was new material (such as the "monsters")--so you know that this film bears almost no similarity to the original. The original film appears to be a rather straight drama about the Soviet conquest of space--though I really am not sure what it was originally! For insight into the original film, read Steven Nyland's review--it was very helpful.

By the way, this was the third Soviet sci-film I've seen that American-International bought and then hacked apart to make a "new" film--standard practice to a company that was willing to put just about anything on the screen to make a buck--provided, of course, it didn't cost them much more than a buck in the first place!! This Americanized film was about two rival world powers (NOT the US and Soviets) trying to be the first to Mars. The tricky "bad guys" try but fail and the "good guys" rescue one of the idiot astronauts and then head to Mars. Unfortunately, they are temporarily stranded on a moon of Mars where they see some monsters (added by American-International) that are REAAAALLY cheesy and one does bear similarity to a certain part of a female's anatomy. Then, they are rescued--returning to Earth heroes.

The bottom line is that the film was butchered--turning an incredibly beautiful piece of art (for the time) being turned into a grade-C movie. Because of this, the Soviets really had a reason to hate America! I'm just shocked that the horrible job A-I did with this film didn't convince them to refuse to sell more films to these jerks! It's worth a look for a laugh, but the really bad moments that make you laugh are few and far between. So, the film is a dud--not bad enough to make it a must-see for bad movie buffs and too dopey to be taken seriously. I would really love to see this movie in its original form--it must have been some picture.


Considering John Doe apparently inspired Kyle XY's creator I was expecting its pilot to be quite interesting. However I probably had too high expectations because I was quite disappointed by it. First they turned the protagonist into a freak who had the crazy idea of showing off his amazing knowledge in front of an audience, in a public area. So after that scene I began to worry that it was just entertainment. But the problem is that it got worse as none of the other characters were properly introduced. They focused too much on John Doe which made the story far less intriguing. I was also slightly disappointed by Dominic Purcell's performance because I found he didn't make a believable John Doe. An other problem was the police story. It really felt like déjà vu and it wasn't a pleasant sensation. It leads us to the worst issue in the bunch, the episodic format. I could already see the fillers coming one after an other.

So overall I was very disappointed by it and don't recommend it to anyone. Considering how bad it was I better understand now why the show got canceled. In some way I have the impression that it missed its target, developing characters to help the protagonist find his own identity. It's sad because there was potential, like the people he met at the club. The production quality was also quite good and the casting correct. But I'll never know if it got better, probably not, because I don't plan to watch the next episode.


After a series of power-outages on a remote island zoo, genetically engineered sabertooth tigers are on the loose and mauling residents of the island. Man, the sci-fi channel has made some bad "original" movies, but I think this might possibly be their worst so far! This badly written and directed "Jurassic Park" rip-off offers all the usual clichés (mad scientists who thinks people killed by the monsters are "expendable losses", characters walking down long dark hallways alone, brain-dead teen characters who's only function in the film is to die a horrible death, etc.), and, unsurprisingly, no suspense whatsoever. The special effects are atrociousthe puppet heads in close-ups of the title beasties are bad enough, looking like stiff plush dolls, but the CGIwhich makes the computer-generated dinosaurs in "Walking with Dinosaurs" look life-like by comparisonare just downright awful. There's some gore, but most of it looks pretty unconvincing. Oh, and the death scene of the scientist at the end is truly one of the worst things I've seen in years. I couldn't even laugh it was so bad!

Don't waste your time, this one is just downright bad.

2/10.

Oh, and here's some interesting trivia for youthis film borrowed music cues from the 2003 sci-fi film "Alien Hunter", which was far superior to this piece of crap.


In the Fiji islands, the greedy and unscrupulous owner of the Valalola Resort Primal Park invites investors and guests for an opening party of his compound composed of hotel and zoo aiming to find partners for his discoveries. When a bunch of college smalltime thieves puts a virus in the security system to participate in a scavenger hunt, the greatest attractions of the zoo  sabretoothes from the prehistoric age developed from DNA found in fossils  escape, killing the hosts and guards for pleasure.

The incredibly lame and cheap "Attack of the Sabretooth" is one of the worst movies I have recently seen. The characters are awful and not funny or pleasant and the story is a terrible Jurassik Park rip-off with a bad collection of clichés. Basically all the lines and situations are poor and stupid, but the winner is when the guard explains that the sabretoothes are bulimic and like to kill for pleasure. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Ataque do Dente de Sabre" ("The Attack of the Sabretooth")


The film starts with a manager (Nicholas Bell) giving welcome investors (Robert Carradine) to Primal Park . A secret project mutating a primal animal using fossilized DNA, like ¨Jurassik Park¨, and some scientists resurrect one of nature's most fearsome predators, the Sabretooth tiger or Smilodon . Scientific ambition turns deadly, however, and when the high voltage fence is opened the creature escape and begins savagely stalking its prey - the human visitors , tourists and scientific.Meanwhile some youngsters enter in the restricted area of the security center and are attacked by a pack of large pre-historical animals which are deadlier and bigger . In addition , a security agent (Stacy Haiduk) and her mate (Brian Wimmer) fight hardly against the carnivorous Smilodons. The Sabretooths, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly though not convincing. The giant animals savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators. Furthermore a third Sabretooth more dangerous and slow stalks its victims.

The movie delivers the goods with lots of blood and gore as beheading, hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Sabretooths appear with mediocre special effects.The story provides exciting and stirring entertainment but it results to be quite boring .The giant animals are majority made by computer generator and seem totally lousy .Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming food.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the beasts ,running,bound and leaps or dangling over walls . And it packs a ridiculous final deadly scene. No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes . Other films about Sabretooths or Smilodon are the following : ¨Sabretooth(2002)¨by James R Hickox with Vanessa Angel, David Keith and John Rhys Davies and the much better ¨10.000 BC(2006)¨ by Roland Emmerich with with Steven Strait, Cliff Curtis and Camilla Belle. This motion picture filled with bloody moments is badly directed by George Miller and with no originality because takes too many elements from previous films. Miller is an Australian director usually working for television (Tidal wave, Journey to the center of the earth, and many others) and occasionally for cinema ( The man from Snowy river, Zeus and Roxanne,Robinson Crusoe ). Rating : Below average, bottom of barrel.


this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya


I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time.


I remember watching ATTACK when it first came out and caught it again recently. The sci fi channel has run worse, but not by much. A shameless ripoff of Jurassic Park, ATTACK substitutes sabertooth cats for dinosaurs. And they are on the loose, devouring as many extras as possible. The CGI is pretty bad, and closeups of prosthetic cat heads are laughable. We get some gore, which helps a little. Wait until you see how the mad scientist who started this whole mess gets it. Other than Robert Carradine, who has very little to do, the cast is unknown. Apparently this was shot in Fiji. Nice work if you can get it. Reminds me of all those low-budget monster STVs that were popular in the 80s and 90s.


Three giant sabretooth tigers(..created in a laboratory from mitochondrial DNA, a "genetic breakthrough" derived from fossil material)are on the rampage accidentally set free through a series of events(such as a computer geek's introduced virus in order to unlock security measures keeping the resort novelty shops closed during construction & a security guard's leaving a gate open while searching for the missing page from a porn mag that flew away in the breeze)that threaten the lives of those it comes in contact with. The tigers are always hungry, but are unable to digest what they eat. So pretty much the tigers just rip their prey to shreds. Victims include a group of college kids(..the stereotypes include a goth girl, jock and tech nerd), security personnel, and those somewhat developed rich scoundrels who we can easily despise and wish horrible death.

Rounding out a series of bad sci-fi channel flicks, Attack of the Sabretooth has some of the most wretched computer simulated animals I've seen yet. And, the final death sequence is so putridly presented, you'll demand within the deepest recesses of your soul the time spent on this truly awful exercise in the creature feature canon. There's some good dark humor deriving from heads being torn from necks, but even here the prosthetic work is unconvincing. Prosthetic body parts and blood aplenty as victims are pounced upon, crying for help and receiving none. I'm starting to sound like a broken record, repeating myself in every user comment I write for these sci-fi channel flicks. I think maybe it's time to move on to other kinds of cinema. Robert Carradine has a role as a ruthless businessman who is being wooed by his truly repellent ex-brother-in-law, Nicholas Bell, the one opening "Primal Park", a resort / zoo featuring genetically created sabretooth tigers as it's major attraction. Stacy Haiduk, still quite yummy, is a security officer who attempts to convince Bell to get the investors he hopes to goad into putting money in his multi-million dollar project to leave the island. Brian Wimmer is Haiduck's lover and his role is a mechanic keeping operations running smoothly.

Bell's fate at the end, resulting from a dislodged tooth from a sabretooth tiger statue is the pits. Carradine spends a great deal of the film taunting Bell, his arch nemesis. The tiger's point-of-view shows humans in a bright color as it moves towards them. The film ultimately consists of characters walking through darkened corridors(..the tech nerd's virus cut off the power)worried for their safety. The college kids commit breaking and entering to score certain items needed(..it's a scavenger hunt type of activity)to enter a fraternity / sorority. The cast playing these kids do not rise above their clichés.


Spoilers will be in this. The movie could have been better if they had just had a different script, director, and CGI provider. Not much right? The movie has a man starting his own theme park...err...zoo on a deserted island where people can see dinosaurs...err...Sabretooths and it is called Jurra...oops...Primal Park. I do not mind rip-offs, because there are no original ideas for these kind of movies, but this one just slaps you in the face with it, R e p e a t e d l y.There is even the "creature's shadowed head on the design" thing. The Sabretooths, that are not sabretooths according to Mr. Primal Park (Just ancient killing cats), Are rather junky but the crowning accomplishment is the one I call "Sloggy". Because, after disposing of one big cat, a hero is relaxing a little because there is only one left. Enter the weird feeding guy who says, Nah, we made three, the third being a monster who pulls itself around with its front feet. Great, groovy. A group of college students are also on the island for a scavenger hunt, there test to get into their cliques frat or sort (Always thought that needed a short nickname). Out of the ones who do live, only one has completed their task, so I got a kick out of that. Oh yeah, the mandatory "Evil Capitalist Must Die" Clique is in force with not one, but two of them! Mr. Primal Park's death is the most laughable thing you will see in one of these movies as a Sabretooth statue's tooth jars loose (Courtesy of Sloggy), shrinks a few sizes, and impales the man through the throat. If I had only gotten away so easy. I like "Sabretooth" better than this spin-off.


Everything about this film is hog wash. Pitiful acting, awful dialog, ugly native girls. this movie sinks into oblivion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The director must have been a weekend bender. Robert C. is totally lost and has not got a clue on what is going on . The college kids are worst. No acting talent at all, very stupid reasoning, and just down right dumbbells. Special effects are for the birds. The so called security force around this park belongs in toy land: with stupid looking guns, walkie talkies that are useless; and a computer system that ranks with a roll of toilet paper. if the park is under construction and nothing works; why bother inviting potential clients until everything is complete. the writers should be the first victims of the mess along with the producers and the crew. The whole film belongs in a septic tank shot to another planet for viewing. What a gem. Convicts should have to watch this, so they can commit suicide.


The film is about a sabretooth on the lose at a amusement park where teens are on a scavenger hunt. Since there are no rules they break into a building and start getting killed off. The deaths are cheesy and are dumb. But at least it had better effects then sabretooth. I gave it a three because Stacy was in it and I loved the movie Sabretooth. I thought it was okay but some deaths were off-screen. There was a dumb scene where the two teens kiss and the sabretooth's head pops out and the boy leaves his girlfriend behind leaving her to have her totally fake looking red guts out. Then the sabretooth gets up in the vents and bites the kids head off. The end death with the owner was totally fake looking graphics. Even that death was stupid because the statues tooth went through his mouth and hangs there like that will support it and there is a scene when a goth girl loses her contacts doesn't find them, and seems like she doesn't need the. The film is idiotic and a waste of time.


First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.

That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.

One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a "B made for TV movie" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.

If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes.


This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.


This movie should have NEVER been made. From the poorly done animation, to the beyond bad acting. I am not sure at what point the people behind this movie said "Ok, looks good! Lets do it!" I was in awe of how truly horrid this movie was. At one point, which very may well have been the WORST point, a computer generated Saber Tooth of gold falls from the roof stabbing the idiot creator of the cats in the mouth...uh, ooookkkk. The villain of the movie was a paralyzed sabretooth that was killed within minutes of its first appearance. The other two manages to kill a handful of people prior to being burned and gunned down. Then, there is a random one awaiting victims in the jungle...which scares me for one sole reason. Will there be a Part Two? God, for the sake of humans everywhere I hope not.

This movie was pure garbage. From the power point esquire credits to the slide show ending.


This movie was pretty bad. Sci-fi is usually my favorite channel so I watch all the original movies that play on it. I really don't know if this movie can be called original. Starting a zoo/theme park on a remote island sounds pretty familiar. What was it, oh yeah, Jurassic Park. But this has Sabertooth tigers instead.

The movie starts out with a few stereotypical college kids on an island doing some kind of treasure hunt. One of them ends up dieing a rather gruesome death with some of the worst special effects I've seen. The blood looked a lot like ketchup. Also at the beginning there is a scientist who wants to make as many saber tooth tigers as possible for people to enjoy. 3 of them have already escaped and are going around eating the tourists, or the people invited to the island to see the tigers first hand. Again, sound like Jurassic Park. Probably the coolest thing was the 1000lb saber tooth who crawled around on his front legs killing the mad scientist with a tooth statue of sorts that somehow shrinks and goes through the guys neck. Funniest death I've seen on TV.

The acting is extremely cheesy, the special effects are horrible. The CG tigers could almost pass for clay models, and even some of the sounds were off. For instance, when one of the college students is trying to escape, he uses an ax to break down a door, the ax goes into the door and about 2 seconds later you hear the sound. This movie was pretty bad. The cheesy deaths were quite funny though.


Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie!

There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades.

You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he.

The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER.


Literally every aspect of this science-fiction low-budget flick falls under the categories that have been classified for its predecessors, contemporaries, and those to follow. Bad special effects, a weak storyline, ridiculous amounts of blood and gore, annoying and pointless characters, all that you can expect. "Attack of the Sabretooth" is about a new vacation resort where the proprietors are genetically engineering Smilodon cats for an attraction. The cats escape and begin to kill people, the guy running the show wants to save them and not warn the unsuspecting visitors about them, and there is a band of visitors and some employees who rebel and plan to kill the cats.

Special effects-wise, the film is about an average achievement given its budget. The sabretooths are portrayed through poor CGI. Amazingly, though, the cats look more realistic in an up-close, detailed shot rather than the longer, more distant shots where the CGI is better concealed. Their attacks are recklessly bloody and distasteful. Just as you'd expect, they attack, rip off some arms and legs, and leave very little behind. This is part of the reason why the film descends into poor schlock.

The plot and characters are just as horrendous. We have some college kids who come to the island and they plan a scavenger hunt. And take it very, VERY seriously. Even so much as to trespass on private property, tamper with security systems, and steal. Why are they taking a simple game so seriously? Did I miss something? Was there money involved? Or were they sent to do it? I don't know, I could barely follow the film. But it seemed to me like they were just doing it for the fun of doing it. Even so, they went too far for normal.

"Attack of the Sabretooth" is a very poor film. Even for a low-budget sci-fi flick, it is a very poor and cheap example. It will bore most viewers to tears, might be attractive for some, and will make you chuckle and laugh all the way through. And keep in mind, this is not a comedy, this is a cheap horror flick, so it's not suppose to be comical.


Where to begin? the special effects should be named special defects, When the director shouted "action" I guess he also indicated to the actors to carry out the worst performance they could think of. Maybe he was annoyed with the producers and wanted to make sure that they would not recover a single cent out of their investment and that the work would be a case study of how not to make movie. Or maybe he hated art school and wanted to be an accountant but his family did not let him.

The only thing that is sure that whoever employs him in the future is because its in love with him (so its objectivity jumped through the window) or because he changed its name and deleted all past previous references.


Well this movie actually made me feel so strongly that I signed up for an IMDb account just to warn people. It is patently AWFUL!! NOTHING makes sense in this movie. There is way too many subplots for a start. Josh Hartnett's character is an aspiring actor and yoga instructor as well as a cop who seems to be living way beyond his means and only teaches yoga to hot girls (Some of whom wait naked in his jacuzzi for when he comes back from work). Add to that the fact that his dad was killed by a crooked cop who just so happens to be in on the current crime being investigated by the hapless duo. Harrison Ford's character is trying to sell real estate on the side and is sleeping with the Internal Affairs investigator's ex-wife who happens to run a psychic radio show which Ford's character calls from time to time. NONSENSE!!

I can't remember the characters names (that's how forgettable this is) so I'll refer to them as Ford and Hartnett.

Then there's the dialogue which is brutal. I mean cringe-inducing stuff here. Throw in every cliché in the book (having a heart-to-heart in a dark bar during the day over a drink where the bartender knows his name; the duo being investigated by internal affairs (why??); hartnett confronting his dad's killer) and you've got one hell of a mess.

As I mentioned the plot is preposterous and continuity is non-existent: 1) When Ford's car is being repossessed, how the hell did the repo guys know where it would be parked? Were they following him?? 2) When Hartnett goes to the morgue and it just so happens that the only clue from the crime scene (an earring) is replicated on of the charred bodies there (that was lucky!) 3) When the two are arrested and taken in for questioning - Ford keeps answering his phone and Hartnett "centers himself" with a yoga pose on the table. Instead of taking the phone from Ford the IA guy waits for it to ring each time and then tries to grab it off the table before Ford does. Meanwhile the female IA officer in with Hartnett is rubbing herself all over him. Then, inexplicably, the two are released without answering any questions. 4) During the car chase Hartnett's car is crashing and smashing its way around Hollywood but then suddenly the car is perfect again. Not a scratch! 5) When Ford chases the bad guy into the building and he gets in the elevator how the hell does he know which floor the bad guy got off at?? 6) When the two are chasing the bad guy around in hartnett's car, Ford is trying to close a real estate deal. Come on! 7) The bad guy is the most unconvincing record exec ever. His motivation for killing an aspiring group of rappers on his label? They might leave his label and it's a warning to keep his other groups loyal. But hang on, how is he ever going to sign anyone new with that business plan?? 8) Why is the IA guy who is investigating Ford arrested in the end? There is no explication!! 9) And Hartnett gets to use his "acting" to capture the bad guy in the end.

I could go on, I really could. Anyone who is looking deeper into this movie than a straight up action comedy needs their head examined because that's all it is. There's nothing else to it! It's not supposed to be satirical or ironic. It's just crap.


This film was one of the worst I've seen in a long while.

It's a combination police drama and comedy about two Hollywood detectives, Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, investigating a shootout at a hip hop club.

The plot is contrived and there are way too many side issues going on. Ford is hustling real estate on the side (Martin Landau is one of his clients), Hartnett runs a yoga school where he's hustling chicks in his spare time, the two are under investigation by Internal Affairs, Ford is screwing the ex-girlfriend (Lena Olin) of the IA investigator and she's a psychic who has a radio show, the man who set up the killing at the club is a dirty ex-cop who shot Hartnett's father years ago.

Toss in the obligatory car chases and some lame attempts at humor, and that's about the gist of this turkey.


Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.

Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....

The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!

Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career.


Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.

The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).

What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) !

I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.

The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).

The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).

It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide  Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.


This film actually manages to be mindless enjoyment for 2/3 of the journey. Sadly, the film ends up being too 'confused.' While I know some of the plot contrivances are standard of 'buddy cop' films I got drawn in to the characters who foil each other brilliantly but in the end the film relies too much on chase sequences as a crutch and I lost interest.

The filmmakers did a great job of getting the characters alone and doing their own thing and we got to see who they are and identified with both cops early on. We formed our own opinion instead of being force fed a view of them through constant bickering.

In the end there is too much going on and it detracts greatly from what could've been an enjoyable piece of escapism. Here's what's concerning Joe Gavilan (Harrison Ford) at the end of the film:

1. His real estate deals 2. His affair with a radio psychic 3. He's being investigated by internal affairs 4. The homicide investigation

If you add in Casey's concerns you fond out he wants to be an actor and avenge his father's death. Now some of these things do come together and even come together well but all the plot elements come together amidst this bogus chase that is so long and pathetic that I hardly have time to break my ennui and give a crap about what just happen. The impressive screenwriting acrobatics cannot overcome the bad filmmaking.

As if a ridiculous chase sequence wasn't bad enough, one which has four separate sections and could last close to half an hour, wasn't bad enough, Joe Gavilan fields calls about his real estate deal while chasing the perpetrator with a gun. All these extra-curricular plot lines and jokes make it absolutely meaningless to me whether or not the criminal gets caught. We already forgot or no longer care about the murder plot at this point because multiple plot-lines and eye candy of the chases have numbed us beyond all comprehension.

While I could go on about the chases and how they ruin a decent story, I won't. This could've been a very enjoyable formula film but it got much too big for its britches and it turned into a redundant waste of time. Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett actually did rather well and a small appearance by Gladys Knight is worth noting. Sadly none of the actors can help this hopelessly misguided film from being forgettable.

While this will probably be better than the likes of "The Hulk" and "Lara Croft II" that still doesn't make this film good. I once heard that Harrison Ford claimed to only make films that eh thought would make money, I'm not sure if that's true or not. What is true is that to get great box office you don't need a great movie or a great actor, this film has neither in its lead roles. My advice to Harrison Ford would be: to stick to Indiana Jones because at least you can still run.


Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.

While "Hollywood Homicide" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.

Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.

All in all, "Hollywood Homicide" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.


The movie was "OK". Not bad, not good, just OK. If there was anything else in the theater this would be skipped by far. Sadly, Fast and Furious 2 also stunk, but I'd rather see this than FF2. :) If you have a fetish for harrison ford or that other young punk, this will be a "cute" movie for you. Personally, I'd wait for HBO or Blockbuster.


Who in the world told Harrison Ford that this was a good role for him???

And Josh Hartnett...how does a 19 year old who can't fire a gun become a cop? Over used cliches plus zero character development and about 15 pointless music industry cameos equal a surprisingly bad film!!!


Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.

I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.

I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.


The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.

Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.

After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.

"Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.


This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting.


What a disgrace! I was checking this out hoping it would be an undiscovered James Garner gem and what a stinker it turned out to be! The production quality was fine, but the plot was undeniably lame and I can honestly say that I am only a couple hours older and a lot dumber now. The movie really had no redeeming qualities and if this kind of stuff keeps coming out, it will give Hallmark a bad name. For those of you who insist on knowing what it was about, it's about nothing, and in this case, it's not a good thing. We are subjected to watching one old ornery woman who is one of the dumbest creatures ever to roam the earth, who happens to be married to a real sweetheart who is probably the only person alive that could put up with her. She drags him through one mess after another, gets him into one embarrassing situation after another, and is proud of herself the whole time. Then the movie ends. What a relief that was! Not worth the time it would take to watch it, so do yourself a favor and skip this one, you'll be glad you did if you knew how bad this one really is.


Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not.


The comparison is perhaps unfair, but inevitable. Those attracted to the intimacy and depth of Umbrellas will be slightly horrified to discover a cut-and-paste musical in the American style - awkward, stilted dialogue with inexplicable song-and-dance numbers. Gene Kelly's French accent was apparently so poor, that a dreadful job of dubbing was substituted (as you'll remember, the dubbing was almost perfectly pulled off in Umbrellas). The translation of the French (for subtitled versions), as well, leaves something to be desired, although this can't be attributed to Demy. The film also has several self-aware moments that come off a wee disconcerting, such as references in songs to LeGrand himself. And the costumes - well, the tight pants/white boots combination, and the freakishly unnatural colors, reminds one of an Austin Powers film . . .

But Demy does reward the viewer with allusions to Umbrellas; note, for instance, the suitcase carried by Maxence in his departure from Rochefort - this is the same suitcase carried by Guy in his departure from Cherbourg. Also, note the "Convenient Brunette of Resolution" - Madeleine in Umbrellas, and Josette in Young Girls.

Generally speaking, those expecting the natural feel of Umbrellas (save the floating bicycle scene), or looking for similar deeper questions and ambiguous endings as in Umbrella's script, should probably pass this one b y. Those looking for a French version of a thin '60s American musical will be quite happy.


Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters.

People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.

To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort.

Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, "Umbrellas") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.


A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.

That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance.

I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their "selective memories" and "selective vision". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.

The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War.


....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.

Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).

According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.

These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.


I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:

1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.

2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays.

3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.

4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.

Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.

Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly.