We've been served - a terrible film.

Okay, I'll admit that since I'm white and have had no practical experience in the "competitive world of step-dancing," I might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. On the other hand, I do know a bad motion picture when I see it.

And, boy, have I just seen it.

Filmed in Low-Budget-Vision and directed by Ian Iqubal Rashid, ("A Touch of Pink"), "How She Move" tells the tale of how important it is to follow one's dreams - even if those dreams include bopping around to loud, irritating hip-hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator.

I'll try to give a small synopsis of the "plot." First of all there are two actors that look like LL Cool J who work in an auto shop in Toronto (the Mecca of racial diversity), but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day.

There are a few other guys in this "crew," including a token white dude and a guy that looks like Denzel Washington in "Malcolm X." There are also two women in the movie - one resembles Serena Williams and the other looks like Geraldine from the old "Flip Wilson Show." One of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug-addicted sibling. The other girl, a member of Salt N Pepa, no doubt, is just plain no good.

There's another guy who looks like Eddie Murphy's Buckwheat, while still another actor who's a Huggy Bear knock-off. These guys are rival step dancers. Evidently, this activity is very hard-core in the 'hood, and they are all practicing for the big "Step Monster" jam in Detroit.

Since I was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful, as in a Bergman film or that one music video by Snow), it's hard to explain what happens, other than there's a lot of arguing, the Serena Williams girl (who never smiles, by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group), there's some step-dancing and a lot of irritating hip-hop music.

It's a typical rags-to-riches story; sort of like "Rocky" with a really bad soundtrack, "Rudy" with annoying rap music in the background, "Cry Freedom" without the laughs.

But why does a film - which could have made a big impact on black audiences - have to contain drug addiction, bad parents and a title that sounds like a first-grader saying the phrase, "How she moves"?

I was "moved" by this movie, however. Moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.


This movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. Among all the stars you couldn't get your kicks from any of the scenes. The movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. The acting is worse than Keanu Reeves, the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college, and the dialogue is the worse I have seen in a movie. The plot also was worse by ten fold. I'd stick to the amateur route. The audio commentary was useless since it's a skin flick but even then that was bad too. Unless your a diehard Jenna Jameson fan there is little here. 4/10


I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.


Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.


Tony Scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in Richard Kelly's clichéd, patchy, overwrought screenplay. Domino Harvey (Kiera Knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. This is her story... "sort of".

The problem with this rubbish is that there isn't much of a story at all and Scott's extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in Harvey's chaotic life.

You just don't care about Harvey. Knightley plays her as an obnoxious, cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. She punches people she doesn't like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it, but she isn't the least bit real and Knightly isn't the least bit convincing, either.

The film is boring. It's loud, too, and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores I've heard in a long time. The final twenty minutes are a poor re-run of Scott's "True Romance" climax with Domino's gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are -- surprise! surprise! -- destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a Las Vegas casino.

Unfortunately, this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by Scott and becomes a confusing, pretentious, pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. This is not an artistically brave or experimental piece; it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters.

Mickey Roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter, but he disappears into the background as the "narrative" progresses. Chris Walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and Dabney Coleman, always solid, is underutilized.

Don't be fooled by this film's multi-layered, gimmick-ridden surface. It is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it.


Repetitive music, annoying narration, terrible cinematography effects. Half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight.

One of the best scenes was in the "deleted scenes" section, the one where she's in the principle's office with her mom. I don't understand why they'd cut that. The movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and Domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie.

Ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of MTV, and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. Speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. It's like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they didn't want to throw away.

Another movie with Jerry Springer in it? That should've told me not to watch it from the preview.

A popular movie for the "in" crowd.


From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.

For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.

The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.


My flatmate rented out this film the other night, so we watched it together.

The first impression is actually a positive one, because the whole movie is shot in this colorful, grainy, post-MTV texture. Fast sequences, cool angles, sweeping camera moves - for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another "Snatch", for the moment....

When the plot actually starts unfolding, one starts to feel as if one over-dosed amphetamine. things just don't make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes, but then again, the film is so bad that you are actually better off NOT watching it.

First you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between Keira Knightley and Lucy Liu. WRONG. This conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. Rather on the contrary, Domino's lesbian come on on Lucy Liu's character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion.

Then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. In any case, that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. But after that the question of Domino's character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. So in short, NO this is NOT a movie about Domino's character.

Then i thought, it's probably a story of one robbery. A pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing, bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers, mafia kids are executed, hands are removed, Domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates, etc. But soon this impression is dispelled by another U-turn of the plot.

This time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese Afro-American woman, who fakes driver's licenses at the local MVD and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. Lateesha stars on Jerry Springer show, tries to publicize some new, wacky racial theory, and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter.

What does this have to do with the main plot? URgh, well, nobody knows. Except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors' fee of 300,000.

Then at some point you start to think: "Oh, it is about our society and the way media distorts things". There is reality TV crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. The bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of Hollywood actors, who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. But NO, this is not a movie about media, they just appear sporadically throughout the movie.

Plus there are numerous other sub-plots: the crazy Afghani guy bent on liberating Afghanistan, the love story between Domino and Chocco, the mescaline episode, the FBI surveillance operation...

Can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie? Judge for yourself, but my conclusion is clear - it is a veritable mess!


If it smells like garbage and if it looks like garbage, it must be garbage. This is by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. Tony Scott's poor directing style puts shame to an already uninteresting and slightly untrue story of Domino Harvey's life as a bounty hunter. The story is completely discontinuous and confusing to watch. Certain aspects of the plot were ridiculous and totally unbelievable. It seems that all of the action scenes were loosely strung together by poor plot points and horrible acting. Keira Knightley does get totally naked in this one though. That is the one and only upside to this film. If you want to see her naked just fast forward the movie until about an hour and a half into it and you'll catch a whole lot of nipple. I strongly suggest that no one see this movie EVER!</3


supposedly based on the life of Domino Harvey a model turned bounty hunter. I'd say 95 % is fabricated. I always keep an open mind when it comes to movies, however, this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film, something i can't stand, and to top it off, the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b!ch I just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it's too incoherent, too flashy and way too boring, it's a who gives a crap kinda story, and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer's own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat's life.


this film is really bad....... no i mean really really bad. Tony Scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state, besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is Richard Kelly (director of Donnie Darko) did the screenplay to this. now Richard Kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson.

now i love Mickey Rourke's new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. don't get me wrong i still love Mickey Rourke but he has made a few accidence's in his time and this is one of them. i don't know what to say about Keira knightly, i think she's a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films.

all in all this film is bad. thats it....... 1/10.......j.d Seaton


I do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of Direction or Script. As you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. It is absolutely distracting and without substance, which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. I do not write many reviews here, but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. Movies like this erode at Movie making as an Art form. Movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current Reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. People hone there craft, there 5 senses, and there business sense - overlooking there own inner life. However I do not put blame on them, it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age - qualified by films like this one. But by proxy these Manufacturers I would dare not call Artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen - diffusing it to everyone. A story of bounty hunters, guns guns and more guns, heavy handed flaunting of sex - for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her?), over saturated, over exaggerated, one liners, non-linear plots. All different and yet all the same. Annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. A story? a development of character? or just withheld, missing information, revealed at the end to create the *effect* of a story - as if one took place. It altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. It is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. Where are the films with Awareness? What about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there? What about the depth of a look? What about editing with a point about mind and consciousness? yes even in action films this can happen. Sure they have honed a craft; but what use is it without soul or wisdom? of insight into the human condition? Can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art, or compare this to Picasso and others - I say put this next to Gandhi or the Godfather, even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings; then look me in the face and say it again. It is a good crew, but they need some help with depth and story. I hope they get it because I like the crews previous work. better luck next time.


It's rare that I come across a film this awful, this annoying and this irritating. It is without doubt one of the worst films I've ever seen.

The plot, when it's not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing, is ludicrous. Why did Domino become such a bad-ass tough bitch? Because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this "traumatic" event left her emotionally stunted, and hating everyone. When the dialogue is not clichéd or banal, it's littered with laughable lines such as: "There are three kinds of people in this world: the rich... the poor... and everyone else". At one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. Because of a confusing mobile phone call, instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number, they blow off his arm with a shotgun. At another point, the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go!? Clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy.

Keira Knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. Mickey Rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess.

I have enjoyed some of Tony Scott's previous films, True Romance being one, but all I could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.


I was very excited about this film when I first saw the previews. Normally I see a preview this good and I buy the film outright. Something told me to... you know watch it first. I'm glad I did. Keira Knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. In the 2nd Pirates movie when it came out I went to see it. All I saw was Domino Harvey and I hated her more for it. I think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for Domino.

Domino who? Who is Domino Harvey? I still don't really know or care. I don't know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. I didn't care about her character and even Keira getting partically naked didn't make it worth the movie. The direction was definitely lacking. The writing was trite and shallow. The editing was horrible. I don't mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. There's a place for it. Good examples of choppy, MTV style, colorful editing (not sure if there's an official name) would be Fight Club; just off the top of my head. Even Enemy of the State had a semi similar editing style at parts. It was used tastefully and wasn't used as a crutch. I mean this is the same guy who directed Top Gun and Crimson Tide. Tony Scott please give me my time back.

I understand there are many people who liked this movie. I guess the idea that you'll either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. Frankly, I hate it.


Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after "Crimson Tide" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics ("De-Lovely" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of "mystique" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, "Domino" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior "Rules of Attraction," Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, "entertainment" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on "Jerry Springer"), and I found myself wishing they would all get the "tails" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. "Domino" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.


What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.

Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.

The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.

We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.

The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.

So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.

So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly  double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.


how can you take her hard-living, glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with *that* accent? It's absurd. Apart from that, the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky, the plot is a shallow, boring, confused gangster-movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. The film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback - mostly out of sequence - seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. The film ever shows you THINGS THAT DON'T REALLY HAPPEN and then later says "that didn't really happen, this happened" - see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) 'first ladies'. What have we seen the first, wrong, sequence of events for then?

Terrible choice in casting, a convoluted, messy plot and a headache-inducing directorial style. 1/5.


What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.

Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:

"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie."

"Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!"

"I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!"

"I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!"

"This one too!"

"Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?"

"If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?"

"I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is."

"How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already."

"I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out."

"Is this over yet?"

"I want my money back."

"The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here."

"It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one."

"UGH."

And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."

In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.

(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.)


Now I had the best intentions when watching this one. I like some of Tony Scott's work, also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie, even though I heard otherwise from other people. But this was simply hopeless.

In my humble opinion, Tony Scott was trying too hard. It was all just too much. Allow me to elaborate.

Miss Knightley was overacting, and not in a good way. The people who did perform well, were Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, and Christopher Walken, but their screen time just wasn't able to save the movie.

There were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality, yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. A certain tune was used around 4 times, which really started to bug after the second time. I'm a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once.

Also, the editing really went out on this one, as the cutting rate is rather high. Oh, and the repetitive echoing of some of Keira's lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second, third, fourth time, and so on.

Basically, my opinion is that if you want to see an action-flick that is high-paced and "somewhat" funny, and you don't care about everything I mentioned above, you might like it.

(On a side note: I'm not a Keira Knightley fan.)


I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous!

The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.

I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!


This is a bad movie. Not one of the funny bad ones either. This is a lousy bad one. It was actually painful to watch. The direction was awful,with lots of jumping around and the green and yellow hues used throughout the movie makes the characters look sickly. Keira Knightly was not convincing as a tough chick at all,and I cannot believe Lucy Liu and Mickey Rourke signed on for this criminal waste of celluloid. The script was terrible and the acting was like fingernails across a chalkboard. If you haven't seen it,don't. You are not missing anything and will only waste two hours of your life watching this drivel .I have seen bad movies before and even enjoyed them due to their faults. This one is just a waste of time.


I recently viewed Manufactured Landscapes at the Seattle International Film Festival. I was drawn to the movie as a photographer because I'm both familiar and a fan of Burtynsky's work. While I believe the movie does a good job getting it's message across, I couldn't help but feel that it was made as a complete afterthought to the photographs and subsequent popular book by Burtynsky. Obviously one reason for this is the extensive use of still photographs featuring zooms and pans across them. While this is a good effect when used economically, I felt like 75% of the movie was just stills from Burtynsky's book (which I already own). That's probably an exaggeration, but that's how I felt. If you own the book or are familiar with his work you might be better off skipping this one.


Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.

At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow "beautiful". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.

I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left.


The movie opens up with a long single shot of aisles in factory crammed with workers. My, what we've done to the planet you might think. I hope we get to see other things like this.

That's very rare. When you're not looking at a horribly filmed angle of the narrator at a lecture hall, you're watching him set up his camera to take pictures in different locations. It'd be nice if chose areas that were more fitting with his topic but he doesn't. So, then you'll hear some more narration, watch a few pictures go by and watch him set up his camera. Why not use the filming camera to show more of the landscapes instead? It really kills any sense of pacing and paints the guy as more of vain jerk.

I could read tips on how someone set up their camera, fast forward through this whole movie and waste a lot less time.


I was very excited about seeing this film, anticipating a visual excursus on the relation of artistic beauty and nature, containing the kinds of wisdom the likes of "Rivers and Tides." However, that's not what I received. Instead, I get a fairly uninspired film about how human industry is bad for nature. Which is clearly a quite unorthodox claim.

The photographer seems conflicted about the aesthetic qualities of his images and the supposed "ethical" duty he has to the workers occasionally peopling the images, along the periphery. And frankly, the images were not generally that impressive. And according to this "artist," scale is the basis for what makes something beautiful.

In all respects, a stupid film. For people who'd like to feel better about their environmental consciousness ... but not for any one who would like to think about the complexities of the issues surrounding it.


holy Sh*t this was god awful. i sat in the theater for for an hour and ten minutes and i thought i was going to gouge out my eyes much in the manor Oedipus Rex. dear god. this movie deserves no more credit than anything done by a middle school film buff. please save your money, this movie can offer you nothing. unless you enjoy sideshows and sleeping in movie theaters. you know, h3ll, bring your girlfriend and make things interesting. you will be the only ones there anyway. F@ck this slide show.

Ye Be Warned.

I recommend not watching this.

hello.

how are you?

I'm pretty good.

enjoying this day?

I am.

this comment was one-hundred times more fun than pretending to watch this daym movie. this is sad.


That song keeps humming in my head. Not the greatest song, but it's the 80's. This movie is about a lead singer who "supposebly" gets killed while being accused of murders as he stalks his girlfriend who sings backup vocals in his band. The lead singer whos name is Billy "Eye" (yeah, right) is dead after two years and his band comes back for a concert only the backup vocalist is the lead singer this time. Billy stalks her and eventually goes around killing all these people and terrifying the girl and makeing people around her think theres something wrong with her and that shes imagining things. She finally decides to go to a cemetary and dig up his grave to see if he's still there. She sees that he's dead but still see's and hears his voice. During the end of the movie we find out the reason behind all of this, Billy has a brother named John (right again) and John admits that he was jealous of his brother and that he killed all those people to get back at him and place the blame on his brother and then take his girlfriend and terrorize her because she called him crazy. The ending is very cheezy and the acting is very lame and wooden. But.... I like it anyway. I watch it for the song. I wish I had it.


A group of people are invited to there high school reunion, but after they arrive they discover it to be a scam by an old classmate they played an almost fatal prank on. Now, he seeks to get revenge on all those that hurt him by sealing all the exits and cutting off all telephone lines.

Dark slasher film with an unexceptional premise. Bringing it up a notch are a few good performances, some rather creative death scenes, plenty of excitement & scares, some humor and an original ending.

Unrated for Extreme Violence, Graphic Nudity, Sexual Situations, Profanity and Drug Use.


Well, on the endless quest for horror, we will come across this film, apparently re-released on DVD recently for some ungodly reason. The transfer is awful and the quality just sucks. I don't think this is due to a bad remaster or anything, I just think the film is poorly done.

Obviously filmed at an abandoned school with a budget that was no doubt wasted on cheap beer and no talent hacks, "Slaughter High" starts out slow and doesn't pick up pace until about an hour in. First, we get to see a 'nerd' as he is picked on by a group of...I actually don't even know what they were supposed to be...jocks? The ringleader, with his ultra hooknose is so ugly he should have definitely been cast as the nerd. Then, there is a 'big guy' and a couple of dumb losers and chicks who are supposed to be 'hot' but aren't. It's a mystery why this group of rejects is picking on one of their own, but I guess the viewer is to assume these are 'cool kids' picking on a dweeb. The casting choices are horrendous as most of the high schoolers are played by thirty-somethings. As other reviewers on here have pointed out, the actors (if you can call them that,) are a bunch of Brits whose accents slip out numerous times throughout this piece of crap. We are left to assume that this group of 'children' were the only students at this school, as their 'reunion' is only them at the school, which is now shown to be abandoned, is just them.

The kills are lame, the gore is not great and the script is like Scooby Doo with real people; lines like: 'This place gives me the creeps...' and 'Someone gimme a beer' are highlights...It's just not good. Skip this one unless you are getting wasted with some friends and wanna laugh at a real lame attempt at a slasher. If you wanna see good, get Bava's "Bay Of Blood," done 14 years earlier and a heck of a lot better. If you wanna see a good BAD slasher, see "Just Before Dawn" or "The Burning." 2 out of 10, kids.


The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.

The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.

Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.

All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best.


Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.

The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care?

There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking "I'll get you." With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!!


What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.

First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.

Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.

Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.

There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.


We all know that countless duds have graced the 80s slasher genre and often deserve nothing but our deepest disgust. Maybe that's a bit hastey but damn if "Slaughter High" wasn't terribly unoriginal, even for a slasher flick. Pretty much, the plot involves a kid who experienced a Carrie-like shower humiliation in high school and returns to the dilapidated building to seek out revenge on a group of former-bullies who all show up to reminisce. As you'd expect, they are killed off steadily by a masked madman on April 1st by means of electrocution, burning, hanging, and chemically altered beer. I've got a number of problems with the plot details and settings of this movie, but considering the ending, I feel the need to discard my complaints and just say that this is a complete waste of time. Ignore any thought of viewing this movie...


...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10

P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**


Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.


The school nerd Marty (Simon Scuddamore) is sexually humiliated by a bunch of classmates and then is in a lab explosion (set by them also) where his face is scarred by acid. Years later all the jerks get invited back to the high school (since closed) for a reunion. What they didn't know is that Marty is inviting them back to kill them. Then a storm starts, they're locked in the school and Marty starts to take revenge.

Pretty silly. The murders are inventive and gory and there are some creepy atmospheric shots of the deserted school--but that's about it. The humiliations inflicted on Scuddamore are more than cruel (he's stripped, has his head dunked in a toilet AND gets burnt) and are just uncomfortable to watch. Considering Scuddamore committed suicide shortly after this was released make them almost impossible to view. Also this movie goes out of its way to have nudity. There is full frontal of Scuddamore (surprising for any movie) but one girl decides to take a bath alone...AFTER they know a killer is wandering around after them! And then there's the couple that has to have sex. This is the type of film where the killer seems to know where everybody is going to be and can teleport himself to them. It ends with a twist which had me groaning and rolling my eyes then ANOTHER twist which had me wanting to throw something heavy at the TV! The acting is bearable--not good, but bearable. Caroline Munro is in this too. She's a very beautiful woman but not much of an actress.

This gets a 3 for some effectively gory murders and atmosphere. Otherwise it's run of the mill and forgettable. Scuddamore's tragic suicide has given this film more attention than it deserves.


Another FRIDAY THE 13TH ripoff, even featuring some of its music! A group of young adults get together for a small high school reunion and start getting slaughtered a la Jason Voorhees. Could it be that nerd they used to torment in school?

Routine slash-fest is fun for fans of the genre, and contains the usual T&A quota for films if its ilk. The ending is a bit more imaginative than your standard slasher.

MPAA: Rated for violence/gore, language, sexuality, nudity, and some drug content.


For die-hard Judy Garland fans only. There are two (2) numbers that are really good -- one where she does a number with an older cleaning lady (you've all seen the pics), and a pretty good number at the very end. There are a couple of scenes where the lines are funny. But, basically, the script is so bad and the movie so dated that it's hard not to cringe at the awfulness throughout. But it's worth the 2.50 to rent the movie -- just be prepared to fast-forward it.


This was filmed back-to-back with the 1992 re-make of Conan Doyle's famous novel 'The Lost World'. And it shows.

The film starts promisingly enough, with a ruthless organization intending to exploit the lost world and Challenger et al returning to defend the prehistoric plateau, but then things go downhill. Everybody is stranded on the plateau and we're left with a feeble, boring, over-length rehash of the first film.

The dinosaurs (who are hardly ever seen) are just laughable. Are we expected to take that cuddly toy that's supposed to be an ankylosaur seriously? And the tyrannosaur seems rooted to the spot.

Do yourself a favor and get hold of the 1925 silent version of the Lost World. Unbelievably in this age of CGI and other advanced effects, the twenties version is the best and will remain so until somebody finally decides to do a decent re-make.


Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is.


Only on a very rare occasion does an episode of the x-files fail to generate any excitement or does the episode contain anything which is just totally boring to watch.A detective and his former partner both die in unexplained circumstances.The deaths are linked to the presence of a little girl who was there when the deaths took place.Mulder has devised a theory that a policeman murdered by his colleagues has come back reincarnated as the little girl and is exacting revenge.Now for the bizarre bit.The little girl has no connection at all and seems to just a random person chosen as the reincarnation.I think this was slightly lazy writing by the writers and this episode ranks as one of the worst in x-files history!


I've now seen this film twice, and I must say I enjoyed it both times. It's fast paced and fun, but ultimately daft. Having said that it deserves to be trashed because of screwing up what could have been a good follow up to the seminal original. It is clear for those who have seen the awful 'Zombie Creeping Flesh' that the films massive shortcomings can be owed to Bruno Mattei, and that the little that is commendable about it can be owed to Fulci. This is not idle Fulci sycophancy, the directors styles are starkly contrasted throughout, and you can tell who directed what, particularly in Mattei's case.

The film is centered around the outbreak of a virus (oddly referred to as 'top secret' by a scientist, it's secrecy apparently being more noteworthy than its potentially apocalyptic effect on mankind) somewhere in south east Asia. The virus causes zombie like behaviour in those affected, and the virus quickly spreads across a seemingly arbitrary area of land. Our protagonists unwittingly wander into the danger zone, and have to fight for their lives against hordes of infected Asians.

The film seems to be stuck half way between being a zombie gore flick, and an out and out action adventure, and this confusion is captured most clearly by the zombies themselves. They do not appear to have a set of characteristics common to all. Some are of the regular soulless shuffling variety, so well rendered in the original, and probably Fulci's creation here. The other main group consist of those who in being infected with the virus lost all sense of themselves, but incurred a savage aggression and a desire to earn a black belt in ninjitsu: Indecisively leaping around unsure of whether to continue honing their upper roundhouse technique or engage with their brethren in what looks like a mass tickle fest on their hapless victims. Martial arts skills aren't their only talents either, they are well versed in guerilla tactics, hiding on rafters and under bales of hay, and sometimes inexplicably falling from nowhere but the heavens themselves. This is all definitely the work of Mattei.

There is a third, more chatty, variety of zombie. This type apparently retain a sense of irony as well 'I'm really thirsty...FOR YOUR BLOOD'. The ridiculous twist at the end in which the DJ turns zombie but continues to preach ad libbed gibberish about the fate of mankind, only serves to enhance the WTF factor and obliterate any hope of a serious resolution.

Then there's the infamous zombie head which slowly propels itself through the air, a jokerish skeletal grin wrought across its face, as if to say 'yeah we know how bad this looks'.

The characters are all utterly one dimensional as you would expect. But its the pseudo comical dialogue and dubbing that really prevents us from taking their plight seriously. Having said that the first soldier to die does put up an impressively valiant display against an unstoppable zombie menace. Indeed this is the first and perhaps only time we hit real zombie agro, and one of the only effective scenes in the film.

The guy who played the chief scientist has heart, but no talent, utilising pauses in his lines entirely at random, so he ends up sounding like a confused asthmatic. The scientists' on screen attempts at finding an antidote are totally unconvincing 'now lets put these two molecules together!'

There are a few moments that stick out as genuinely effective however. In an early scene a female protagonist explores an abandoned garage. Upon entering a room we are confronted with a hazy view of a shifting figure in the corner and a squirming mass on the floor, all shot in an atmospheric diffused light. The silence is interrupted by the appearance of a speedy machete wielding zombie who trashes everything in his wake in his alarming desperation to have her. His sheer aggressiveness is one of the few moments of real horror in the film. The before and after theme conveyed through the hotel that plays host to the happenings of the earliest stage of the outbreak, and later as a refuge to our protagonists is imbued with an thick humid ambiance. There is a scene in which one of the soldiers cautiously approaches a boarded up room that clearly houses hordes of the undead, and this is quite tense. Things become more dramatic when they board themselves in the hotel unknowing to what lurks upstairs. But this is sloppily handled and not nearly as effective as it could have been.

All in all I would say this film may just about deserve to be called a royal screw up of a potentially effective tropical zombie fest, rather than simply a through and through bad film. If nothing else it has plenty of the unintentional laughs that I've come to expect from just about anything Italian and gory from the eighties.


I thought that Zombie Flesh Eaters 2 was quite a good horror film When a terrorist's body, infected with a stolen chemical, is recovered by the US military, the corpse is then cremated, releasing the virus into the atmosphere over a small island. Soon the infected locals turn into flesh-hungry zombies, and a group of soldiers on leave must team up with a group of tourists and board themselves up in a abandoned hotel as they try to fight off the aggressive living dead. I did not find this film to be as good as the original film, Zombie Flesh Eaters. But it was still an OK horror film with some good action. I did not think that it was one of the best in the series. 4/10


Next to the slasher films of the 1970s and 80s, ones about the walking dead were probably the second most popular horror sub-genre. While slasher films had 'Black Christmas' and 'Halloween' to get the whole thing going, zombie flicks had George Romero's 'Dead' films. And unsurprisingly soon after the success of his first two in the series, other directors wanted to cash in. A lot of Italian directors were especially interested, such as Lucio Fulci who brought us 'Zombie' a year after Romero's 'Dawn of the Dead', known as 'Zombi' in Italy and some other countries, and it was there that Fulci's film was known as 'Zombi 2'. Apart from the walking dead it has no relation to Romero's film, but is a good film in it's own right. It was a big success in Europe and 9 years later a sequel was born.

Pros: Lots of beautiful, lush scenery. Awesome score. The acting isn't exactly good, but the cast is game and seem to be enjoying the experience. After kind of a slow start, the pace moves along like that of an action flick. Plenty cheese and unintentional hilarity for bad film lovers. Good job on the make-up effects. Lots of blood and some decent gore.

Cons: Virtually plot less. Nothing you haven't already seen before. Blatantly rips off some things from the first couple of 'Return of the Living Dead' films. Cardboard characters. Hasn't aged too well due to the bad 1980s rock music(Not that I'm saying all rock music of that period is bad), clothing, and overall feel of the movie.

Final thoughts: First of all, this is not a true sequel to Fulci's cult classic. In fact, I don't know if it was ever meant to pick up where that film left off. For those that don't know, Fulci was ill during production and ended up leaving and was replaced with Bruno Mattei. Mattei's films are pretty laughable, but like this film many are good campy fun. And that's all this film really is, just something to watch for fun.

My rating: 3.5/5 (So-bad-it's-good rating) 2/5 (Serious rating)


I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that "Zombi 3" (aka. "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic "Zombi 2" (aka. "Zombie Felsh Eaters"/"Zombie") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor "Zombi 2" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch "Zombi 3". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's "Porno Holocaust"), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful "Troll 2". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!


Ohhh man! Now this is what I'm talking about! As far as bad/cheesy horror flicks go this movie was truly in a class of its own. A real gem!

First off, the film wasn't originally in English. That's okay because the voice dubbing was truly exceptional! Here is my favorite excerpt from the dialog (and there is plenty more where this came from) "I'm feeling a little better. I'm just thirsty FOR YOUR BLOOD!"

And what drama! Here is a play by play recap of the interaction between the military and scientists

Scene 1 Scientist: "You can't do that It'll be a disaster!" -- Military Officer: "That's just science fiction" (he then proceeds to cause a complete disaster just like the scientist predicted).

Scene 2 Scientist: "If you do that many people will die!!!" -- Military Officer: "you don't know what you're talking about." (he does it and many people die).

Scene 3 Scientist: "Don't do that It'll kill everyone!" -- Military Officer: "That's nonsense" (he then proceeds to kill everyone)

Scene 4, 5, 6, 7 (you get the idea).

If that wasn't enough there were a few scenes that really stood out as instant classics! In one scene, the military has literally 10 guys pointing guns at two unarmed men. The leader yells, "Go get 'em!" and all 10 army guys, one at a time, drop their guns and fist fight the two adversaries! Instant classic!

And don't worry. No attention to detail was left out! This movie even had a hip/upbeat '80's keyboard/synth soundtrack to set the mood!

And trust me I realize this review might contain some spoilers, but there are so many goodies in this epic I really only scratched the surface. A movie of this caliber only comes out once a decade! A true movie watching experience! A masterpiece! Wow!


Although the likeliness of someone focusing on THIS comment among the other 80+ for this movie is low, I feel that I have to say something about this one. I am not the kind of movie-watcher who pays attention to production value, thought-provoking dialog, or brilliant acting & directing. However, I claim that this movie sucks. I don't know why I don't like it... I mean it has almost everything i want out of a horror movie: blood, outrageousness, unintentional humor, etc. According to this evidence it should be my favorite. Still, Zombi 3 is a baaad movie.

There are just too many things that compels you to yell at the screen. Like when the girl leaves the army guy when their car breaks down to find water (this spoils nothing so don't worry). She walks into what I see as an abandoned hotel or something. Did she not see that there was a friggin' lake in the middle of the building??? Yes she's looking for water and passes up a lake. Why? Cuz she wants to know why the people (who aren't there cuz the place is abandoned) won't answer her when she calls out: "Is anybody there?" Oh this is just a little, insignificant piece of the big picture I'm painting.

There is a reason, though, why I gave this film more than 1 star. It's one of those movies where if you forget how bad it really is, like I have a few times, you'll want to watch it again because it's just so over-the-top in every aspect. I called it blood in the first paragraph, but this movie has no blood, it has an ocean of gore. Also, it has pretty weird creatures in it as well: a zombie-baby (with an adult-size hand???) and a magically flying head to name just two.

You know when you try to think of the worst and cheesiest movies ever made and you come up with '50's sci-fi movies? I believe that Zombi 3 and movies like it should top those. It has all the elements: scientists arguing with the government, warnings of the apocalypse on the radio, armies battling monsters, and so on. This IS the Plan 9 of the '80's! While I won't say that this is a waste of money if you want to buy it, just expect the very worst. And when you find out that expecting the worst is underestimating Zombi 3, it won't be all that bad. You might actually like it, I'm not saying that's impossible.

Don't think I hate this movie, I don't... really. Oh, P.S. Killing Birds (aka Zombie 5) rules! (did I just blow my credibility?)


First off I really enjoyed Zombi 2 by Lucio Fulci. This film was utter trash. I couldn't stand to watch it. The storyline was a joke, the acting was a joke, and the fact that Zombi 3 has nothing to do with Zombi 2 is even more a joke.

We jump from Voodoo to DEATH 1 THE HARMFUL AGENT BRINING People BACK TO LIFE. Whatever, this movie isn't worth the $1.00 it cost to rent it. I really enjoyed lucio fulci movies but this one was horrible. If Zombi 3 is an indicator for how zombi 4 and 5 are going to be I think I will just skip them.

Zombi 2 is an awesome flique tho.


The dubbing/translation in this movie is downright hilarious and provides the only entertainment in this otherwise dull and derivative zombie flick. I haven't laughed so hard in my life as I just did watching Zombi 3 (and I've seen some really bad dubbing in my life, believe me). Seriously, the filmmakers could re-edit this movie and release it as a comedy and make millions of dollars. It's just that funny.

But... If falling off your couch laughing at the dubbing in a Fulci zombie movie isn't your cup of tea, then AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS.


Where do I begin? I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I did. Still, I wanted to be able to enjoy it for being another zombie film that was worth my loot, and it wasnt. This was a different kind of enjoyment. This was unhealthy, a perverse glee that I partook in watching one of the most ridiculous films Id seen yet. And I dont much care for whatever Fulci's excuses were, there was no excuse for this film going how it went. This was a bad film all the way around, yet I still cant give it below a 4 out of ten, which is what I gave it, because well...at least I was able to laugh at this misfit of a movie.

I had to imagine these zombies, that were all over the ceilings of these buildings everywhere...had to imagine that they were either bored as hell so they crawled up on the beems, and perched themselves high on stone erections, or they saw the fleshy living motley band of jerk-offs coming around, so they took it upon themselves to stage numerous aerial ambushes. Hell, what else is there to do when youre dead?

I had to laugh at some zombies performing what looked to be martial arts swings, kicks, and jumps, and some shambling about like traditional meatlovers. I feasted my eyes on a floating head that was never explained. I watched in pure horrific delight as the land they were in, the Phillipenes, was absolutely engulfed in fog, heavy doses of fog, and that the ponds were as they were boiling castle moats. I had to even cringe when I saw that the design for a cure for this plague was sketched on a chalkboard as an octagon with lines stretching from each angle, with "Dead One" written in the middle. I had to ask myself...if the science of curing zombies is that easy, then I wonder if I could come up with a little something to start a zombie outbreak here!

All in all the effects were overboard, the dubbing horrid, Im sure the original acting as poor, the story absurd, the zombies inconsistent, even in a bad way they couldve all been similar, and the women ugly, but I found myself enjoying this thing. It was a fun watch. It turned out to be a very very bad film, and I would not recommend this thing unless one is into bad directorial exploitation films, but still, again I say...it was worth a good laugh. I crave zombie films no matter what, but when this had Fulci's name attached to it, it shouldve been much better. Let me dare say, Zombie Holocaust was better.


When i finally had the opportunity to watch Zombie 3(Zombie Flesheaters 2 in Europe)on an import Region 2 Japanese dvd,i was blown away by just how entertaining this zombie epic is.The transfer is just about immaculate,as good as it's ever going to look unless Anchor Bay gets a hold of it.The gore truly stands out like it should and you can really appreciate the excellent makeup and gore fx.The sound is also terrific.It's only 2 channel dolby but if you have a receiver with Dolby Prologic 2,you can really appreciate the cheesy music(actually a very good score),and the effective although cheap sound effects.It never sounded so good,and the excellent transfer adds to the overall enjoyment.

I never realized just how much blood flows in this film,it's extremely brutal with exploding head shots,exploding puss filled mega pimples,a cleaver to a zombies throat,a woman's burned off extremities(how come it did'nt burn the guy also),intestinal munching,zombie babies and so much more i lost track.

This is no doubt for hardcore Zombie action fans,especially of the Italian kind.There is some excellent set pieces and cinematography to be found,i think people don't give it enough credit,if you see a clean print,and not some horrendous pirate copy,it's a whole other experience entirely.

This film never lets up for a second,and i realize it's inconsistent plotwise,the dubbing is horrible,the acting is stiff,and it's sense of irreverence is celebrated in grand fashion,but that's part of it's charm.

To me this is one of the best horror films ever made,you can't make a film this bad,so good,on purpose.It's accidental genius of the highest order.If they played it for laughs it would have been a disaster,but they played it straight as an arrow and the result is a terrific cult classic that thumbs it's nose at any and all traditional moviemaking standards.

Tons of action sequences,exotic locales,excellent set design,good,sometimes great cinematography,wonderfully cheesy acting,and inconsistent but still interesting plot,great makeup effects,beautiful women who can kick butt,excellent music,and sometimes hilarious,sometimes creepy,but always entertaining zombies.How can you go wrong with this film,it has it all,a cult classic that stands the test of time.


I admit that the majority of this film was uninspired,but i was still entertained. It has a wonderful sense of frenetic energy,above average music,and the women in the film fiercely defend themselves,there's no prissies here. I can think of dozens of other films that were way worse,at least this one had an intriguing plotline along with some social commentary.They allude to how the military deals with viral epidemics,destroy everything in sight,even if it means the people you're supposed to be saving.Also, how dangerous martial law can be since at that point democracy ceases to exist. Fulci seemed to attempt to combine his earlier work(zombie,beyond,gates of hell)in an effort to somehow improve on them.He failed,but definitely not miserably,like a number of people would have you think.I have a soft spot for zombie films, so i admit that i'm somewhat biased when it comes to reviewing them.All i'm saying is that this movie is good for one time around,if there wasn't so much descension in the making of this film(fulci quit and bruno(i can hack with the best of them)mattei took over)it could have been much better and more focused.It's going to stay in my collection as fulci's zombie swan song.One surprising note, is that there is a scene in zombie 3 that cemetery man actually ripped off,i couldn't believe it myself,check it out you'll be surprised.


Zombi 3 starts as a group of heavily armed men steal a experimental chemical developed to reanimate the dead, while trying to escape the man is shot at & the metal container holding the chemical is breached. The man gets some of the green chemical on a wound on his hand which soon after turns him into a flesh eating cannibalistic zombie. Within hours the surrounding area is crawling with the flesh easting undead on the look out for fresh victims, Kenny (Deran Sarafian) & his army buddies find themselves in big trouble as they stop to help Patricia (Beatrice Ring) & her friend Lia (Deborah Bergammi) who has been pecked by zombie birds (!). General Morton is in charge of the situation & has to stop the zombie plague from spread throughout the whole world! But will he & his men succeed?

This Italian produced film was to be directed by Italian zombie gore film auteur Lucio Fulci but the story goes he suffered a stroke & therefore couldn't finish the film so producer Franco Gaudenzi asked second unit director Bruno Mattei & writer Claudio Fragasso to step in & complete the film. Apparently Mattei & Fragasso did more than just finish it they actually disregarded a lot of the footage Fulci shot & added a lot of their own & Zombi 3 ended up as nearly a straight 50/50 split. The script by Fragasso is an absolute mess, none of it is well thought out & is just as stupid as it gets. The scenes of zombie birds attacking people are not only technically inept but the whole idea is just absurd. The zombies themselves have no consistency whatsoever, look at the scene where Patricia is on the bridge & the zombies are slow as they shuffle along but then look at the scene earlier on where she was attacked by the zombie with the machete because that one runs around like it's on steroids, then for no reasonable explanation about 10 minutes before the film finishes the zombies suddenly develop the ability to speak which also looks daft. There are so many things wrong with Zombi 3, scene after scene of terribly thought out & ineptly directed action, awful character's & really dull broken English dialogue which doesn't make sense half the time. Then there's the embarrassing scene where the zombie head inside the fridge suddenly develops the ability to fly through the air & bite someones neck, the scene when the guy's in white contamination suits at the end are about to kill Kenny & Roger but instead of using their automatic rifles they decide to try & kill them by hand, even when Kenny picks up a gun himself they still refuse to use their rifles & when Kenny starts to shoot them all they still refuse to use their rifles & it's one of the most ineptly handled scenes ever put to film & then there's the end where Kenny takes off in the helicopter but can't rest it down on the ground for literally a few seconds to pick his buddy up & then a load of zombies suddenly spring up from under some piles of grass, what? Since when did zombies hide themselves yet alone under piles of grass? This all may sound 'fun' but believe me it's not, it's a really bad film that is just boring, repetitive & simply doesn't work on any level as a piece of entertainment except for a few unintentional laughs.

It's hard to know who was responsible for what exactly but none of the footage is particularly well shot. It has a bland lifeless feel about it & for some reason the makers have tried to bath every scene in mist, the problem is they clearly only had one fog machine & you can see that at one corner of the screen the mist is noticeably thicker as it is coming straight out of the machine & thinning out as it disperses across the scene. Since a lot of it is set during the day it doesn't add any sort of atmosphere whatsoever & when they do get it right & the mist is evenly spread across the screen it just looks like they shot the scene on a foggy day! The direction is poor with no consistency & it just looks & feels bottom of the barrel stuff. Even the blood & gore isn't up to much, there's a gory hand severing at the start, a scene when something rips out of a pregnant woman's stomach, a legless woman (what actually took her legs off in the pool by the way & why didn't it take the legs off the guy who jumped in to save her?) & a few OK looking zombies is as gory as it gets. For anyone hoping to see a gore fest the likes of which Fulci regularly served up during the late 70's & early 80's will be very disappointed, there aren't any decent feeding scenes, no intestines, no stand out 'head shots' & very little gore at all.

Technically the film is poor, the special effects are cheap looking, the cinematography is dull, the music is terrible, the locations are bland & it has rock bottom production values. This was actually shot in the Philippines to keep the cost down to a minimum. The entire film is obviously dubbed, the acting still looks awful though & the English version seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the language that well.

Zombi 3 is not a sequel to Fulci's classic zombie gore fest Zombi 2 (1979), it has nothing to do with it at all apart from the cash-in title. I'm sorry but Zombi 3 is an amateurish mess of a film, it's boring, it makes no sense, it's not funny enough to be entertaining & it lacks any decent gore. One to avoid.


Zombie Review #3

**Spoilers**

Few films are actually "so bad they're good", and Zombi 3 is not just bad, it's wretchedly, unforgivably bad in so many ways that a whole new language may be needed just to describe them all

More than that, it's a film credited to Lucio Fulci that even by his standards has absolutely no coherency, sense or reason. However we can't blame Fulci as it wasn't really directed by him but by Bruno Mattei, who doesn't even have Fulci's sense of style to help carry the film. Mattei seems to have brought little to the film but staggering ineptitude.

So, I'm ashamed to say how much I enjoyed every worthless minute of Zombi 3. It has no redeeming features - in a genre known for thin characters, weak story, and lack of film making skill, Zombi 3 pushes the boat out but in doing so it's even funnier than Nightmare City.

The "action" starts when the "Death 1" gas is stolen from a military base, and damaged in the escape. Who is the thief, why did he steal it, and why did the US military think that creating cannibalistic legions of the living dead would be a good idea? All these questions and more will fail to be answered in Zombi 3....

After hiding out at a hotel, the infected thief goes mad from all the green plastecine growing on his face before being tracked down by the army who somewhat foolishly decide the best way to dispose of his corpse will be to burn it, sending "Death 1" up into the atmosphere resulting in... zombie birds! Who then attack people and turn them into zombie people!!! (if zombies are cannibals, why don't the zombie birds just attack other birds?)

Then we meet our "heroes", a trio of horny GIs and a coachload of girls. There's a couple of other guys with them too, but they're not important - NO ONE is important here. You'll be hard pressed to remember anyone's face, let alone their name or find a reason to care about them. They end up hiding out at the same hotel as the thief ("a week ago this place was buzzing with life, now it's buzzing with flies!") but there's no escape from the undead.

By this point you'll either be completely sucked in or you'll have turned the damned thing off. The script is so appalling even the greatest acting in the world couldn't save it, so it's just as well they have some of the worst - and not just the human characters, the zombie acting here is an all time low. There's no consistancy in how the zombies behave - some shamble about in the time honored style, others engage in full on fist fights or charge around with machettes, not to mention the zombies who are still able to talk (a gimmick that gives the film it's HORRIFYING TWIST ENDING). They die from gunshots to the chest (rather than the head) and even get knocked out by a good left-hook. How can you punch out a zombie???!!!!! In fact the emphasis on badly done 80s action often makes it resemble an episode of V...

The zombies also spend a lot of time hiding, seemingly waiting for hours in ridiculous places on the chance some poor sap will pass by and get the fright of their life. They hide in bushes, in garages, in huts, on roofs, in the water, and even underneath pregnant women. At one point a zombie follows a woman up the stairs. To kill and eat her? No! To push her into the water, those zombies and their wacky sense of humour!

There is plenty of gore though. Limbs are hacked, wounds ooze green pus, and there's much in the way of flesh eating and people getting their faces mushed in. There's nothing to match the originals eyeball piercing, but if bad make up effects are your bag you won't be let down.

All this and I've not even mentioned the awful music, the inexplicable flying zombie head, the scientist whose acting actually manages to stand out as REALLY bad, or the final chilling punchline.... in an ingenious twist on the originals radio station being overrun by zombies, Zombi 3 gives us an actual zombie DJ!! "He's gone over to their side!" our escaping hero's cry, before vowing to continue fighting against the undead in a sequel that sadly never came.

Zombi 3 is rubbish - it would be no loss to the world if every single print was destroyed and all records of it's existence erased, yet somehow I feel my life is richer for having seen it.

Did I say richer? I meant 88 minutes shorter...


This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie.

"ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.

The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.

Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.

Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).

We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke!

The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.

Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.

The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!

Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).

The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim.

The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!

As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.

The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.

Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.

3 out of 10


In 1979 Lucio Fulci released his film Zombi. However, due to the earlier import of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had gone by that name for its Italian release, it was retitled to Zombi 2. (Which also had the bonus of letting the audience think this was a sequel to the second Romero movie). Continuing this theme, the second Zombi film, which would have been called Zombi 2, was then consequently titled Zombi 3. In the UK, the original Zombi film (that is, Zombi 2) was titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters". To continue THIS theme, the second Zombi film (Zombi 3) was then titled "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2" for its UK release. (Are you following all this?) So if Zombie Flesh Eaters was Fulci's Dawn, then is 2 his Day of the Dead? While this is only a flippant observation, this tale of military compounds, helicopters and a plodding narrative certainly does bear a vague thematic resemblance.

Some of Fulci's European direction compels in a film like this, but the acting, dubbing and exposition-heavy script are absolutely horrendous. Its ecological message is so forced and overstated it can no longer be considered a subtext, while there's an (unintentionally) hilarious Birds homage. Combining this last element with MOR 80s rock is not a good idea. For some reason I couldn't stop thinking of Time of the Apes (q.v.) the whole time I was watching this. This is obviously not a good thing.

While there's nothing here to rival topless scuba-diving, shark wrestling zombies and eyeballs on a splinter, Fulci's misogynistic leanings do get a work out with a hotel cleaner's mouth being ground into a mirror until it gushes blood. His fannish gore predilections also see a hand severing. Both themes are combined when a woman's face is ripped off, first by one zombie, then a zombie foetus that tears out of a pregnant woman's stomach.

Production-wise, this is obviously a step up from Zombi, coming five years later. (Nine years in worldwide release terms). But without the original's low-key charm it struggles, while Stefano Mainetti's music is inappropriate and uninspired. Fabio Frizzi's score was one of the best things about the '79 movie. Here zombie attacks are played out to what sounds unnervingly like Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out For A Hero". In the middle of this carnage we get an irksome love interest, and Roger and Kenny, two bland macho types who do everything with acrobatic urgency and constantly state the obvious. ("We're out of ammunition" to a stalling gun is a particular standout). But where it also falls down is in the zombies themselves. Low key or not, Fulci's original had truly magnificent, rotting zombies. Skull faces, worms in eye sockets... they really were something to behold. By contrast, this dull follow-up opts for the more traditional "men with a bit of paint on their faces" option.

The climax rips off too many Romero movies to even be funny, while the use of the DJ is a crass and cheap narrative device. Not containing the same elements of outrage and gratuitous nudity of the first, this is unlikely to have the same cult appeal.

It turns out that Fulci actually walked out on the project after reportedly directing just fifteen minutes, the rest filmed by Bruno Mattei. I'm fairly sure that even Fulci would have balked at the ludicrous "flying zombie head" scene, and so credit to the director for having the good sense to leave. Unfortunately, however, it's his name that's above the film title on releases, so the majority of people will be left with the impression that this is a Fulci film through and through. On that scale then it's a major setback for him, for this movie commits what you imagine Fulci would regard as the worst crime of all: that of being boring.