don't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies.


With the runaway success of "God's Army", every Mormon with a camera seems to be trying to make a movie now. In the case of the recent "The Other Side of Heaven", this wasn't at all a bad thing. That film, while not great, was quite good. "The Singles Ward", however, is not.

Telling the story of a young, divorced Mormon guy thrust back into single life, the writing and shooting style of "The Singles Ward" is, in many ways, very similar to the 80s comedy "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". However, the similarities end there. While "Ferris Bueller" was funny, original, and well-acted (as far as stupid comedies like this ever are), "The Singles Ward" is completely the opposite. It tries very hard to be funny. However, 90% of the gags either fall flat or are cliches and jokes you've probably heard a million times before. The other 10% seem to be thrown in to fill out the time. And the acting, while not awful, is amaturish at best.

In addition, if you're not either a Mormon yourself, or very, VERY familiar with Mormon culture, you won't get hardly anything at all. Whereas "God's Army" and "The Other Side of Heaven" were appealing to a broad range of viewers, both inside and outside of the Mormon church, this film is most definitely one big inside joke, and even if you get it, it's just not that funny.


I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.

I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?

That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.

I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!

I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.


I went in expecting the movie to be completely dumb. With such a low expectation, any form of entertainment would be a pleasant surprise. The soundtrack was the best part of the movie, but poking fun at the nonsense that goes on in singles wards was also amusing.

This said, there were many things about The Singles Ward that were completely annoying. The entire film was poorly dubbed and made watching mouths while listening to their voices very irritating. This lack of professionalism was surpassed only by the cameos of Mormon celebrities who have no business acting.

This film will do well among Mormondom, especially in college communities where singles ward exist. However the conclusion will offer no hope for the poor losers who find themselves unmarried. (Only the pretty girls in the Singles Ward get married, the fat, ugly ones don't, but all the ugly men do) Ultimately we realize that the whole film was an advertisement for LDSSingles.com


Something to Sing About was produced at Grand National Studios where James Cagney was working while under a contract dispute with the brothers Warner. He did two films for this B studio, neither of which rank high in the Cagney credits.

One of the great losses to cinema is the fact that Jimmy Cagney did so few films that utilized his terrific dancing abilities. The two that come to mind immediately are Yankee Doodle Dandy and Footlight Parade. Two lesser films are The West Point Story and Never Steal Anything Small. Cagney himself said he never used to watch anything but his musicals in retirement. So why did he make so few of them?

Well this one was all wrong. The plot of Something to Sing About concerns a hoofer who fronts for a band who's discovered and given a movie contract. There are the usual complications of a conniving studio boss and a conniving press agent played respectively and well by Gene Lockhart and William Frawley. His contract calls for a no- marriage clause, so Cagney and band girl singer lady Evelyn Daw marry in secret. Then we get the complication of a publicity driven studio romance with screen leading lady Mona Barrie. I think you can figure where this is going.

The most disappointing thing about Something to Sing About is the lack of dance numbers for Cagney. He dances briefly at the beginning and the end of the film and nothing in the middle. Evelyn Daw had a nice singing voice and the charisma of a ham sandwich. She got the musical numbers such as they were. I'm sure the movie-going public was paying their tickets to see Cagney dance.

Also in addition to giving him some dance numbers a female dance partner would have been nice. He danced well with Ruby Keeler in Footlight Parade and with Virginia Mayo and Doris Day in The West Point Story. Weren't Ginger Rogers, Eleanor Powell or Ruby Keeler available?

No memorable songs came out of this. And Daw's voice is waisted as well. She has a Jeanette MacDonald soprano voice which was so out of place with a swing band.

No wonder Cagney went running back to Warner Brothers. But they should have given him some decent musicals.


Young and attractive Japanese people are getting on the wrong side of some curse again, this time it involves mobile phones. Various people die until the disgruntled spirit behind it all is unearthed, so essentially if you've seen more than 2 recent Japanese horror films you can plot this film in the dark with your hands tied.

The main attraction here is the fact that Takashi Miike is behind the camera. So far I've been more impressed with his low key works like City of Lost Souls, however as One Missed Call plodded along I was yearning for his more renowned envelope pushing of Dead or Alive or the overly pseudo-Cronenberg style of Audition. Despite a lot of his films being essentially empty, at least they do have merits such as these, or at least something to keep your attention like Tadanobu Asano prancing about in shiny suits impersonating Johnny Depp. There's none of that in One Missed Call; there's just very little of credit: the acting is bland and average, there is very little (nothing, in all honesty) in the way of scares or suspense, and in places it's just downright boring.

However, there are moments where Miike's glacier-like sense of humour seeps through the bland commercialism; most notably with the instance of the TV show intent on filming the demise of one of the cursed subjects, and the TV programmer more concerned about his ratings than the girls' life. But aside from this there is nothing to suggest it is Miike behind the camera; most notably his usual visual flair has vanished without a trace (and that includes his famous gore), although it's more likely he just didn't have any enthusiasm for the project, and I can understand why. One Missed Call isn't offensively bad. It's just frustratingly average.

Miike obviously loves directing. With his huge yearly output it's obvious he isn't going to be 100% concerned about all his projects. But even with this in mind, One Missed Call felt like he was just paying the bills.


By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.

No such luck.

I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.

This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.

I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.


Basically, take the concept of every Asian horror ghost movie and smash it into one and you get this movie. The story goes like this: a bunch of college kids get voice mails from their own phones that are foretelling their deaths. There's some s*** going on with ghosts, which if you've seen any Asian ghost movie, isn't scary by now. This movie was quite upsetting because it's very clichéd. It's the same bullcrap, different movie.

The acting was pretty good. Unfortunately the actors are put into a very Ring-esquire situation, so it's nothing we haven't seen in the past. The two lead acts did a solid job though.

As far as gore, there's not much going on. We get a cool sequence that includes an arm twisting a head off (I don't know how else to explain that), but it was cut away so you don't see anything except the final result. You see some blood at times, including decapitated arms and a zombie (that looked really cool I might add), but this movie isn't too bloody.

The scares in the movie are few and spread out, and it's really not that scary. You'll get some creepy images at times, but it's not enough for me to consider scary. It's nothing different from Ringu, Ju-On, or Dark Water, and none of those scared me either. That's really the downfall of this (and most Asian horror movies) is that if it doesn't deliver the scares then it's just not that good.

As far as directing, Takashi Miike still did a pretty good job. He seemed a little tamed in this movie compared to his past movies, but he still portrays a lot of his messed up style he's become famous for. A lot of images were a lot like Miike (including a scene with a bunch of jars of dead fetuses), and the last 15 - 20 minutes seemed far more Miike then the rest of the movie. Still, the movie is flawed by its unoriginality.

I would recommend this only to people who are huge on Asian horror movies (even if you are, I can recommend much better) or big Miike fans. Warning to those who want to get into Miike, this is NOT his best work.

I'm giving it a 4 because it's just mediocre. Perhaps if this was released 4 or 5 years ago it might be worth a higher rating.

Also, I'd like to b**** about Asian horror movies real quick. How come if it's an Asian horror movie it's automatically suppose to be good over here (US)? A LOT of these movies are the equivalent in Japan to what Scream, Urban Legends, and I Know What You Did Last Summer were over here in the 90's. If you've seen one you've seen them all. And a lot of these movies rely way too much on scares and imagery that if it doesn't deliver the scares they set out to do then they're just not that good, and nothing would change that. More Asian horror films need to be more like Audition and A Tale of Two Sisters, two movies that if they don't frighten or scare you, at least they have great stories, acting, direction, cinematography, and much more to back them up. Two movies that aren't just great horror movies, but great movies in general. More Asian horror movies need to be like these instead of the cliché, "A ghost just wanted to be found so it went around killing people through their phone/video tape/house/electric appliance/water pipes/google search engine/vibrator/groceries/etc."


Acclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from ****


One missed call, another Asian horror based on the cell phone. I recently rented a Korean horror film based on a cell phone called "Pon". One Missed Call was just as boring as that one. Maybe phones just aren't scary or something, but this move was dull and drab. No tension or thrills for me, and the final monster was disappointingly cheesy and unscary. The movie dragged quite a bit in different parts, and felt too long. Didn't keep my attention. It seems phones are hard to make frightening, it's kind of like trying to make a pop vending machine eerie. And it is ridiculous to compare this with "The Ring", it seems every Asian horror movie is compared to it and so far I haven't seen any that measure up in the least. To horror directors - take the phone off the hook as a horror device.


Is Miike like Chabrol, alternating art with dreck, sometimes confusing the two? Does he match the fifty/fifty rate some claim for Chabrol? Do we see here too much or too little Miike? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. But I could easily fill ten lines just citing Chakushin ari's (One Missed Call's) steals, allusions, and clichés. Others here will hit on most of them, though not perhaps Ochiai's Saimin (Hypnosis) for the sleazy telecast taunting things supernatural. Only once, when Yumi takes the zombie-like mother in her arms, did One Missed Call startle me a little.

One other point of interest: Renji Ishibashi (looks like Christopher Walken) as the detective. Ishibashi in Audition's abusive back story, and as Dead or Alive's Boss Aoki of the vat of excrement drowning and more, may be the most convincingly evil character actor I've ever seen. So here he's a cop.


How many centuries will pass until the Japanese/Asian horror films abandon the long-haired ghost-woman shtick? Admittedly, they've managed to rip off "Ringu" a million times, and often it worked well - which just goes to show that originality isn't that much of a requirement in the horror genre (or that I'm very uncritical and easy to please?). However, this time around I found myself a little restless, somewhat bored. It's not a bad film, but it's at least half-an-hour longer than it should be, with its absurd 110 minutes length. Compared to many other Japanese horror films, OMC lacks atmosphere and excitement. Plus, the ending is confusing: it makes no sense at all. As for the ring-tone: Miike could have come up with a melody that is more effective than that forgettable little thing. Even though it was played a dozen times I can't even remember it - that's how scary it was. Speaking of Miike, for him this is something of a commercial venture, so if anyone thinks they might be getting perversion of the "Bijita Q" or "Audition" kind, they're wasting their time.


this movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass


Clearly rips off Hideo Nakata's Ringu (Ring, 1998) and Hongurai Mizu no Soko Kara (Dark Water, 2002), with hints of Ju-On (The Grudge, 2000), but atrociously done gore (a green corpse with red eyes!?) weak story, and a weak theme (I find it very difficult to find a picture message scary). There were two moments in this film that made me shudder, both involving an unexpected hand, and after Oodishon (another Miike Takashi one, this one from 1999) had me tingling all over for hours after seeing it, and all of the films this steals from were actually scary, I can't see this film as anything other than a sell-out to the western popularity of the big Japanese horror films. Two out of ten.


This norwegian movie is so crap, the actors can not act cause they seems to be reading from a book and the story is so (wannabe) hollywood..the only actor who did a ok job was Haavard Lilleheie..3/10 If you want a really good norwegian movie watch Buddy, great actors and a feelgood story 9/10


This romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.

The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the "romantic" part of the story poor.

All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.


First of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.

During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!

Then came United...

*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!

But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!

All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!

Rating: 1/6


I saw this recently on a faded old VHS tape, and remembered it dimly. Looking at it now, it seems charming.

When it was first released, it was recognized by pretty much everyone as a spoof of coming out as a gay teenager. To hammer the point home, the mother is seen reading a paperback copy of "1 Teenager In 10", the most popular coming out book of the time. David Warner hams it up as the persecuting vampire hunter [= gay-hating evangelist], who is of course a self-loathing closet case. The list of sight gags and in-jokes that were included to make sure nobody missed the point would be too long to go into. The producers were having some good-natured fun, and hoping, no doubt, to lighten-up as well as to enlighten.

But I have no clue how a teenage audience would look at this film, nowadays. In some places, where there is education and culture, the terrifying ordeals that gay teens had to go through are a thing of the past. But I'm sure there are plenty of dark, nasty corners of our continent where it's just as bad as it always was.


This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable.


Gymkata is without a doubt one of the worst movies ever made. But not the bad kind of bad movies. This one is so awful it's fun to watch and laugh. Kurt Thomas clearly does not have a lucrative career in acting. He should go back to gymnastics. But who can forget such memorable scenes as the high bar with chalk, the stone pommel horse or the five minute chase scene through the village of the crazies in slow motion. I don't think it was meant to be this bad, but who can tell. It's not art, but if you want something lite and fluffy that will make a good conversation, rent gymakta. Makes for an evening of fun.


One night I was waiting for my friends to come back to the apt and "Gymkata" happened to be on; I watched way too much of it. It is indeed hilarious, and horrifying, really. Think about it this way--if in your job you had an idea for something this bad and went on to execute it in as terrible a fashion as this, how long exactly would you last? Not as long as this movie. It's a must-see, obviously.


This movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the "Village of Crazies." Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings.


Thank G_d it bombed, or we might get treated to such delights as "Skate Fu" where we can see the likes of Brian Boitano performing a triple lutz & slashing bad guys to ribbons with his razor-sharp skates, but I digress. One thing that could have helped this turkey would have been a little T & A from Ms. Agbayani. It's not like the world would have seen anything new (at least that part of the world who saw her Playboy spread.) I truly believe that porn would have suited her 'talents' much better, although Aubrey Hepburn couldn't have stayed afloat in this sewer. One explanation for Kurt Thomas' presence could be a traumatic brain injury, possibly from coming up short too often on dismounts. It's a good thing the IOC wasn't as diligent on 'doping' as they are now, or Kurt would surely have been stripped of his medals. To be avoided at all costs.


This movie was God-awful, from conception to execution. The US needs to set up a "Star Wars" site in this remote country? This is their premise? The way to gain access, the US concludes, is to win an obstacle course like cross-country race, where the winner can ask anything of the leader. And who better to win this race known as the "Game" than a gymnast? Of course! A gymnast would be the perfect choice for this mission. And don't forget that his father was an operative. Lucky for our hero, there happen to be gymnastic equipment in fortunate spots, like the stone pommel horse in the middle of a square (for no reason) amidst crazy town. Perfect.

But above and beyond the horrible, HORIBBLE premise, is the awkward fumblings of the romantic scenes, the obviously highly depressed ninjas whose only job seems to be holding a flag to point out the race path, and the worst climax ever. After winning the race, our hero puts forth the wishes of the US government. And lo and behold, all the effort was worth it, because the US gets its "Star Wars" site! Huzzah! THIS IS YOUR TRIUMPHANT ENDING?! Wow.

But still, being such a bad movie, it can be great fun to watch. The cover alone, depicting ninjas with machine guns, was enough to get me to rent this film.

But if I were ever to meet Kurt Thomas (the gymnast-star) in real life, I would probably kick him in the face after a double somersault with 2 1/2 twists in the layout position.


Whew. What can be said about Gymkata that hasn't already? This is nothing but pure halarity from beginning to end. If you want a movie that will keep you on the floor laughing, this is the perfect movie to get. From Cabot's wild-style mullet/sweater combo to Parmistan (and it's four billion assorted ninjas), everything about this film reeks of crap.

Directed by Robert Clouse, the infamous mind that brought you the mirror scene in Bruce Lee's Game of Death, he once again showcases his complete lack of directing talent. A few other faces you most likely won't recognize will appear for your enjoyment as well, from Buck Kartalian to Tadashi Yamashita, although you won't remember them or care about them after the movie is done.

Supposedly based on a book called "The Terrible Game," which, if I could find a single trace of it's existence anywhere I would be interested in reading it, to see where this thing went wrong. Instead, the book apparently is a figment of Gymkata's imagination. Probably something Clouse made up in order to sell his lame idea.

Pick this one up and Yakmallah it for yourself. It is easily one of the best bad movies I have ever seen, and that is saying quite a bit.


Buck's role as The Kahn brings to mind Bob Barker (of The Price is right) running a country the same way he runs his show. But there's lots more to chuckle and snort through in this turkey. Kurt Thomas as the baby-faced "hero" displays some considerable acrobatic skills, but not a whit of acting talent whatsoever. There's a few spooky moments (in the Village of Crazies, mostly), and some mildly impressive martial arts sequences. But any given "Ninja" movie will give you much more entertainment, and you won't feel as guilty about laughing.


America needs the best man possible to win "The game" so who do they hire? A gymnast (Oh brother!) played by Kurt Thomas who has the necessary skills to win in a game which involves ninjas, a village of crazies and Richard Norton who is told by Kurt Thomas "to keep his hardware in his pants." (His exact words) I missed this in theaters and it's a good reason because I would have probably been kicked out due to the laughing I broke into at regular intervals. The first thing that went through my mind was just how lame these ninjas are if a gymnast can kick their ass. Kurt Thomas is like 5 foot 4 and he hardly strikes one as "The best man for the job" As to the acting talent of Kurt Thomas, well if you can't say something nice... In all seriousness though one has to wonder how much cocaine was being used to furnish an idea so stupid. Only the decision to cast Tara Reid as a scientist tops the dumbness here. For 18 years though this held the title of the dumbest movie I had ever seen. Not to say I didn't find this unwatchable, I was laughing so hard I almost choked to death. Twice. Only in the 80's could a movie with such a bad idea get made. Although for the record it is the only movie to ever feature a hero so wimpy, he can't even pull a wedged sword out from the ground. This is the wimpiest action movie ever made, and one of the most hilarious also.

* out of 4-(Bad)


If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.

Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.

This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.

There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.

The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say "Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata."


Kurt Thomas stars as Jonathan Cabot some kind of a gymnast who trains for a special game which involves being hunted by a group of ninjas, but those ninjas won't stand a chance, especially since Cabot is a gymnast! Taken as a whole Gymkata is one helluva bad movie, the atrocious acting, the god-awful script and really incompetent directing make the quality below human standards, however this movie is so terrible it becomes really, really funny. I mean with dialog such as "I know I'll outsleep them!" or "Ha!, your through!" only add to the mock value that Gymkata more then obtains. Besides it's (Wisely) the only movie that has are hero a gymnast who finds things to swing on in the heat of the moment.


As a kid, my friends and I all believed that Gymkata was the most violent, bloody movie ever made. I'm not sure who started that rumor. It was probably born out of the frustration of 10 year olds who weren't allowed to see it for one reason or other. Years after Gymkata was released, it became a perennial late night cable movie, and as a result, I've been able to make up for lost time. I must have seen scenes from this dreadful excuse for a film over a dozen times, and I can always spot it from 1-2 seconds of screen time. However, aside from the forced coupling of gymnastics and martial arts, the bad dubbing, the stiff dialog, and the outrageously difficult story-line, the film has some things going for it. With all that's bad about the movie visually, the sound is actually pretty entertaining. Never before has a punch or kick landed with so little force and so much volume! The canned kung-fu sounds are cheeky, but the slowed and pitched-down music, and the nearly 5 minute slow motion scene are truly weird. The chase through the city of demented, blood-thirsty villagers isn't really tense as much as it is irritating, and there are enough bad wigs and extras who all but look into the camera and wave to make this train-wreck a little fun. Could it be headed for cult-classic status? Where is MST3K when we need it?


Kurt Thomas in one of the series of gymnast olympic stars turned movie stars movies that mercifully only includes one other..Mitch Gaylord in American Anthem...at least that one had Janet Jones..this one has...um... a gymnast using his martial arts and his gymnastic skills to save a european country from dictatorship..sure it could happen.. on a scale of one to ten.. a 0


During the early 1980's, Kurt Thomas was something of a hero in the United States. Inevitably, men in his position get offered film roles that exist solely to capitalize on that. I have no idea what Thomas was paid to make this film, but I would have to be paid a big heap of money to agree to make a national fool of myself in a motion picture. The film is obviously derived from "Enter The Dragon," as are most martial arts pictures. Only instead of a real martial art, they concoct an absurd new martial art, accurately described by one critic as "a cross between Kung Fu and break dancing." A gymnast (Thomas, of course) is hired to rescue some lady from an impenetrable fortress, yet every room has a prop that is exactly what Thomas needs to kick the assistant baddies. Of course, he fights his way to the lead villain, and of course they have a fancy-dancy fight, with an ending that will surprise only those who have never seen a marshal arts film. There are touches which nostalgic types will like, particularly the mullet haircuts of Thomas and many of the male co-stars have. But the only reason to watch this film is if you have a grudge against Kurt Thomas, who now wishes he had never set foot on the film set.


Judging from this film and THE STRONG MAN, made the same year, I would not place Harry Langdon at the top of the list of great silent screen comedians. There simply is not enough there. Perhaps he was on his way to developing his style but sabotaged himself by taking his first big successes too seriously. In any event, all of his tricks are reminiscent of the greater funny men, but he lacks the acrobatic skills of Keaton and the prodigious ingenuity of Lloyd. He also undermines his own persona by dressing and walking like Chaplin's tramp character. His trademarks are childlike innocence, timidity of approach and a tendency to under-react to calamity by looking perplexed, batting his eyes or touching his pursed lips with the tip of his forefinger. The comedy in Langdon's films results from fate throwing various obstacles in his path which he tries to overcome in wimpy or naïve ways or with a minimum of physicality, such as throwing rocks at an approaching tornado to drive it away, propping up a collapsing building with a two-by-four or dodging boulders by lifting a leg so that they roll under him. In this story, about the son of a shoemaker who joins a cross-country walking race to publicize a rival company's footwear, he manages to win by sheer luck. There is nothing here that hasn't been done far better by the Big Three.


This movie was boring!

Yes, there are a few funny moments and jokes, but you cannot base a whole movie on that!

The characters are too stereotyped, there is no real story - but short episodes with freaky side-characters, who are not freaky enough to make the plot genuine.

Shame, because most of the actors are acknowledged in Hungary, a mystery why they took the roles.

This is *not* a new hope for the Hungarian film. It was boring, though it was meant to be genuine or unique. They could have tried much more harder than this... 2 out of 10


As I am from Hungary I have heard many people saying better and better things about Üvegtigris so far, but actually I don't understand the reason of all the fuss.

I liked many points of the movie, some of the quotes really cheered me up, but the stereotyped characters are present again, like in every Hungarian film, and the story is also pretty dull. I liked the first half, but then I started to get bored, and then I found the whole film just BORING.

Rudolf Péter is good as always, Reviczky is brilliant also, but the others are just there... doing nothing.

How many years still have to pass for a GOOD Hungarian film???


For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.


This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?

But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.


It is a great tragedy that both Richard Harris and John Derek are no longer with us. But that shouldn't blind anybody to the fact that in 1981, a pretty ugly blotch appears on both men's CVs. No doubt John Derek conceived this movie doing for his wife what 'Some Like it Hot' and 'One Million Years BC' did for Maryln Monroe and Raquel Welsh respectively, creating an iconic sex symbol for the new decade. Having run to embrace Dudley Moore on the beach in '10' Bo's reputation, an all-star cast and location filming in Sri Lanka meant that nothing could go wrong. Alas, as they say, Mortals plan and God laughs. It is said that when this film premiered in 1981, the Edgar Rice Burrows estate tried to take legal action against it. Bo Derek plays Jane Parker who sets off into turn-of-the century Africa to be reunited with her boozy, abusive Dad, Richard Harris. Daddy Parker is an explorer who has set out to find 'the Great Inland Sea' the stuff of local legend, whose existence has been poo-pooed by conventional wisdom. Harris is worth watching for a wonderfully hammy, tanked -up performance which includes singing an Irish ditty at an Indian elephant that somehow found its way into Africa (did it arrive at the same time as the Orang-Utan from Sumatra???) Furthermore, although Jane professes to despise Parker, Bo and Rich's relationship is creepily incestuous, testimony perhaps to the effects of the tropical heat. Before long, however, local legends start to circulate about a 'Great White Ape' and Jane hears the famous yodel. This is the movie's cue for Miles O'Keefe, a future B-Movie star, making a rather odd debut as the loin-clothed Lord of the Jungle. Unlike Johnny Weismuller with his pidgin English or Ron Ely who speaks the language fluently, the O'Keefe Tarzan is mute. Given some of Bo and Richie's dialog, though, this is probably not a bad thing. Harris and his caravan eventually reaches the Great Inland Sea, located atop a gigantic plateau that seems to run halfway across Africa....hang on, aren't seas, lakes and other watery places generally located in low-lying areas?? Nevermind, it is just one of many anomalies in the John Derek universe. The crew attempt to mount the cliffs and when the ropes snap, Harris roars echoing abuse at the hapless men who have plummeted to their deaths. On another occasion, Jane decides to take a nude swim by the Inland Sea, giving another occasion to see some gratuitous nudity. Out of nowhere a single male lion appears. Now lions usually travel in prides and never go near beaches but later on, Tarzan will be wrestling with a (venomous) boa constrictor. Zoology doesn't seem to have been one of John Derek's strong points..... This being a Tarzan movie, Jane becomes enchanted with the Lord of the Jungle and resolves to take his virginity. But having seen his closeness to some of those chimps, you do have to wonder...Speaking of which, it's not only the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate could have sued. It is highly probable that certain primates were on the phone to their lawyers: the chimps here make you miss Cheeta badly. Especially when they do ridiculous things like ride on the backs of elephants and clap their hands when Tarzan and Jane finally get it on! The climax of this film has Bo and Harris captured by some rather stereotypical cannibals who paint our heroine and prepare to sacrifice/eat/execute her. Suffice is to say that The Great Wooden Ape gets his girl and *SPOILER* Harris gets himself impaled on a huge elephant tusk! This doesn't stop the dying Parker from delivering a rambling monologue to Jane. As far as I am aware, the law suit from the Rice Burrows estate never materialized but 'Tarzan the Ape Man' was crucified at the box office (no kidding?) A pity. John Derek could have directed 'Tarzan the Ape Man 2' with Bo Derek and Miles O'Keefe living in domestic bliss and Dudley Moore as 'Boy.'


When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!


Surely one of the most ill-advised remakes of a classic in film history – especially since the promise of its tag-line, “The most beautiful woman of our time in the most erotic adventure of all time”, isn’t even properly exploited! Although this film was regularly shown on TV in my neck of the woods since my childhood days, its notoriety (for awfulness not erotic content, mind you) kept me away from it until now – and I only relented because I have recently enjoyed Bo Derek’s previous film, 10 (1979), and have been watching a lot of fantasy stuff as well over the Christmas period.

Lead actress/producer Bo Derek is rather ridiculous playing the schoolgirl-ish sexual innocent (witness the inept banana scene) and, as was to be expected, she is made to get her clothes off a few times but, as welcome as these scenes were, she came off as far more sensual in 10 than she does here; Richard Harris, then, chews the scenery incessantly as Jane’s obsessed explorer father, but John Philip Law barely registers as his aide who meekly shows some initial interest in Jane herself; newcomer Miles O’Keeffe has the title role and he only makes his entrance 45 minutes into the movie, is completely silent throughout except for his famous yodel (which is probably lifted from Johnny Weissmuller anyway!) and, furthermore, is as inexpressive as one of the trees he dangles from at regular intervals throughout the film’s second half!; for the record, he later starred in two ATOR movies (or would-be CONAN imitators) for Joe D’Amato and the King Arthur-era set, SWORD OF THE VALIANT (1984).

When still an actor, director John Derek (who also serves as his own cinematographer here) had worked with some good film-makers (Cecil B. De Mille, William Dieterle and Robert Rossen) and a few great ones (Otto Preminger, Nicholas Ray and Don Siegel) but he clearly learned zilch from them as his direction of this one is a major liability: appallingly pretentious at times (witness the perfectly horrid python attack sequence) with a senseless overuse of the slow motion technique and cheesy transitions; this was Derek’s seventh film as a director (and his second of four with wife Bo) and, eventually, he would only get to make two more.

The film’s utter failure only needs to be gauged by the fact that the Tarzan legend was tackled once more on film – in GREYSTOKE: THE LEGEND OF TARZAN, LORD OF THE APES (which, surprisingly enough, I haven’t watched myself yet) – a mere three years later!! Nominated for six Razzie Awards (including John Derek, Richard Harris and Miles O’Keeffe) and winning one for Bo Derek herself, TARZAN, THE APE MAN was co-written by Gary Goddard, the future director of another highly anticipated but ultimately disappointing transposition to the silver screen of a (this time animated) heroic figure, MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE (1987) which I will be revisiting presently as well (yay)! Despite a charming closing credit sequence showing Tarzan and Jane playing with around with an orang-utan and a music score that is not half bad actually and quite rousing on occasion, any belated good intentions are defeated by an extremely silly climax involving natives painting Bo completely white and, fatally, John Derek’s clear disinterest in the character of Tarzan himself which makes him come off as an unimportant supporting character in his own self-titled movie!!


This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.

It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.

As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.

As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.


there are three kinds of bad films - the cheap, the boring, and the tasteless. the only really bad movies are boring and tasteless.

boring films are just, well, boring - if you don't leave quickly enough, you fall asleep.

tasteless films actually have their defenders; but the fact remains that they are masturbatory aids for very sick people.

only the cheap bad films are really funny, because the filmmakers wanted to make their films so desperately, they way-over-reached beyond their abilities and available resources.

Bo Derek is just naturally boring and tasteless; fortunately, fate and a lack of funds and skill redeem her by making her seem cheap as well. this film is hilarious and it may well be the last really funny-bad film ever made.

i first saw this in a theater, may god forgive me; i was laughing so hard i was rolling off my seat, and so too with most of the rest of the audience.

it's clear that Derek and her husband-promoter, conceived of this film as, partly, a satire; unfortunately, the dereks clearly lacked any of the necessary resources to pull that off; consequently, the 'satirical' element comes off as some school-girl's impression of some gay young man's impression of frank gorshin's impression of the riddler in batman trying to pretend he's robin - it doesn't fly over our heads, it has no clue where any human head might be.

on the other hand, there are some supposedly serious moments in this film - it is supposed to be an action film, remember - that are so astoundingly cheesy, one wonders if someone squirted spoiled milk in one's eye.

as for Derek's infamous tendency to reveal her breasts - i can't imagine a less erotic nudity photographic display, she is so weird looking with those broad shoulders, i can't imagine what any one ever saw in her.

as for the plot - such as it is - well, it isn't; Derek chases around Africa, and god alone knows why. then her father - Harris - pretends to act in some maniacal puppet-show, and then of course there's the hunk'o'Tarzan that seems to have wondered in from advertisement without knowing that the subject's changed - probably because he hasn't seen a script - apparently no one has.

negligible camera work, shoddy editing - if it weren't for the 3-way with the chimp, the film would be unbearable -

as it is, it's a real hoot.


Muscular man-ape in the jungles of Africa is hunted by an opportunistic expedition team; the comely daughter of the team's leader finds him first. Much-ballyhooed version of the Tarzan tale has an OK production, but is crippled by the single-handedly worst direction of a film I have ever seen. John Derek is bereft of inspiration beyond cheesy slow-motion action shots and peek-a-boo glimpses of wife Bo Derek's unclothed body; he has about as much talent behind the camera as Ed Wood. Trying for tongue-in-cheek sexuality, the Dereks lack finesse, snappy timing, and taste. They have a sense of self-parody and bravura abandonment (they do throw caution to the winds), but after a promising opening it all goes to hell. Miles O'Keeffe (who possibly had marbles in his mouth the entire time) has the title role, but plays third fiddle to John Derek's ego and Bo Derek's sense of self-importance. * from ****


This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.


I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but personally I think of it that way because when it was originally released in theaters, (1) the initial buzz was positive enough that my girlfriend insisted we go see it, and we actually STOOD IN LINE to get tickets, and (2) it's still the only "serious" film I recall where the audience started snickering at a certain point and basically laughed at the movie the rest of the way through. Once we reached the infamous (and interminable) snake fight scene, I think everyone gave up.

The only positive I can concede is the lush location shooting. Oh, and there's also Bo's breasts, although her acting is so wooden that the nudity is unerotic and doesn't rate much more than a Playboy pictorial.

The "dramatic tension" in this film is between Bo's terrible acting and her husband's horrible direction. The snake fight has to be one of the most incompetent "action" sequences ever filmed. However, this is one of those films that's bad enough, it may be worth watching on the level of unintentional humor. Definitely the worst film I ever paid to see.


Bo Derek might have had a career had she not let her late husband, John, take over as her director. It's a real shame, no really, with the right direction and the right part (see "10"), Bo was okay. She wouldn't win any awards even at her best, but she is no worse than many an actress who has made it big in the past 15 years or so based on looks alone. But therein lay the problem, John was determined to ride the wave that Bo created with her appearance in 10, that of Bo being the "perfect 10," "the hottest woman in America," "the sex symbol of the 1980s." Problem is, in John's hands, this wave crashed with a resounding thud in only a few year's time. Maybe he knew her limitations as an actress, perhaps that is why he fashioned movies for her that concentrated on her body, not her acting skills. But it got old real quick. It didn't help matters any that the films of John and Bo Derek are (let's be honest) really, really bad. And bad sums up their take on Edgar Rice Burrough's literary icon, the Lord of the Jungle, Tarzan of the Apes.

You know what's worst? This film is boring! Make me laugh, make me cry, just don't bore me. Not even Bo's stunning looks and figure can rouse any interest, and that is what the film is of course built around. Richard Harris (God bless his soul, he and Bo were previously in Orca btw) hams it up and makes his scenes at least a little interesting and Miles O'Keefe makes a physically impressive Tarzan. Maybe he got the last laugh, after being hit with a ton of venom from the critics over this film, Miles went on to a solid career as a B movie icon, in films that were not great art, but a million times more fun than this one. But other than that, it's Bo's body,and you can only see it so many times before you long for something else to go with it. Tarzan the Ape Man has nothing else. John Derek was a truly dynamic actor, he was not a director. He should have stayed with his strength. This film unfolds at a mind numbingly slow pace and nothing really happens in the action scenes. Burrough's Tarzan was all about excitement and wish fulfillment (who wouldn't want to be as agile, strong and good looking as Lord Greystoke?) and fun! You get none of that here. Watch it, and you will have wasted 107 minutes of your life. On second thought, you may come away with a valuable lesson, how not to handle someone's movie career.

Bo Derek is all right in my book though. She stood by John until his dying day, has a true love of animals and nature and even looks back with a giggle at her time in the spotlight. She has also proven that she is not the dumb blonde many want her to make her out to be. If she could survive Tarzan and Bolero, she can survive anything. So come back Bo, all is forgiven.

And as an aside, is the Steve Strong who plays the bad guy the same Steve Strong who a brief pro wrestling career?


The character of Tarzan has been subjected to so many clichés, and so many bad interpretations, that those who are hoping for a different kind of version (people like me, I mean, who liked the Tarzan books as a kid and have always wished for a movie version that followed the books just a little) ought to know how the recent renditions stack up. Some of the IMDb reviews address this point, but here's my $.02

I am aware of only two--count 'em--cinema depictions of Tarzan, namely Greystoke with Christopher Lambert and the Disney animated version, that try to depict Edgar Rice Burrough's rather interesting character (the son of a marooned English noble couple, picked up after their death by a tribe of apes who raise him as one of themselves, and who becomes "lord of the jungle" because of his superior human intellect before making it back to England and claiming his other identity) rather than the usual Hollywood jungle-man whose origin remains obscure and whose trademarks are his famous yell, his mysterious inability to speak proper English despite long exposure to people who know the language, his habit of swinging on vines, his strength, heroism, etc. About the only thing these two characters have in common are the name Tarzan and the fact that they both have a wife named Jane. Ron Ely's TV version is something of a compromise: Like Burroughs' character, he speaks good English and is adept and suave in both cultures in a sort of JamesBondish way, but he's no Lord Greystoke and there's no Jane.

Well, this film is in a third category of Tarzan films, and I hope it remains a category of one because it's awful. This category uses the character as a vehicle for, of all things, soft porn. Jane, played by legendarily bad actress Bo Derek is in Africa looking for her dad the absent-minded professor who is combing the jungle looking for something which is never specified. Though her dad is supposed to have been missing for a long time, she finds him effortlessly. Richard Harris as the dad is the best thing here; he sees the film is stupid so he has fun overacting and hamming in a way that reminds me of Peter O'Toole's deliberately silly performance in What's New Pussycat. Dad explains the legend of Tarzan ("some sort of ghost or spirit" he says--either a steal from, or an inartistic attempt at homage to, King Kong) to his daughter, who is at this point unfamiliar with the ape-man. Shortly afterward, we hear the infamous cliché of the Tarzan yell. Dad dies, which oddly doesn't seem to faze his devoted daughter very much. And then.....

Then Tarzan appears, but says nothing. Indeed, he says nothing during the entire film. He and Jane fall in love, and they romp around wearing almost nothing as she recites doggerel love-poetry off-screen. The End. That's the plot.

Well, not exactly; there's also a scene where Tarzan wrestles unrealistically with a boa constrictor--a most unusual boa, since it's the only poisonous one ever seen. Jane treats the bite with the aid of a chimp who helps by wringing out the garment she tears off to bind the wound with (I'm not making this up!), and this is only one of many excuses for her to take her clothes off.

I always like to conclude a review by saying something positive, but this time it's hard. Let's see... well, it's unfair to criticize this film for featuring an orangutan, even though we all know orangutans don't live in Africa; after all, the classic Tarzan movies all used Indian elephants, did they not? Also, you have to admit that Bo Derek is pretty in face and form. (But in that case why the hell didn't she just make a career as an art model? What does it say about a movie when it becomes plain boring to look at a pretty woman? I actually haven't decided whether it's a positive or a negative that they never showed her crotch.) But now I realize: try as I may, I can't end on a positive note.

See this film if you're a bad film buff. I'm outa here.


Because that's all she does through out this whole movie,is get naked for no good reason.When Tarzan is bitten by a snake,she suddenly removes her clothes.Since when is a boa constrictor poisonous?How did Tarzan get poisoned by the way ? This whole movie is screwed up.They couldn't get the species of animals for this movie right.Whats an Orangutang doing hanging around those chimpanzees?He must have wandered off the set of a much better film.The group of cannibal tribe's men look caucasin.Why?And why was Bo and her dad painted,if they were going to be eaten later?It was probably just a lame excuse to show her breasts and curves again.Her dad while hunting, approaches and acts stupidly around a bull elephant while standing too close to it.Any real African bull elephant that wasn't from the circus,would've stomped this moron's butt.Any smart hunter would've started shooting the minute he saw it.And I can't help but wonder if the camera was on LSD,because it kept showing various scenes that went in slow motion, for no good reason.It didn't make good sense at all.The boa constrictor that Tarzan wrestled with in the water,looks like one of those 12 Ft rubber snakes you can buy at a local Spencer Gifts.Tarzan was strangly speechless in this film,maybe from Bo flashing herself so much.I'm sorry,but this is a rip off of a classic Black and White Tarzan movie,with a similar but better story.Not To mention plotting .There's one scene in that I saw that everyone forgot to mention.*(SPOILERS ALERT)*The scene where he is trying to rescue Jane and her dad,has him standing too close to a running water spout.It made it seem like he's urinating on someone below him.Eww!Also, him and Jane are fooling around on a beach,with perverted monkeys jumping and clapping.She sure did take her dad's death real well.*(END OF SPOILERS)*There should be a Surgeon General's Warning on this film.That seeing Bo naked too much in this movie,will make you go blind.


I screamed my head off because seeing this movie was my first movie going experience ever at some 13 months old. I remember it being incredibly bloody and it made me angry. I watched it again on tv a few years ago. Big mistake -- the acting is wooden, the plot non-existent and the movie lacks merit unless 23 year-old T & A is what gets you going... 0/****


I was thirteen years old, when I saw this movie. I expected a lot of action. Since Escape From New York was 16-rated in Germany I entered the movie as fallback. It was so boring. Afterwards I realized that this was just crap where a husband exhibits his wife. I mean today you do this via internet and you pay for instant access. It is more then 20 years ago, but I am still angry that I waste my time with this film. This is a soft-porno for schoolboys. Undressing Bo Derek and painting her with color - nice. But then they should named the film Undressing Bo and painting her.


Bo Derek will not go down in history as a great actress. On the other hand, starting in the 1980s, actual acting talent seemed to be less and less of a required ability in Hollywood, so Bo could very well have gone onto bigger and better things after the big box office take of Blake Edwards' "10." That is if she hadn't allowed her husband, John Derek, to take over her career. Numerous Playboy spreads and bad movies like this one (this one in particular) directed by John destroyed what momentum she had and made her the butt of many a joke. In the 1980s it was assumed that you could put a certain personality in a certain movie and it would be box office gold. John figured that putting Bo in a movie wherein she was nude for much of the running time would make people flock to the theaters after the 10 hype. Maybe if the movie had been any good perhaps. This version of Tarzan has got to be the all time worst of the many iterpretations of Burrough's lord of the jungle, a slap in the face to character's book and film legacy. Tarzan is in fact an after thought as the film is primarily a vehicle for Bo's breasts and Richard Harris' wonderful over acting (remember, the pair had worked together in Orca). His scenery chewing helps you to stay awake during the boredom of it all and yes, the film is quite boring. Nothing really exciting happens and the few action scenes seem to have been shot by someone in a trance. Bo's body can only get you so far. Miles O'Keeffe who played Tarzan at least would go onto a long and enjoyable B movie career and Richard Harris can put this behind him after his recent acting triumphs, but Bo and John Derek never recovered from this fiasco and future collaborations between the two only served to show why his directing career and her acting career died in the first place.

And how did the orangutan get to Africa?


Bo is Jane Parker, whose long-lost anthropologist father (Richard Harris, in the worst role of a very inconsistent career) is in Africa studying something or another. She tracks him down (how?) and he tells her of the natives' stories of a giant monster whose nightly howling can be heard throughout the jungle. Turns out to be the Ape Man himself (Miles O'Keeffe, who has the film's best dialogue), who rescues her from bad guys and falls in love with her, leaving them just enough time in this agonizing two hours to romp naked while a horny monkey looks on and cheers. Normally I'm very open-minded to varying opinions about any film, but this is the sole exception. This is the worst film ever made. If you don't agree, you haven't seen it. (Notes: Newsday called it "unendurable," which is the best one-word summary I can think of. The Maltin Movie Guide comments that they almost had to think of a rating lower than BOMB.)


I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.


Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to "Tarzan - Jane" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.

No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.

The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.

Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display.


The only way we survived this stinker was by continually making fun of its stupidity. Funny thing is none of the audience around us seemed to mind--we all joined in.

This movie is soooo bad, its only potential is to become a midnight cult movie that people can invent lines and throw popcorn at.


This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.


If you are the sort of person who can get a kick out of a very bad movie, then I highly recommend this one. If you aren't, stay away. This is an astonishingly cheap-looking movie, and at times you may find yourself wondering if it isn't just a prank someone is pulling on you. The most positive comment I can make about it is that the people responsible seemed to realize that it was super-low-budget nonsense, so there is at least a sense of fun here.

But this is as amateurish as it gets. Their idea of giant killer mushrooms are simply guys covered with beige colored sheets with what looks like trash can covers on their heads. It's obviously not meant to be taken seriously (to say the least), but even with that disclaimer you'll find yourself shaking your head at the awesome cheesiness of it all. Or laughing out loud frequently, as I did.


"Fungicide" is quite possibly the most incompetent, embarrassing, pitiful "film" I have ever seen. The acting is criminal, the direction practically non-existent, and the special effects presumably put together by unleashing a monkey with learning difficulties on a defenceless laptop computer.

Far be it from me to stifle creativity, but I actually believe things like this shouldn't be made. I am sure the "film"-makers will say that, yes, the "film" was hampered by a low (as in nothing) budget - but in that case they just really shouldn't have bothered. As it is, they have offered the world something so dire, so execrable, that only imbeciles could get the merest shade of enjoyment from it.

Starting the "movie" it wasn't as though I was expecting "Citizen Kane" or anything. I was expecting a low budget little horror with perhaps a modicum of inventiveness, a hint of fun, and even some energy. What I got was the cinematic equivalent of a used handkerchief.

The plot? Well, our leering antihero scientist, who works in his parents' basement, is seen manically stirring some goo in a cup. Apparently, such high-level science is the end-result of years of research. His parents then send him off to a strange hotel-type place in the countryside to relax. There are some other people there, who are simply too awful to write about. Anyway, the scientist drops his test-tube onto some mushrooms - and soon the mushrooms grow and kill some people. (Wow, I'm getting suicidal just writing the plot summary). Our heroes save the day by detonating a barrel of balsamic vinegar (by attaching a "fuse" - really a piece of string - to it). The barrel unaccountably explodes with the power of a small nuclear weapon, destroying all the mushrooms. The end. (Thank goodness).

That summary is as good as the "film" gets (and actually makes it sound a lot more interesting than it actually is). It really should never have got past this stage of development (by which I mean a plot outline scribbled on the back of an envelope with crayons). Somebody should have really stepped in and given someone a vigorous shake and said "NO."

And those "special" effects. Well, they're "special" all right. This is CGI gone crazy. And done by a person who I can only assume believes the bicycle pump to be the pinnacle of modern technology. And when the mushroom monsters are not in the style of a 1984 home computer graphics package, they are represented by actors shuffling along covered in a sheet (I kid you not).

One of the most inexcusable things about the movie is its laziness. This can be summed up by the scene in which the hero spins his guns (a la Clint Eastwood) and then fails miserably to get them in his pockets. I mean come on, a couple of retakes and he could have pulled it off, but just to leave it as it is - really weak.

I cannot believe money was spent on this camcorder-shot rubbish. The "film"-makers should hang their heads in shame and be banned from going within fifty metres of any movie-making equipment.

I also think it's wrong that friends and family of the makers come onto IMDb and post mendacious reviews and give stupidly high user ratings which give a totally inaccurate picture of the "movie." "Fungicide" is an absolute travesty of film-making. Mr Wascavage is either very, very stupid or very, very cynical.


To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in "Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4"). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!).


This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.


Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.

Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.

After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.

Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.

This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.


Effort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.

Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.

IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)


This was a less than exciting short film I saw between features on Turner Classic Movies recently. While the film popped out due to its very intense Technicolor, the film itself just wasn't that moving and at times the plot looked pretty cheesy--like this was made for classroom use and capturing the attention of a wider audience WASN'T even a consideration. In particular, I really hated how many times in the film things were reiterated--such as when the characters talked to her, they usually said "Clara Barton" instead of "ma'am", "Miss Barton" or "Clara". Plus, one sickly confederate soldier said that he was a "Johnny Reb, A Confederate a Rebel,..."--almost like he was the cartoon character Mojo Jojo from the Powerpuff Girls. This was just sloppy writing--period.

It was interesting to see John Hamilton (later, "Perry White" on the SUPERMAN TV show) in a beard as President Garfield. Yep--it's him under that beard.


Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.

My Grade:D-

Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.

Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass


Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it.


Sometimes a film comes along that is unique. The Nostril Picker is one such film, The Nostril Picker is like no other film I have ever seen, unfortunately for The Nostril Picker & myself it's unique for different reasons than what the filmmakers had originally intended. Read on & all shall hopefully become clear... The Nostril Picker, as it's commonly know although it was apparently filmed under the title The Changer, starts with some extremely dull shots of an American town somewhere, streets & factory's that sort of thing, as the opening credits play. When The Nostril Picker begins proper we, the viewer that is, are introduced to a real loser named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who is in his 40's, he lives on his own in a crappy little apartment where he watches T.V., eats beef flavoured dog food & listens to old vinyl records as he dances with a blow up rubber sex doll. Joe likes teenage girls, he has various porn magazines but enjoys the real thing even more. However, being an ugly git Joe can't tempt any young ladies to go out with him, or do anything else with him for that matter. One fateful day an old homeless Vietnam vet (Horace Grimm) sees the agony & pain that Joe has to go through (actually he sees Joe being spoken to by the cops for hassling a teenage girl) & decides to help him out. He tells Joe about an incantation that he learned from the 'gooks' in Vietnam that will transform Joe's appearance into whatever he likes. A process he calls morphosynthesis, but at the same time he warns Joe that 'it makes you crazy if you do it too much'. That night Joe decides to give it a try, in a public place on a podium for some reason. Joe says a few words, does an extremely silly dance & starts yodelling. Joe finishes off by whistling London Bridge is Falling Down, listen yeah, I ain't making this up either. At first Joe is visibly disappointed when nothing significant happens. To console himself Joe tries to buy a porn mag but is shocked when the clerk (Kevin Devoy) refuses to sell it to an underage girl. Joe, the bright spark that he is, realises what has happened & talks his/her way out of it by claiming his/her dad had sent him/her to buy it. Joe, who now calls his alter-ego Josephine (Ann Flood), senses the possibilities & heads straight for the local high school. Joe befriends four teenage girls, Jennifer Armstrong (Laura Cummings), Crisi Stroud (Gail Didia), Tracy Harper (Heidi M. Gregg) & Brenda Kearn (Aimee Molinaro) while under his disguise, oh & Joe manages to become a pupil at the school simply by asking the sports teacher Miss Van Dyke (Vicki Hollis). At first Joe seems harmless enough, he just likes to hang around the girls toilets & stuff like that. But things soon change as Joe brutally murders Brenda. Jennifer's dad, Vince Armstrong (Edward Tanner) is a detective so along with his partner Ed Simpson (Clyde Surrell) & Walt Spencer (Bruce Alden) the pathologist is determined to catch the sicko responsible for killing his daughter's friends, but will they succeed before Joe strikes again? The IMDb listing for The Nostril Picker is wrong, I watched it mere hours ago & it clearly states that it's directed by Mark Nowicki who was also a co-producer & definitely not Patrick J. Matthews who was credited as a co-producer & the cinematographer, not that it makes much difference & I'd have though that Nowicki would have been more than happy for Matthews to take the 'credit' for making this piece of crap. No one involved in the making of The Nostril Picker should be allowed to go anywhere near a camera again, ever. The Nostril Picker is easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, & that's saying something. It's absolutely terrible in every possible way imaginable. The script by Steven Hodge is atrocious, there's no narrative structure, excitement, tension, drama, character development & the things that do happen are so mind numbingly dumb it's untrue. The plot devices & chain of events in The Nostril Picker are totally incomprehensible. The scene where Joe finds out the prostitute (Steven Andrews) he hired is in fact a man & Joe starts to chase him around his apartment with two squirting dildo's is simply jaw dropping stuff. The subsequent scene when the transvestite reports the incident to the police is hilariously written & had me psychically laughing at the dialogue. I hated the ending as well, not only was it predictable but it leaves the door open for a sequel, I psychically shudder at the mere thought! On a technical level The Nostril Picker is awful, point & hope photography, bland & inappropriate music, forgettable locations, poorly edited (Brenda is killed in the kitchen yet her blood splashes on the T.V. screen that was clearly in the opposite room), some of the worst acting I've sat through & very unimpressive special effects which consist of a few cut off rubber fingers, a slit throat & a quick scene where Joe eats some flesh. It comes as no surprise that the cast & crew who worked on The Nostril Picker have virtually no IMDb credits for anything before or after. Even at 76 odd minutes The Nostril Picker is far to long & really boring to sit through. I could go on & on all day long about how bad The Nostril Picker is, I really could. One thing I can't quite work out is was all this intentional by the filmmakers? The Nostril Picker is indeed a unique film, unique in it's awfulness & incompetence. In the the case of The Nostril Picker I hope it remains unique too, having said that it's still not the worst film I've ever seen but it comes close that's for sure. Definitely one to avoid.


i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.

the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.

(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).

anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.

its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.

please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.

i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/


I've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:

1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal

The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.

Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.

I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!

it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.


This has to be THE WORST film I have ever seen. I bought the DVD and it didn't work, well the DVD worked fine, its just the film didn't, in fact its so bad that I think non of the actors have worked since (or before judging from the acting). There is no real plot to speak of and no real horror. The production values are rubbish even for a low budget film with some outside scenes being hard to hear due to wind on the microphone.

All in all it was so bad a film that a viewer could think it was going to turn into a porno if they didn't know any better (which have been an improvement). There are only two lines in the film that are funny, both of which revolve around the transvestite prostitute. (Although they hardly merit watching all 76 minutes for)

As for the marketing of the DVD I feel thoroughly cheated. I mean reading the back I expected it to be bad:

He chose his weapons. He selected his victims. He picked his nose. He turned into a GIRL!

But I thought it might be funny. Also the case claims it is digitally re mastered, I would love to have seen it beforehand, the print is so grainy you could use it as sand paper. The case also says it is an absolute disgusting movie, IN WHAT WAY?, disgusting production, acting.

This film out stays it welcome in the first five minutes, (if you are considering buying this I would say buy `bad taste' instead it is a much better film and is funny, also it has Peter Jackson the director of the LOTR in it.)

Incidentally if anyone knows anything about any of the actors (or director Patrick J Mathews) and what they have done since, please post here as I would love to know, purely to find out if there is a worse movie out there, or if anyone in this film ever bothered to learn to act


Someone must have been seriously joking when they made this film.

Firstly, it is an absolute impossibility that this movie was made in 1993. The fashions and music dictate that this is seriously 80's. My guess is that this has sat on the shelf for a long while before some crazed distributer picked it up and released it to a disbelieving world.

There is a plot. Kind of. A strange loner meets a random man with a beard who tells him that if he meditates while singing his favourite song he will be able to turn into whomever he chooses. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the loner's favourite song is London Bridge Is Falling Down. Why is this his favourite song? Because he's an idiot. We are only a minute into the film and already the film has reached a monumental level of stupidity. It gets even stupider.

The loner is the nostril picker. I can only assume this as there are two scenes in the film where he is seen picking his nose. That clears up the title. He decides to change into a girl so that he can get close to other girls. And kill them. That's more or less it.

The acting is universally appalling. Every single performance in this movie sucks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the acting is of the standard of a pornographic movie. It really is that terrible. The nostril picker appears to the audience as the nostril picker. The characters in the movie see him as the girl he has become through singing London Bridge Is Falling Down. Man, I feel like an idiot even typing this. Anyway, it is kind of strange seeing a middle aged weirdo hanging out with school girls. And not in a good way. There is even an extended montage of scenes where the nostril picker is at school with the girls and a song plays over the top. It is very possibly the worst song ever recorded. I'm not even going to describe it. You'll know it when you hear it. And you'll agree with me.

There are some scenes of violence, sure. And there is a Benny Hill style chase sequence involving a transsexual. There is even an immortal bit of dialogue, that may or may not have been taken from Shakespeare or John Milton, where the nostril picker says to a prostitute, 'I've got the cash if you've got the gash'. Lovely, I'm sure you'll agree.

Utter nonsense.


I bought this movie exciting a gloriously gratuitous, over the top, entertaining bloodbath. I got none of them. This film fails on practically every level, not in the least frightening, or funny, it is simply terrible film-making, and never provides the audience with anything worth seeing. What is so bad about it is that far from being as raw, violent and brutal as it had promised to be, there is very little violence at all. Virtually no blood shed, and no excitement whatsoever. Acting, direction and dialogue is absolutely unbearable. Honestly, it is truly laughable. I could hardly sit through this total garbage once; I certainly will never want to watch it again. Don't waste your time with a waste of celluloid like this; it is truly possibly the worst film ever made. If I could give it minus stars, I would.


Originally called The Changer. The Nostril Picker is a poorly constructed tale about a loner named Joe Bukowski (Carl Zschering) who "likes em young". Unable to socially interact with girls he bumps into a tramp who teaches him a special Vietnamese chant. This "chant" involves whistling 'London Bridge is Falling Down' whilst hopping around like an epileptic morris dancer. Nonetheless, Ugly Joe tries it out and hey presto! He is now a girl. Ideally he needs to be a young guy in order attract girls. But lets not talk about ideals here - this film was made in 1983 and released in 1993, in an ideal world it should have NEVER been released.

The Film Asylum dubbed this horror hokum as "mind numbing, ham handed story telling". Its worse than that. The Nostril Picker really takes the biscuit, in fact the whole god-damn cookie jar. Terribly scripted dialogue delivered by brain-dead actors, a ridiculous plot and a predictable twist. Just when things couldn't get any more absurd the story goes off on its own nonsensical tangent. For instance, Joe decides to kill the girls by changing back into himself. But i thought he wanted to get close to them? Not content with being a murderer Joe also turns into a cannibal and eats some of his victims, of which there were only around 3-4.

The highlight of this terrible movie involves Joe picking up a hooker (Steven Andrews) then taking "her" back to his apartment. What happens next defies belief... Joe turns back into a man, but also discovers the hooker is a man. How does he react? Well, in a Benny Hill-esquire fashion, he chases "her" around the apartment with a bunch of squirty dildo's only to trip up on a blow up doll. God knows what Patrick J Matthews and Stephen Hodge were thinking of. At least this scene paved the way for another priceless moment. This involved the male hooker reporting the incident to a curly haired police officer with a 2-bit joke shop 'cop' uniform. The hilarious acting is a must see. Especially the hooker's inability at saying "dildo" and his demand for "satisfaction".

Apart from the above mentioned incident this monotonous slash flick was a complete bore. You know a movie's bad when the DVD trailers were more exciting. Normally, i'd fast forward to the good bits, only there weren't any here. The main action sequences involved Joe simply stabbing his victims repeatedly. Forget quick cuts, Matthews utilizes fadeouts (one during a stab scene) to limit any form of suspense there might already be. One girl's non-reaction to her fingers being chopped off is laughable. Normally i'd relish the words "uncut" but in this case they were far from a blessing. Just more agonizing cinematic torture. The whole movie felt like an unedited episode of Midsummer Murders, only less entertaining. I'd hate to see the cut version.

To sum up, The Nostril picker is the most unentertaining thing i've seen since Richard Hammond's 5 O' Clock Show. Dismal performances made worse by a terribly tinny soundtrack and bad dubbing. Don't be fooled by the box label, this is NOT a cult classic unless it qualifies for the lets-use-shitty-horror-dvds-for-coffee-coasters cult. Which i think it does. Unless re-edited to 30 minutes stay away from this coma inducing mess.


I like movies about UFOs, which is why I recently decided to rewatch EYES BEHIND THE STARS after seeing it when I was a kid back in the late 1970s. And now I'm compelled to write a review about it because I'm afraid I'll start forgetting everything about it FAST. You see, even though EBTS ain't bad, it's VERY dull and nondescript. The story is sorta interesting but flat. The actors are good but their roles are boring and a little confusing. The FX are terribly amateurish but I can overlook something like that if the movie is compelling, which, unfortunately, this one ain't.

Also, there's very little violence and there's no nudity whatsoever, which makes this 1970s Italian sci-fi opus a TRUE oddity, because if there's one thing that distinguishes Italian genre movies made in the 1970s from genre movies of other countries made in the same decade, it's the astonishing amount of violence and sex to be found in them. Oddly enough, because of the almost complete lack of exploitive elements, EBTS stands out from the rest of the pact. I don't know if this can be seen as a compliment though. Personally, I can enjoy a movie without sex and violence but I think EBTS NEEDED more violence and some sex here and there to spice it up because it is so deadly dull and dry. And the special effects aren't that special.

The story itself is actually interesting. It's a combo of THE X-FILES and Antonioni's BLOWUP: a photographer accidentally captures aliens on film during a fashion shoot in the country. The aliens know they were captured on film and they proceed to kidnap the photographer and a model, subsequently destroying any evidence of their presence on earth. The problem starts when the model meets a man at the recently abducted photographer's apartment (this taking place just before she's to be abducted herself). The man takes some of the negatives and leaves, with the aliens having no knowledge of the missing negatives. The whole story is about this man wanting to know more about the aliens and a secret spy group who want to get a hold of the negatives. The majority of the movie centers around boring political intrigue, in the spy vs spy variety. The UFO element of the story is almost unimportant and could have easily been replaced by any cold war McGuffin. But as dull as EYES BEHIND THE STARS is, it does resemble THE X-FILES a LOT! I wonder if Chris Carter saw this movie. Anyway, the best thing in EBTS are the POV shots, which are creepy and effective. But the rest is almost completely forgettable, including the goofy looking aliens.

Even though I've been mostly negative about this film, I sorta cherish it nonetheless. I still remember the effective ad campaign which scared me when I saw it as a kid. And I own the video. The film could have been so much more if it had been done properly. Oh well...