There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.

Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.

aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.

this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.

anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.


This is a well made informative film in the vein of PBS Frontline. The problem is, Frontline already did this piece and managed to bring L. Paul Bremer in to tell his side of the story. More troubling is the fact that the director of the film, Charles Ferguson--a former think tank wonk, was a war supporter until the occupation went south. What did he think would happen?

The invasion of Poland went really well too until it was messed up by those pesky Nazis.And that is what this film feels like--an apology for occupation rather than a deconstruction of the act of war itself.

Ferguson seems to suggest that the war could have been run better--as if any war can be better.


Early, heavy, war-time propaganda short urging people to be careful with their spending practices, in effort to prevent any runaway inflation.

Using scare, guilt and patriotic jingoistic rhetoric, which was normal for the time, the government was concern that the sudden war-time production and therefore wage increase and subsequent spending practices if not checked could cause serious problems during and after the war.

It truly is a window into the past, historically and culturally.


The only redeeming quality of this movie is that it was bad enough to be comedic. Everyone in this movie looks like a porn industry drop out. I have actually seen better acting in low budget porn. I though I had actually rented some kind of gay porn after this classic scene: Jim: Watch your ass Nick: You watch yours (together): I wont leave you behind!

The first action sequence shows how awful the production is, but its really kind of funny: Good guys have transformer weapons! In one scene, they all have fake HK MP5 sub-machine guns. Next scene, AK-47 replicas! And then, to top it all off, they do some weapon swapping between scenes with a couple of M-16s!! I think they had a budget shortage for guns, not enough to go around between the good guys and bad guys. Fight scenes are poorly coordinated and fake as all hell. You have to remove the pin/spoon from a grenade for it to explode on its own. You can't fire a shoulder launched missile of any kind while riding inside a helicopter. Weapons that you throw away don't suddenly re-appear. When a gun is out of bullets, throwing it away is still pretty stupid. Unless you have no idea how to reload them.. Big slow trucks driving around in first gear make for awkward action scenes. I really cant believe movies like this are actually produced. This movie would be hilarious on nitrous oxide or maybe just drunk.


I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.


At first I was convinced that this was a made-for-TV movie that wasn't worthy of primetime. But after a few minutes of dumb-struck awe, I realized that there was at least comic value in the over-the-top stunts and c-movie acting. This movie would have gotten a 1 if my wife and I hadn't laughed so hard as we watched it in wonder that the actors could keep a straight face. It was like a less-funny spy version of The Big Hit (I laughed so much I actually bought the Big Hit DVD) with even-worse acting. We were disappointed that Nick chose to marry Elena, and not Jim, after all of the hugging and high-fives. A few rum and cokes will definitely help it go down easier.


There was not one original idea in this story. Themes were pulled from various sources; a few being The Ninth Gate, In the Mouth of Madness (another Carpenter film), and The Ring. It even went as far as featuring the same damn glowing circle from The Ring and using it as the film's namesake. The soundtrack by Cody Carpenter was all but lifted from Suspiria. Hopefully no one will oppose this comment by spewing the word HOMAGE around. Yes, I saw that the theater was playing Argento's Deep Red. Claiming an homage would be a bullshit cop-out. This was bottom-of-the-barrel. Throwing gore and "disturbing" imagery into the pot does not make a good horror film. Carpenter used to know that. He should fade into obscurity or acquire a time machine.


I saw this last week after picking up the DVD cheap. I had wanted to see it for ages, finding the plot outline very intriguing. So my disappointment was great, to say the least. I thought the lead actor was very flat. This kind of part required a performance like Johny Depp's in The Ninth Gate (of which this is almost a complete rip-off), but I guess TV budgets don't always stretch to this kind of acting ability.

I also the thought the direction was confused and dull, serving only to remind me that Carpenter hasn't done a decent movie since In the Mouth of Madness. As for the story - well, I was disappointed there as well! There was no way it could meet my expectation I guess, but I thought the payoff and explanation was poor, and the way he finally got the film anti-climactic to say the least.

This was written by one of the main contributors to AICN, and you can tell he does love his cinema, but I would have liked a better result from such a good initial premise.

I took the DVD back to the store the same day!


According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...

It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.

The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...

The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.

The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.

The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.

My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?

One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD!


Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.

Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.

Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.


Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.


I was very excited when this series premiered in 2005. The premise was very simple and appealing: each episode would be a one-hour mini movie directed by a famous, noteworthy horror director. Then, when I finally watched them it was a bit of a letdown. Some good episodes emerged from that first season, but all in all it was a mixed bag. I attributed it to the learning curve, and figured that season 2 would be a whole lot better.

Boy, was I in for a shock. At least season one had a few good stories here and there. Season 2 (with the exception of "The Black Cat" starring the excellent Jeffrey Combs) was a complete and total loss to me. The episode "Sounds Like" may very well be the worst thing I have watched on TV in the last 10 years, and most of the other episodes aren't much better. I really hope that season 3 turns this around next year, but I'm not holding my breath.


Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.


With the exception of FAMILY, this new season is worse than Season One. I can't imagine what they are thinking. As a fan of horror, can tolerate a lot of gore and mindless mayhem, but this series gets worse with each outing. I can't imagine how disheartening it must be for the actors and crew to go to work each day, toiling to churn out such crap. STORY! Is that too much to ask for? CHARACTER! How can we give damn about the fate of ANYONE in these stories? If we are not engaged, who cares if they get carved up or whatever? Almost every episode ends with mindless blood letting, going for gross out shock without any sense of revelation or conclusion or REASON why we have been subjected to an hour of bloodletting. Even Dante's effort this season had some disturbing sexist violence and wandered off to a pointless conclusion. Ironically, the production values and performances tend to be up to speed, while the content is utter crap. I have great hopes for Exec Producer's Garris's VALARIE UNDER THE STAIRS, but we shall see.


I had been subjected to this movie for a relationship class in my school. As figured it was nothing captivating and nothing new. Though it tries to be original by focusing on the teen father instead of the mother showing the problems that the dad would go through. It had an interesting side to it but it just doesn't live up to its originality due to the fact nothing else in this movie was original. We have the main character who has the older sister who like in every other movie like this has a thing against him, we have the stay at home mother who expects too much and when he gives more she feels offended and leaves him in the dust, then we have the father who is always gone. Then the girls side we have the parents who want everything and expect her to be perfect at all she does. On to the story like I said it was interesting but the lack of good acting from the entire cast and the lack of any good writing or storytelling. Everything about this fell into cliché the little nerd kid in school starts studying with girl, they get together, have sex and then boom we have a little kid. Perhaps it could've been better had the writing been well better and had the acting been improved I've seriously gotten more emotion out of Leatherface and his chainsaw than I did out of any actor in this film and that's pretty bad seeing as the Leatherface movies are crap and horridly acted. So far the only interesting teen pregnancy movie I've seen was Juno. So far the comical side of this serious situation has proved more entertaining while still giving the same message. Like I said the idea was original most of these films focus on the teen mother but this one chose not to instead it focuses on the drama of the father but again the originality does not save this movie from mediocrity. I really hope someone decides to either re-make this movie with a better cast and a better writer or just make another similar film because this one was wasted potential.


***SLIGHT SPOILERS***

A hunchback 15-year-old boy kisses a very cute 15-year-old girl and eventually he has sex for the first time. After the act, he lays in the bed with her not touching her. The next day he concludes that he does not like sex much and does not want to try it again for at least a few years.

This is seemingly a fine opening for a teleplay about a boy discovering his homosexuality, or perhaps a medical drama about a post-pubescent teen with a severe hormone deficiency.

However, as the plot develops what emerges is a story of a 15-year-old father who is supported and encouraged by his overbearing mother.

At one point, his mother preaches to her co-workers who are not as understanding as they might be, "Every step of the way in this, my son has been amazing... I have never been more proud of him..."

The young father's older sister, who otherwise is cold towards her brother, begins to show pride in her sibling, "You have been cool about this," as she gives him an encouraging warm hug.

The 15-year-old father wants to be a father. He wants to be a parent.

Why not? We see the "new" baby a few minutes after birth -- it appears to be a healthy, happy 4-month-old infant. Just as babies were born on TV in the 1960's and 1970's.

Once the young father is a parent, he has found happiness. He insists he will be the one to change the dirty diaper. We see the 15-year-old father sincerely happy holding his baby while the teen's busy=body mother is peaking over his shoulder. Fade to black.


my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob


Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!


I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.

The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.

Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.


Wow. I have seen some really bad movies in my time, but this one truly takes the cake. It's the worst movie I've seen in the past decade - no exaggeration.

As a US Army veteran of the war in Afghanistan, I found it nearly impossible to even finish watching this ridiculous film, not because it brought back memories - far from it - but because there was absolutely no attempt at "authenticity" to be found anywhere in the film. Not so much as the tiniest little shred. It seemed like it had been written by an 8 year-old child who got all his notions of war (and soldierly behavior) straight out of comic books. The film was made in Honduras, which should have been a clue, but even that can't fully explain the atrocious production values of this cliché-ridden piece of trash.

I could try to list all the endless technical flaws, but it would take virtually forever. From the ancient unit shoulder patches which have not been seen or worn since WWII, and the character's name tags, like "ColCollins" (worn by the character "Colonel Collins"), which was actually spelled using the reversed, mirror-image "N" of the Russian alphabet (not the US alphabet) the list just goes on and on. The uniforms, the equipment, the plot, and most especially the behavior of the characters themselves -- every single scene was just chock-full of ridiculous flaws, inaccuracies and utterly mindless clichés.

Neither the storyline itself nor the characters were the least bit credible or believable. It was all laughably childish, in the extreme. This was obviously a movie that was meant to appeal strictly to pre-pubescent boys, and I have little doubt that even they would find this film utterly absurd.

In short, this film has absolutely NO redeeming qualities at all. It's a total waste of time. I'd strongly advise anybody reading this to pass this garbage by; it's truly not worth wasting a single moment of your time for.


I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.

The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.

It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.


While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.


You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.


The real shame of "The Gathering" is not in the bad acting, nor is it in the despicably shallow plot. The real shame is that it was far worse than the series it begun, even though it did have one main attraction: Takashima. I would love to see Laurel Takashima in a room with Susan Ivanova, even for just five minutes. She has that sarcasm, that wit, that double-edged personality that is at once volatile and lovable. Sadly, though, the "Babylon 5" pilot movie has an incredibly dull story involving assassination. Patricia Tallman-- who never seriously returned to the series until much later-- fortunately got much better with age as Lyta Alexander, who here is little more than a whiny, tiresome telepath. I shall leave you with one final thought-- why is it that Delenn looks like some sort of outer-space frog man (even though she is a woman)? Thank heavens for the way the Minbari looked later in the show.


Time spent watching this film was time wasted. I do not dislike science fiction. I do not reject any genre per se, since good work can be done in any genre. This film, however is not good work. I cannot fault the visuals (when not involving alien makeups), and the special effects are impressive. The story was not out-and-out BAD, for a trekkish comic book. But the fx visuals were obviously where all the makers' interest/attention/money went. The direction alternated between sluggish and confusing (one was not at all sure exactly who was doing what and with what and to whom at at least one crucial juncture). The "acting" was mostly very bad indeed. There was no basis to most of the line readings besides a hint of "It was that way on the page and the director told me I was supposed to be mad/sad/scared/whatever. Okay, so it was a SF series pilot. Since when is that an excuse for correctable shoddiness in areas when should be regarded as essential to a dramatic medium. I'm astonished the pilot sold the series. Or is the money also in the hands of technerds?


This very low budget comedy caper movie succeeds only in being low budget. Dialog is dumbfoundingly stupid, chase scenes are uniformly boring, and most of the on-screen money seems to have been saved for a series of crashes and explosions in a parking lot during the film's last five minutes (a briefly glimpsed port-a-potty early in that scene is certain to wrecked and spew crap on the film's chief villain--no prop is here without a purpose). The whole film is depressingly reminiscent of those that occasionally came out of Rodger Corman's studio when he'd give a first time director a few bucks and a camera--but without the discipline Corman would impose.


I saw this movie in its own time period, when having a baby out of wedlock not only ruined your life, but stamped your child as a bastard. In these days of 'single mothers' that may seem very far-fetched, but it was very true. And I'm not crazy about laughing at someone who is stammering, either. Between these two problems I had difficulty finding this movie funny. At that time I didn't know who had directed it or what a marvelous reputation he had. I did know who Betty Hutton was, and she just made me nervous because she was so frenetic. I loved "Bringing Up Baby", but I find this movie just embarrassing. I'm sure the punch at some church functions probably was spiked, but I was the one needing a drink after watching this again. The idea the girl would have to be drunk in order to 'get married' and get pregnant just added to the misery. An entire town could turn on you under these circumstances, so the outcome of this movie is really the funny part. Of course, shoot me, I don't like "It's a Wonderful Life" either.


A lot of other reviewers here, including many whose opinions I respect, hold this slice of European sleaze horror in high regard. Personally, I didn't like it at all. Its an incoherent attempt at a atmospheric period cross between sex and violence. Jess Franco at his best makes these kinds of films very well. Unfortunately, the infamous exploitation filmmaker Joe D'Amato does not. D'Amato's most well known films are infamous for their high gross-out quotient. This, an early film by him, doesn't have the constant disgusting scenes that his more notorious "Anthropophagous" and "Beyond the Darkness" did. Ultimately, its an incoherent film that doesn't manage to involve the viewer in any way. Without the sleaze factor either, it becomes very boring. As I said, others have enjoyed this film, but I just found it to be a perfect example of incredibly lazy writing.

There are a few pluses for the film. Ewa Aulin (from "Candy") is in it, and she looks pretty hot and is often naked. However, cult film icon Klaus Kinski is completely wasted in a subplot with no connection to the main film. He seems bored with the role and doesn't have the manic intensity he does at his finest. The music score is nice and there are some brief moments of unintentionally funny gore. Still, this is a pretentious and pointless film that manages to be incredibly boring. (3/10)


'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.

Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').

'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.

This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.


I don't know why this has the fans it does and I don't know why I have even given it the score I have. This is preposterous. There are many a giallo where one has to suspend disbelief, let the picture roll and catch up with it somewhere before it becomes delirious and some poor police officer has to eventually explain what we have seen. But, this has very little going for it and has overlong sequences where nothing happens and have no relevance to anything while we have to listen to a most repetitive soundtrack, even by Italian standards. Not a giallo, this is a complete mish mash of horror ideas featuring Klaus Kinski in one his most blatant 'phoned in' performances. I reckon he turned up, did a day's work and cleared off leaving Mr D'Amato to get others to fill in. Ewa is of course pretty but no it is not enough, and in the end we have seen far too much of her popping up all over the place, long after we have completely lost interest in this mindless and pretentious twaddle. Maybe I just wasn't in the right mood!


It's a hideous little production, apt to give one nightmares as well as headaches. It's an unsightly blend of live action and ugly stop-motion animation. It's weird, but it's not the kind of fun, weird trip anyone optimistic might expect. It's the cold, inhuman, unfriendly, sickening, even creepy kind of weird. There is absolutely no reason to watch this movie. After all, Disney did a fantastic job with the same source material. And Cosgrove-Hall did far more attractive things with stop-motion.

Interestingly, this is a French production. As such, it re-enforces the stereotype that the French have no concept of scary.


This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.

There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.

This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.

The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.

The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.

The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.


First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...


An Avent-garde nightmarish, extremely low-budget "film" that has delusions of grandeur. Hard to sit through. I get the message that child abuse is wrong. Wow big revelation. I had no clue it was wrong before viewing this. Yes that's sarcasm. DON'T watch this "film" if you're offended by nudity of either the male or female gender. DON'T watch it if you're the least bit squeamish. DON'T watch it if you care about acting. On second thought just DON'T watch it period.

My grade: D-

DVD Extras:making the movie , the premiere,interview with Kristie Bowersock, deleted scenes, movie stills, Director's commentary, 2 versions of the teaser trailer, music video by The Azoic, & a classroom video experiment


I bought this movie for 1 euro, not knowing what it was all about. I thought "hmmm, a movie named mutilation man must be if not very funny at least filled with gore". It wasn't funny alright. It was disturbing. Very disturbing. And I don't mind disturbing movies but this one just didn't mean anything, except that child abuse is not a good thing to do. hmmm... The quality of the images were terrible. The acting...there was no acting. Just some fcked-up fcker mutilating himself for over 90 minutes. This is probably material for sicko's jurking off on extreme gore.

Don't watch this. It's not worth your time. Its just awful. I wish i never bought this.

They should mutilate the guy who made this


This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?

Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.


Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.

Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.

82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).


After being a big fan of the ten minute T.V episodes of 'Stella Street', I awaited this film with excitement and anticipation. Unfortunately I was left feeling very disappointed.

I was dismayed by the way that nearly all of the gags and one liners were directly lifted from the T.V Episodes, and delivered with much less enthusiasm and comic timing, as if the actors had said them once, and couldn't be bothered to say them again. I bought my copy on DVD and felt cheated that I had parted with my hard earned cash to watch the same jokes over again.

*SPOILERS* The plot of the film starts with Stella Street (a normal English street in Surrey), gradually being populated by 'some of the most famous people from stage and screen of the last forty years', including Michael Caine, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and The Rolling Stones. All the celebrities in the street end up being conned out of their entire fortunes by a local fraudster, and are forced to live like tramps and common working class people. There are some nice moments, but on the whole, the writers manage to take an interesting idea and make it pretty boring. *END OF SPOILERS*

In the T.V Episodes, all the characters are performed by John Sessions and Phil Cornwell (including females), but in the film Ronni Ancona is added to the cast. I think this was a mistake. Her impersonations weren't funny, and it felt like her characters were included in the story just to give her something to do.

If you were not a fan of the episodes of Stella Street, you may find this film entertaining. But if you were a fan, I think you may walk away feeling a little bit cheated. 4/10


Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.


Awful! Awful! Awful! No, I didn't like it. It was obvious what the intent of the film was: to track the wheeling and dealing of the "movers and shakers" who produce a film. In some cases, these are people who represent themselves as other than what they are. I didn't need a film to tell me how shallow some of the people in the film industry are. I suppose I'm at fault really because I expected something like "Roman Holiday".

I'm not a movie-maker nor do I take film classes but it appeared to me that the film consisted of a series of 'two-shots' (in the main) where the actors(!) had been supplied with a loose plot-line and they were to improvise the dialogue. Henry Jaglon makes the claim that he along with Victoria Foyt actually wrote the screenplay but the impression was that the actors, cognisant of the general direction of the film, extemporised the dialogue - and it was not always successful. Such a case in point was when Ron Silver made some remark which really didn't flow along the line of the conversation (and I'm not going back to look for it!) and Greta Scacchi broke into laughter even though they were supposed to be having a serious conversation, because Silver's remark was such a non sequitur. You get the impression too that one actor deliberately tries to 'wrong foot' the other actor and break his/her concentration. Another instance of this is when a producer tells Silver to "bring the &*%#@#^ documents" (3 times). Silver looked literally lost for words. I have seen one other film which looked like a series of drama workshops on improvisation and that was awful too!

The fact that Jaglon was able to attract Greta Scacchi (no stranger to Australia), Ron Silver, Anouk Ami, and Maximilian Schell suggests it was a 'slow news week' for them. Peter Bogdanovich had a 'what-the-hell-am-I-doing-here' look on his face at all times and I expected to hear him say: "Look, I'm a director and screenwriter - not an actor" - which would have been unnecessary to state! Faye Dunaway seemed more interested in promoting her son, Liam. Apart from the jerky delivery of the dialogue, the hand-held camera became irritating even if it was for verisimilitude - as I suspect the "natural" dialogue was - and the interest in the principals became subsumed to the interest in the various youths walking along the strand trying to insinuate themselves into shot. That at least approached Cinema Verite. So that, along with the irritating French singing during which I used the mute button, made for a generally disappointing 90-odd minutes.

I think we should avoid apotheosising films such as this. Trying to see value in the film where it has little credit in order to substantiate a perceived transcendental level to it is misguided. There was really nothing avant-garde about it. It didn't come across as a work of art and yet it wasn't a documentary either. I know, it was a mocumentary but the real test is whether it is entertaining. I was bored out of my skull! It did have one redeeming feature: it pronounced 'Cannes' correctly so I gave it 3/10.


I don't remember a movie where I have cared less about where the characters have come from, what happens to them or where they are going. I realize that Hollywood's greatest pastime is navel-gazing, but these people are either too despicable or too boring to take up time with. For what it's worth, though, the discussion that followed the showing, under the auspices of the Key Sunday Cinema series, did make allowance that possibly the three women did show some redeeming characteristics. I disagree.


I recently viewed this atrocity in my film program, and I thought it was awful, as I said in my tagline, it was pretentious, trite, petty and phenomenally self-important.

I consider myself a fan of film, and all the things that film has to offer. If I want to watch a documentary on the Cannes Festival, I will watch A&E....and they would probably be alot more objective about it.

I dont recommend it, period.


An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.


When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.

"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.

Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.

"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!


The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.

But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.

Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?

By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.


Detective Russell Logan(Lou Diamond Phillips)has a major problem on his hands. The serial killer, Patrick Channing(Jeff Kober), for whom psychic extraordinaire Tess(Tracy Griffith)helped him capture, has been resurrected with The First Power(..given to him by Satan after his execution in the gas chamber)and can possess the bodies of the weak. Somehow, Russell, who joins forces with Tess(..who has an understanding of what they are up against), will have to stop Channing or many women will continue to die at his bloody hands. They will seek help from Sister Marguerite(Elizabeth Arlen)who has tried to inform her superiors in the Catholic church of The First Power, but has been denied access to a weapon that can stop Channing..a cross with a blade that can penetrate the heart of Channing ridding the world of his evil. She'll take it anyway and lend a helping hand to Russell, who'll need all the help he can get when Channing kidnaps Tess preparing her for some sort of Satanic ritual/ceremony.

In the film, Mykelti Williamson, always a reliable welcome supporting actor, gets the partner of Russell role..so you know what will happen to him. As in films of this type, everyone around Russell is dying, but when he attempts to kill Channing, he's merely murdering the weak host of some other poor soul he possesses.

Pure occult rubbish..stupid from the gate to the finish line. Phillips and Griffith try, I'll give them that, but in a flick like this they don't stand a chance. Kober, who is normally often always effective as the heavy, is really handed nothing more than a goofy villain who leaps in the air and tosses rotten quips.


I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...

1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.

2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.

3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.

4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.

5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.

6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.

7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.

And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.

4/10


Patrick Channing (Jeff Kober) is a disciple of Satan / serial killer who possesses the "First Power": even after being captured by detective Russell Logan (Lou Diamond Phillips) and executed in the gas chamber, he is able to move his spirit from body to body and continue to murder at will. With the help of attractive psychic Tess Seaton (Tracy Griffith, Melanie G.'s half-sister) he attempts to stop Channing.

This concept probably had some possibilities, I think, but ultimately "The First Power" suffers from routine scripting and film-making. This is nothing we haven't seen before, sometimes done better. There is nothing about this movie to distinguish it from other supernatural horror thrillers. More to the point, it's not very thrilling and it certainly isn't scary. Phillips is a hard sell as a tough-as-nails, cynical cop stereotype, and Griffith doesn't seem to be trying very hard; best cast member is probably the distinctively featured Kober, doing his best to be supremely creepy.

The climax is rather silly and the ending very weak.

Not really even acceptable enough to rate as an average film of its kind, therefore:

4/10


People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.


The First Power (1990) was a terrible film that came out during the late 80's/ early 90's era of cheaply made horror films. I found this movie very boring but extremely hilarious in some parts. This movie lacks so much sense and credibility that it ain't even funny. The swift justice system in this film makes Texas look weak by comparison. Lou Diamond Phillips is in way over his head with this role (he plays a hard-boiled cop) and Tracey Griffith (Melanie's more attractive sister) plays a psychic. Don't waste your time with this one because it's bad. What a minute, I take it back. This movie makes a great party film. Check out the switchblade crucifix packing nun, she has the nicest legs I've ever seen on a Nun that wasn't in a Jesus Franco nunsploitation flick. Yeow!

This marked an end of an era for L.D.P. His star was tarnished and he couldn't draw flies to a dung heap. It was D.T.V. for him until his "ressurection" a few years later.

Not recommended unless you're desperate.


Well, what can you say about a Barbara Cartland adaptation?

There are some amazing actors in this (Oliver Reed, Sarah Miles, Christopher Plummer) but they clearly are clocking up the money.

Lysette Anthony and Marcus Gilbert have appeared in two other Cartland epics - Anthony with Hugh Grant (who looks suitably embarrassed) and Gilbert with Helena Bonham Carter.

If you really want to see a "watchable" adaptation of Cartland, the Bonham Carter one is the one to go for ("A Hazard of Hearts" - what a title!!). Gilbert is the weak link in that, but Bonham Carter is suitably beautiful and of course can actually act, and the rest of the cast play it to the hilt with tongues firmly in cheek (Edward Fox & Diana Rigg)


William Cooke and Paul Talbot share director/writer credit for this entertaining low budget film about three boys camping out in the woods with their horror magazines. Feet propped up by the fire and schoolboy banter back and forth...and a scroungy town tramp named Ralph(Gunnar Hansen...of Leatherface fame)wanders over and trades four tales of gore in return for food and the warmth of the fire.

One tale is the old retread of "The Hook", two teens on lover's lane attacked by a demented killer with a hook for a hand. Another story has a couple of tokers needing to score some weed. They stumble upon a guy that knows a guy that has some great s#@t. As they smoke a couple of bags full their skin begins to turn gray and green before it bubbles up and falls off. One of the better stories is about an unhappy man returning home for Christmas, who can't wait for his mother to drop dead and enjoys telling his nephew and niece about Satan Claus. The fourth campfire tale is of a greedy sailor that washes ashore upset about an empty treasure chest and ends up being chased out to sea by zombies.

Without a big budget for special effects, CAMPFIRE TALES gets the point across and really could have been a lot worse. A bit corny, but fun to watch except for maybe the sailor tale. The acting is understandably not award worthy. Cast members include: Tres Holton, Courtney Ballard, H. Ray York, Johnny Tamblyn, Walter Kaufmann, Kevin Draine, David Avin and Paul Kaufmann.


According to reviewers, the year is 1955 and the players are 20 year-old college kids about to enter grad school. Jolly joke!

1955? The synthesizer keyboard was not invented yet, but there it is on the bandstand. The Ford Pony Car was not invented yet, but there it is playing oldies music. The synthesizer appeared to be a model from the mid 1970's. The Pony Car at best is from the mid 1960's.

20 year-old college kids? Josh Brolin had seen 32 birthdays when this made-for-TV movie was produced.

The plot is so predictable that viewers have plenty of spare time to think of all the errors appearing upon their TV's.


Perhaps it's because I am so in love with the William Holden - Kim Novak version, or because I'm not a Gen-X'er, but this was absolutely the worst remake I have ever seen. Without the original's soundtrack, it just seemed like another typical TV movie...yes, about as bland as Kraft cheese.


This version moved a little slow for my taste and I suppose I have problems with this play to begin with. But first the movie, it's a typical TV movie version of a play which means it doesn't have the flair of the original film version with William Holden. What they couldn't afford to hire more than twelve people as extras? Why move the movie up to 1966? So you could give the little sister a line about the Vietnam war protests? Why not 1963 and give her a line about the civil rights movement?

As for the casting, some hits some misses. Jay O. Sanders hit the right notes for his character especially with his scenes with Josh Brolin. Brolin on the other hand miss a lot of the notes. He's believable as an ex-BMOC jock but he doesn't have the raw sensuality of William Holden. I always thought Brolin looks a little bit like a gorilla to have all the women in town go ape over him (pardon the pun). Gretchen Moll was lovely but she seemed a little too wise for the character she played. She didn't project the innocence or ignorance that the character required. Maybe it's because she and Brolin were about 5 years older than the characters should be. But then again Holden was ten years too old. Bonnie Bedelia was rather forgettable as the mother and Mary Steenburgen can't seem to make up her mind whether she was playing Blanche duBois or Katharine from "The Taming of The Shrew".

As for Mr. Inge's play, I always felt that stories like this of a young woman choosing passion over practicality always needed an epilogue. "The Twilight Zone" I believe offer a likely epilogue with the episode, "Spur of the Moment" where a young Diana Hyland was being chased by a bitter older Diana Hyland, because the younger Diana Hyland chose to run off with a guy similar to Hal Carter.


Madison is not too bad-if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971


This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.


Disappointing musical version of Margaret Landon's "Anna and the King of Siam", itself filmed in 1946 with Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, has Deborah Kerr cast as a widowed schoolteacher and mother who travels from England to Siam in 1862 to accept job as tutor to the King's many children--and perhaps teach the Royal One a thing or two in the process! Stagy picture begins well, but quickly loses energy and focus. Yul Brynner, reprising his stage triumph as the King, is a commanding presence, but is used--per the concocted story--as a buffoon. Kerr keeps her cool dignity and fares better, despite having to lip-synch to Marni Nixon's vocals. Perhaps having already played this part to death, Brynner looks like he had nothing leftover for the screen translation except bombast. Second-half, with Anna and the moppets staging a musical version of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is quite ridiculous, and the Rodgers and Hammerstein songs are mostly lumbering. Brynner won a Best Actor Oscar, but it is feisty Kerr who keeps this bauble above water. Overlong, heavy, and 'old-fashioned' in the worst sense of the term. ** from ****


1st watched 12/6/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir-Walter Lang): Disappointing musical from a character development standpoint, in my opinion, from this much-heralded Rodgers and Hammerstein piece. There a couple of good songs and a decent comical portrayal, at times, of the King of Siam by Yul Brynner -- but the movie doesn't really do a good job of presenting the situation and the settings. I can only blame the screenplay and possibly some of the acting as to why we don't fully understand the character's and their situations. I know it might be a little too much to ask of a musical meant for the enjoyment of the songs and the dancing, but even this part didn't stand out a lot for me. The basic storyline is about an English woman coming to Siam to teach the children about upscale European things. We find out later that the King is actually the biggest pupil. There is a side forbidden romance between the King's newest wife, played by Rita Moreno(a latino as an Arab--come on!!) and a former lover that causes some complications but nothing really mesmerizing added though. Deborah Kerr, as the main female character Annie -- is OK but not that convincing either. The King learns some things because of her presence and then the movie fades away as he does. This is really a miniscule story with some songs and dancing but not that great of an experience for a viewer really.


I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".

I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.

It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece.

The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.


I discovered this movie with a retailer selling OOP's. And this one surely is an OOP. One year after The Exorcist she's back in business with this movie but what we all new was that the career of Blair never broke out, she never became a mega star. That's one of the reason's many of her films are OOP. She gives a good performance in this movie. It's about a reject not recognized by her parents and doesn't have any friends. Played at an age of 15 playing a girl of 14, that's funny. The movie is also known for the rape scene in the showers were they stick a broomstick up her virginity. In most editions it's cut out, why, I don't know, no blood is involved, okay, Blair is butt naked but nothing is shown, no T&A so nothing to offend people. But the movie is slow, extremely slow. It doesn't happy normally to me but I almost felt asleep. It's just about that 14 year old becoming a rebel against society but no blood flows, no gore no nothing. Why this is categorized in horror is still a wonder to me. If you're a fan of Blair, buy it if you can find it otherwise leave it as it is.


Tedious girls-at-reform-school flick, which plays somewhat like a prison movie. Chris (Linda Blair) is stuck in there after running away from her abusive father. Once in the de facto jail, she is gang raped by her fellow female "inmates".

Overlong (even at 98 minutes), with an utterly pointless ending which makes the entire film seem pointless.

15 year old Linda Blair does her best to avoid showing her body when unclothed, but lets a nipple shot slip during a shower scene.

*1/2 out of ****


The plot was predictable, and fighting with guns gets old, but this is a definate movie to look at if you have a low IQ and don't really care about real movies. I would endulge in true art movies, like 'Clerks', 'Something about Mary', 'El Mariachi', or 'La Taqueria'.


I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.


For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do.

One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs.

* out of ***** (1 out of 5)


This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.

It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.


This movie is a terrible waste of time. Although it is only an hour and a half long it feels somewhere close to 4. I have never seen a movie move so slowly and so without a purpose. This is also a "horror" film that takes place a lot of the time during daylight. My friend and I laughed an insane amount of times when we were probably supposed to be scared.

The only thing we want to know is why such a terrible movie was released in so many countries. It cannot be that high in demand.

The supermodel Nicole Petty should stick to modeling because although she is beautiful she lost her accent so many times in this movie, half of the time she is British and half the time she is American.


Angels who got a little icky were banned from heaven and now reside in a British forest where they seduce and chop up teens. Talk about high concept. On the plus side this little mother gives us Tom Savini, but since his acting range is limited to two minutes screen-time, his five minute presence seems a tad long. The angels run around the forest naked for the most part of the movie, but though they might have the body of an angel, their faces sure look like Joan Rivers on a bad day. Mediocre acting and amateurish gore-effects don't help and the night scenes fatally recall Paris Hilton's most famous movie. So bad that it is REALLY bad.


I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!


Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...

This isn't entertainment...this is hell.

Hell.

Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.

It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!

Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!


From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it!

But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.


Forest of the Damned starts out as five young friends, brother & sister Emilio (Richard Cambridge) & Ally (Sophie Holland) along with Judd (Daniel Maclagan), Molly (Nicole Petty) & Andrew (David Hood), set off on a week long holiday 'in the middle of nowhere', their words not mine. Anyway, before they know it they're deep in a forest & Emilio clumsily runs over a woman (Frances Da Costa), along with a badly injured person to add to their problems the van they're travelling in won't start & they can't get any signals on their mobile phones. They need to find help quickly so Molly & Judd wander off in the hope of finding a house, as time goes by & darkness begins to fall it becomes clear that they are not alone & that there is something nasty lurking in the woods...

This English production was written & directed by Johannes Roberts & having looked over several other comments & reviews both here on the IMDb & across the internet Forest of the Damned seems to divide opinion with some liking it & other's not, personally it didn't do much for at all. The script is credited on screen to Roberts but here on the IMDb it lists Joseph London with 'additional screenplay material' whatever that means, the film is your basic backwoods slasher type thing like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) with your basic stranded faceless teenage victims being bumped off but uses the interesting concept of fallen angels who roam the forest & kill people for reason that are never explained to any great deal of satisfaction. Then there's Stephen, played by the ever fantastic Tom Savini, who is never given any sort of justification for what he does. Is he there to get victims for the angels? If so why did he kill Andrew by bashing his head in? The story is very loose, it never felt like a proper film. The character's are poor, the dialogue not much better & the lack of any significant story makes it hard to get into it or care about anything that's going on. Having said that it moves along at a reasonable pace & there are a couple of decent scenes here.

Director Johannes doesn't do anything special, it's not a particularly stylish or flash film to look at. There's a few decent horror scenes & the Tom Savini character is great whenever he's on screen (although why didn't he hear Judd breaking the door down with an axe while escaping with Molly?) & it's a shame when he gets killed off. There are a couple of decent gore scenes here, someone has their head bashed in, there's a decapitation, someone gets shotgun blasted, someone throat is bitten out, someones lips are bitten off & someone is ripped in half. There is also a fair amount of full frontal female nudity, not that it helps much.

Technically Forest of the Damned is OK, it's reasonably well made but nothing overly special or eye-catching. This was shot in England & Wales & it's quite odd to see an English setting for a very American themed backwards horror. The acting is generally pretty poor save for Savini who deserves to be in better than this. Horror author Shaun Hutson has an embarrassing cameo at the end & proves he should stick to writing rather than acting.

Forest of the Damned was a pretty poor horror film, it seems to have fans out there so maybe I'm missing something but it's not a film I have much fondness for. Apart from one or two decent moments there's not much here to recommend.


Well this is a typical "straight to the toilet" slasher film.

Long story short, a bunch of teenagers/young adults becoming stranded in the middle of creepy woods and get hacked down by naked nymphomaniac demons.

This movie has all the basics for this slasher fromage:

-Naked women, -teens or young adults being marooned in someplace spooky, -gory death scenes, -the last survivor being a well built young woman who will always show off her midriff, but never bra less, -a creepy, crazy man who knows about the evil, -lesbian kiss scene, -sex being a killer, -no plot

Even then for a cheesy slasher film, it was really terrible. The atmosphere is totally dead. Nothing, not even the sexually explicit scenes and nudity, was enough to keep the male and lesbian female audience interested. Watching it felt like it was being watched with a nasty head congestion or a nasty head cold.

Give the demonic ..... 0/10.


The plot was very thin, although the idea of naked, sexy, man eating sirens is a good one.

The film just seemed to meander from one meaningless scene to another with far too few nuddie/splatter/lesbian mouth licking shots in between.

The characters were wooden and one dimensional.

The ending made no sense.

Considering it had Tom Savini and Shaun Hutson in it, you would have expected a decent plot and decent special effects. Some of the effects were quite good but there were just too few of them.

Brownie points go for occasional flashes of tits and bush, naturally, and of course the lesbian moments. I also thought that the scene with the sirens bathing in the pool under the waterfall could be viewed as an innovative take on the 'shower scene'

The film had many of the elements that go into making a first rate horror film but they were poorly executed or used too sparsely.

If I had been watching this alone and aged 15, i would have really enjoyed it for about 10 minutes (with 1 hand of the remote control), then lost interest suddenly and needed a pizza...


This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".


I rented this flick for one reason Tom Savini, I respect his work but this was a real let down, I had horrible clichés, half of the film was naked women so called "fallen angels" running around trying to act scary, oh and then there was the occasional "Blair Witch" black and white motion sicken camera scenes. Tom's character was really awful, Horrible script. And you got to love these lines they use. "Is anyone there, who is out there, this isn't funny" No but your acting was. I wish I could give this flick a 0! Oh the names of the characters. Judd, Molly, Ally, Emilio, but they did leave out Anthony, The Breakfast Club reunite in the forest of unforgivable acting.


Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage.