An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?

Well, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty minutes or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, however, things do eventually get a tad more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive death scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).

The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.

His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.

After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.

None of this makes much sense, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly bad, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.

Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).


Oh my... bad clothing, worse synth music and the worst: David Hasselhoff. The 80's are back with vengeance in Witchery, an American-Italian co-production, helmed by infamous Joe 'D'Amato on the production side and short-careered director (thank heavens for small miracles) Fabrizio Laurenti directing . Marketed as a kind of sequel to Sam Raimi's Evil Dead series in Italy (that was dubbed "La Casa" in there), Witchery delivers some modest gore groceries and bad acting.

A mix of ghost story, possessions and witchcraft, the film bounces clueless from scene to another without letting some seriously wooden actors and hilarious day and night mix-ups slow it's progress to expectable ending, topped with some serious WTF surprise climax. (I just love the look on her face...) Surprisingly Laurenti manages to gather some suspense and air of malice in few - very few - scenes; unluckily for him, these few glimpses of mild movie magic go down quickly and effectively.

The plus sides are experienced, when the gore hits the fan. This department is quite effective and entertaining in that classic latex and red paint style of the 80's Italo-gore, when things were made 100% hand-made and as shockingly and vivid as modest budgets could allow. I could only watch with sadistic glee and few laughters all the over-the-top ways that obnoxious characters (and actors) got mangled and misused, one by one. I only felt sorry for Linda Blair, who apparently haven't been let to try any other than that good old possessed girl / woman role ever in his career, or so it looks like when checking out his filmography.

Well, folks - not much more to tell, and even less to tell home about. Don't expect too much when spending some rainy afternoon with this, and probably you'll experience at least some mild fun. It also helps if your rotten little heart pounds in the beat of 80's euro gore horror. And speaking of hearts - every movie that has David Hasselhoff getting skewered by a sizeable metal object and bleeding heavily around the room and corridors, MUST have it's one on the right place.

This is my truth - what is yours?


There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more confusing, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!

Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is good, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the end it became a senseless mess. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."

So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.

On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.


Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to call it. How about..Crud.

A gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are besieged by the black magic powers of an evil witch killing each individual using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking pictures for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose voice and demeanor resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an incredibly rude bitch)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert Champagne, who is always ogling other women much younger than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just looks bored throughout, probably wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of starring in this rubbish), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet wet. Along with these folks is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in Black(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra thick)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, I guess)with everyone stuck in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of repairs. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others light the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.


"Witchery" might just be the most incoherent and lamentably scripted horror movie of the 80's but, luckily enough, it has a few compensating qualities like fantastic gore effects, an exhilarating musical score and some terrific casting choices. Honestly the screenplay doesn't make one iota of sense, but who cares when Linda Blair (with an exploded hairstyle) portrays yet another girl possessed by evil powers and David Hasselhof depicts a hunky photographer (who can't seem to get laid) in a movie that constantly features bloody voodoo, sewn-shut lips, upside down crucifixions, vicious burnings and an overused but genuinely creepy tune. Eight random people are gathered together on an abandoned vacation resort island off the coast of Massachusetts. The young couple is there to investigate the place's dark history; the dysfunctional family (with a pregnant Linda Blair even though nobody seems to bother about who the father is and what his whereabouts are) considers re-opening the hotel and the yummy female architect simply tagged along for casual sex. They're forced to stay the night in the ramshackle hotel and then suddenly the previous landlady  an aging actress or something who always dresses in black  starts taking them out in various engrossing ways. Everything is somehow related to the intro sequence showing a woman accused of witchery jump out of a window. Anyway, the plot is definitely of minor importance in an Italian horror franchise that started as an unofficial spin-off of "The Evil Dead". The atmosphere is occasionally unsettling and the make-up effects are undoubtedly the most superior element of the entire film. There's something supremely morbid and unsettling about staring at a defenseless woman hanging upside down a chimney and waiting to get fried.


Witchy Hildegard Knef traps a group of people in an isolated hotel and picks them off one by one in twisted, disgusting ways. I thought I'd seen it all until one unfortunate man here is crucified and then has his head set on fire. Hildy is quite the prankster too: she takes a nagging harpy and sews her mouth shut...then hangs her upside down in the chimney just in time for a roaring fire! "Witchery" made me sick. It made my eyes hurt. I was ready to write it off as the worst movie ever-ever-ever made by otherwise competent people...until the finale. I have to admit I loved the ending. It involves a boy and his toy tape-recorder cornered by Linda Blair looking fantastically possessed. The scene only lasts for about a minute and the movie's over, but you know that old saying: "If you've got a great ending, people will forgive you for just about anything!"


A really very bad movie, with a very few good moments or qualities.

It starts off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is pregnant varies widely throughout the movie.

She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.

Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).

The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't used to any great effect. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.

People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore scenes are OK, but not enough to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).

In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?


This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.


I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.

I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.

The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!


This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too bad. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does nothing here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10


We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.

Just terrible


Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.


I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to drag on throughout with little surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.


I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.

Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).

But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways.

Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.

No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all".

From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.

And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....

Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.

No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.


Making the film as dark and visually fuzzy as possible in order to cover up the budget deficiencies is an often-used strategy in low-budget horror films, but this one takes it too far. It is SO poorly lit and murky (and it takes place almost entirely at night, to boot) that you often end up virtually looking at a black screen (although perhaps the bad video transfer may also have had something to do with that). Alas, "murky" is also the best word to describe the movie's plot. The filmmakers throw in diverse (and unoriginal) horror ideas without any semblance of logic, and halfway through you get the feeling that they just about abandoned the effort to make a good horror film; you know it when you see characters who are supposed to be in mortal danger (or, in some occasions, even dead) making small talk....(*1/2)


I went to the movie as a Sneak Preview in Austria. So didn't have an idea what I am going to see. The story is very normal. The movie is very long , I believe it could have cut to 1/2 without causing any problems to the story. Its the type of movie you can see in a boring night which you want to get bored more ! Ashton Kutcher was very good . Kevin Costner is OK. The movie is speaking about the US Coast Guards, how they are trained , their life style and the problems they face. As there aren't much effects in the movie. So if you want to watch it , then no need to waste your money and time going to the Cinema. Would be more effective to watch it at home when it gets on DVDs.


This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!


I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.

The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.

Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.

Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.

But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.


To be brutally honest... I LOVED watching Severed. That's why I

gave it a 1/10 stars because of its starkly unimaginative

story/filming/acting/everything. This film was a RIOT to watch. If

you enjoy watching bad films in order to poke fun at them, you will

really get a kick out of Severed.

The story really doesn't matter, it involves some guy who's bald

and has a sword and goes around beheading random people.

But he has a supernatural twist... nobody ever sees him do it.

Even when, in one very memorable scene, he walks into a

jampacked night club and whacks off some girl's noodle and

nobody sees it.

Severed doesn't merely look like it was filmed on video- it WAS

filmed on someone's home camcorder. The filmmakers had

knowledge of lighting (very thin knowledge) and composition

actually holds together in some scenes. But mostly you can't hear

the actors... you can't understand what they're doing, and you laugh

when the next vicitm gets his pumpkin detatched from his body.

Go and rent this movie. Support films like this- they are a hoot and

a hollar!


OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.

It was worse.

(spoilers - who cares?)

My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.

Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).

Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!

Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).

Um.

Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.

Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.

OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god.

In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.

Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.

Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?

Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!

In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)

If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't.


There was nothing about this movie that I liked. It was so obviously low-budget with bad lighting and camera work (almost like Blair Witch Project, only it wasn't supposed to be that way). There wasn't really much to the plot, and the movie just drug on and on. I actually fast-forwarded through the last 1/3 of the movies, but that did not help matters much. It looked like it might be good from the box, but I must say again: nothing about this movie even resembled good. No good actors, the special effects were so fake, the camera work was horrible, and the dialogue was painfully terrible. On my own personal scale, I give this movie a 0 of 10. Yikes!


Bad acting, bad lighting, bad plot!! This had the quality of a porno movie. I have seen more interesting home video of a boring wedding than this movie...it sucked big time!! Don't waste your time or money on this crap! It's amazing that they allow this kind of smut to even be released on video, it should be a crime!!


This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.


Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway).


I own this movie. I bought it for $3.99 at a fairly major video retailer in order to do some "indie"" type movie research since I had just finished my own feature and was editing it. Now when I feel down about my skills as a first time director I just sit down with a plate of cookies and Severed. Within minutes I feel great!!!

I hate to down talk another filmmaker so I'll just use constructive criticism. 1. Find good actors. Take the time. It really helps. 2. When shooting video, over light your scenes and darken in the computer later on in post. 3. Closeups are better for Video. 4. When an actor enters a scene, wait a bit before

having them speak so that we know what's going on and who's talking. 5. Never show the back of a door while we wait for someone to come open it. Damn well worth the $3.99

The True Horror would be getting the reviews Severed has here on IMDb. And you have to give these guys credit... they did get distributed.


I was searching through Hollywood video last night with a friend trying to find a good-looking horror movie to watch over the New Year's weekend. As I was looking through the shelves, "Severed" spotted my eye, and I grabbed it off the shelf and it looked like it might be a decent B-grade horror movie. The cover looked fairly good. The plot sounded semi-interesting. So I rented it. What a mistake. Don't be fooled by the cover, which actually looks decent. I'm thinking that more money was spent on the cover artwork than the movie itself. The film follows two police detectives who are tracking down a voodoo-inspired, ritualistic serial killer called "The Head Hunter", who is decapitating victims left and right in some unnamed city (probably Los Angeles), and they become drawn into his world of ritualized murder.

Story sound somewhat good? Well, it is, and this movie could've been halfway decent. But good God, it was bad! Almost everything about it was laughable. The opening scene features some redheaded actress in a car trying to talk on this huge, outdated cell phone, and for whatever reason, she goes outside and talks to some guy. Then, a shadow comes up behind them, hacks off his head, and the girl drops to the ground and starts crawling (for absolutely no reason) while trying to dial 911. Sound ridiculous? Yep, you bet it is. The entire movie looks like it was filmed on a VHS-quality camera, and I'm assuming it was. The acting was mostly awful, and the special effects were far from believable. And the scenes with the policemen on the phone were awful - the voice on the other line was echoing and it sounded like it was being recorded in someone's bathroom. Everything about this movie was simply amateurish and tedious, and it didn't hold my interest for very long, and I often found myself bored and tired, mostly because of the bad acting and the horrible cinematography. The pacing was bad. Everything was just bad.

Overall, "Severed" is a failed attempt at what could have been a decent B-movie. The plot was good and I think if this film had been handled better and had a higher budget, it could've been alright. But this movie fell flat on it's face. If you're expecting something semi-decent, you'll be sorely disappointed. Only recommended if you can tolerate D-grade horror flicks. Otherwise, you'll probably want to stay away from this straight-to-video garbage. It had a little potential, but it was beyond a mess. 1/10.


0.5/10. This movie has absolutely nothing good about it. The acting is among the worst I have ever seen, what is really amazing is that EVERYONE is awful, not just a few here and there, everyone. The direction is a joke, the low budget is hopelessly evident, the score is awful, I wouldn't say the movie was edited, brutally chopped would be a more appropriate phrase. It combines serial killings, voodoo and tarot cards. Dumb. Dumb. Dumb. It is not scary at all, the special effects are hopelessly lame. laughably bad throughout. The writing was appallingly bad. The cinematography is real cheap looking, and very grainy sometimes, and the camera-work is dreadful. Again, what really does the movie in is how badly all the actors are. Cheesy.


This film was a big disappointment.

I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.

Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.

Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony.

I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.


Rich ditzy Joan Winfield (a woefully miscast Bette Davis) is engaged to be married to stupid egotistical Allen Brice (Jack Carson looking lost). Her father (Eugene Palette) is determined to stop the marriage and has her kidnapped by pilot Steve Collins (James Cagney. Seriously). They crash land in the desert and hate each other but (sigh) start falling in love.

This seems to be getting a high rating from reviewers here only because Cagney and Davis are in it. They were both brilliant actors but they were known for dramas NOT comedy and this movie shows why! The script is just horrible--there's not one genuine laugh in the entire movie. The running joke in this has Cagney and Davis falling rump first in a cactus (this is done THREE TIMES!). Only their considerable talents save them from being completely humiliated. As it is they both do their best with the lousy material. Cagney tries his best with his lines and Davis screeches every line full force but it doesn't work. Carson has this "what the hell" look on his face throughout the entire movie (probably because his characters emotions change in seconds). Only Palette with his distinctive voice and over the top readings manges to elicit a few smiles. But, all in all, this was dull and laughless--a real chore to sit through. This gets two stars only for Cagney and Davis' acting and some beautiful cinematography but really--it's not worth seeing. Cagney and Davis hated this film in later years and you can see why.


Bette Davis brings her full trunk of tics to this miserable flop which is another variation on the "hilariously mismatched" lovers theme. Sadly, Cagney and Davis are truly mismatched in acting styles and the mix is not simply unpalatable but distasteful. The only distinction in the film comes from Eugene Pallette who, literally, phones in his usual part as the deb's misunderstood dad. Jack Carson's performance can only be described as an act of mayhem on the audience


Woosh! Man What can I say...?

The opening-scene, maybe? We see a bunch of mongoloid-barbarians with bad make-up jump off the walls of some ruins. They sneak around and attack some dude with a scantily clothed captive girl. The dude runs off, the mongoloids follow him and one of them stays behind seemingly to rape the girl, but instead he exposes one of her breasts and kidnaps her. Then, the dude (still on the run) sees a horse and tries to steal it. Suddenly a blond god-like looking hero with a bad wig appears, saying "That's my horse!". The Mighty Deathstalker just made his appearance. The mongoloids arrive, Deathstalker kills all of them (including the dude) on the tunes of some rather inappropriate Mexicanos western score (this is supposed to be a Swords & Sorcery flick, so what's with the 'arriba-trompettos'?), and then goes up to Captive Girl and exposes both her breasts. He starts to rub them and Captive Girl seems to like it. She starts liking her lips and caressing Deathstalker. Just when they are about to get down to it, this old dude appears, interrupting what could have been the end of a perfect day for Deathstalker (and a possible perfect ending for a short-film).

Now tell me Isn't that the point where either a feminist would angrily switch off the movie, or any other male viewer would say "This is going to be one hell of a good movie!" The plot is as simple as throwing a kitten from the balcony: Deathstalker must obtain the Sword of Justice and use it to steal the Amulet of Life and the Chalice of Magic from the evil sorcerer Munkar.

Aside from decapitations, dismemberment, random bloodshed, retarded fist fights and embarrassing sword fights, this film also contains a massive amount of t!ts & a$$ shots. I initially wanted to add one extra point to this movie for each gratuitous shot of naked boobies I could count. After 9 points (not even halfway into the movie), I had to give up counting. It was distracting me from the rest of the movie. And the rest of the movie was worth it. Totally crazy stuff. Check out this mutant cat/worm-like creature Munkar has as a pet and which he feeds eyeballs and fingers. And here's an interesting question: What would you do if a man in a woman's body would enter your bedroom and try to kill you with a knife? The answer is simple: You slap him around a bit, take away the knife and then try to rape him. Then you discover that he's actually not a woman, so you throw him out of your bed and tell him to leave your room. It works out well, I tell you. Deathstalker does it too, and the Deathstalker-way, is the right way!

DEATHSTALKER is a wonderful movie, really, as pointed out in other comments. The villains are vile. The women are delicious. There's blood, sex, violence, rape and tasty chicken. There's a completely pointless tournament which just features a bunch of barbarians beating, slashing and hacking the crap out of each other. My favorite weapon used in that tournament was a giant wooden hammer, used to beat a poor contender to bloody pulp. And my favorite contender undoubtedly was that one brute with the Warthog-head (reminiscent of the Gamorrean Guards from RETURN OF THE JEDI). I won't reveal how the movie ends, but just prepare to ravish in delight when I tell you a 4-way dismemberment is thrown into the movie's climax.

And of course, there's a wonderful display of ineptitude throughout the whole movie. See a guy being dragged behind a horse over a dirt road, and the next point-of-view shot shows him being dragged over grass (no road). See that awesome tattoo on the sorcerer's head magically change sides within the same scene (on shot has it on the left side of his head, the other on the right). Well, after all, Munkar is a magician. It's that, or this movie was shot in an alternate universe where things like "continuity" simply don't exist.

As much as I enjoyed this and as much as I am looking forward to the other 3 installments in this series, I do have enough shreds of decency left in me to not let this movie pass. I am prepared, though, to give it the maximum amount of minimal points, just so I could be able to deduct a couple of more points for the possibly inferior sequels to follow. DEATHSTALKER might be a superbly fun, trashy & sleazy CONAN rip-off, it also is an abominable movie.


This film's kind of like Conan the Barabarian, but with more sex, rape and murder. There is a plot somewhere underneath all this debauchery but the filmmakers don't do a good job showing it, which is a shame because it 'could' be a decent story. Richard Hill gives a solid performance in the lead role, as does the villain - who sadly didn't appear in anything else of note. The fight scenes aren't too bad either - I love the way Deathstalker lets his sword 'drink' the blood of his victims - and there's plenty of nudity and sex to temper the general level of machismo throughout.

All in all, not good - but not necessarily that bad either...


Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!

There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!

Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand "enjoyably bad films" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!

4/10


This sword-&-sorcery story of an appallingly brutal and callous "hero" vanquishing an evil king is worthless in almost every detail. The acting is horrible from the leads to the supporting roles. The leering, gloating glee with which the director shows the hero smearing blood around is absolutely disgusting; nor is it redeemed by any justice to his cause, since he is as bad as the people he's fighting. Z-movie editing is abundant, including a scene where a character "dies" from a sword thrust that very obviously missed completely!

The movie is clearly banking on the charms of the female leads, Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson, who are paraded around mostly naked throughout the movie. As a 20-something male, I will not pretend that female flesh on the screen doesn't attract me. But the treatment of their characters is so degrading and the sex scenes so casual and joyless, that I couldn't enjoy even this aspect of the movie.

Most cheesy movies of this era are at least somewhat redeemed by a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek feel (the sequel is better in this regard), but DEATHSTALKER seems to take itself completely seriously as heroic fantasy. No way! Avoid at all costs!

Rating: 1/2 out of ****.


...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.

- SPOILERS AHEAD -

Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...

The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include:

- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.

- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.

- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.

- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.

... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!


DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.


I had to give this film a 1 because it's that bad, but don't make this think that I didn't enjoy watching, because I laughed and laughed, and I even had a few questions. So half of the time I was laughing, half of the time I was saying "what in the hell is going on?" or "why would someone do this?" et cetera. I mostly enjoyed the terrible fog effects, the 80's style nude scene/battle/dialogue/nude scene, and the way that the warrior's swords flap in the wind when they ride their horses. And there's some crappy model effects (those aren't supposed to be real trees, are they?) and I still don't understand this guy that they find in the cave, what in the hell is he? A friend of mine told me about these movies and I thought I would give em a try, and I basically liked the film as people like Ed Wood films, I have no real enjoyment of what the film was meant to be, I look at it in my own hilarious way. So don't let this distract you if you really thought this was an action movie, it is, I just liked it for other reasons. It's much, much worse than Evil Dead, so it can actually make you think as though you are wasting your life by watching it (which came into my mind a few times). I guess the best thing for most people would be to have a few drinks, have some friends around, and laugh at this film. Maybe this is a bit harsh, but I don't think so, rent it and you'll see. Yo.


This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.

Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.

Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film.


Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat umdiscriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either.


I don't recall walking out of a movie theater except this once. Not only that, but I was with 7 friends, and we all wanted to go. An uninteresting plot, characters made of clay, violence with no point. I didn't care when the good guys died; I didn't care when the bad guys got it. The fantasy and magic was laid on thick as liver pudding and there was no coherency. In short, fine entertainment if you happen to be spending an eternity in Hell.


I saw the MST3K version of "Deathstalker III" and loved the movie so much -- even "unmystied" -- that I decided to watch the entire series of "Deathstalker" films. I bought I and II and settled down for a laugh.

Nothing about "Deathstalker I" was funny on any level and when the credits rolled I was embarrassed and regretful that I had bought it! Too much ugliness and nudity. I guess either "DS 3" was a much cleaner production or MST3K really edited a lot because I expected something similar, i.e. stupid and carefree and simple. I was wrong. Even at $6.99 it seemed a waste of money. I didn't even open "DS 2" as I will return it tomorrow. Now I'll probably just throw away this DVD as I can't return it and no one wants it -- including myself! So really, don't bother with this one. Even the nudity (lots of it, btw) is uninspiring and icky.


This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen, everything about it is weak and incoherent. The acting is absurd, the costumes even crummier and the story is non-existent. This 'poverty row' sword and adventure film was meant to capture some of the success that "Beastmaster" and "Conan" enjoyed but it doesn't give us any reason to follow along. The lead character is tepid and dull, he can't even fight with a sword and the sword is from the 16th Century. All the action sequences are like that, slow and unrealistic, not to mention the castle and the horribly dated music playing whenever they are riding a horse. Don't even bother with this crap.


Imagine turning the American national anthem into a cartoon. Throw in a couple of cute animals, some terrible puns and a pair of roller skates and you'd find yourself with almost an exact replica of this film.

I remember seeing this when I was younger; I made my Mother rent it from the video shop about 5 times. The story itself isn't too bad, it's just that any Marxists watching would certainly have something to complain about.

If you don't like America you won't like this film.


Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.

Robi Chernitsky


Syriana swept the critics upon release and everything seemed to be raving about it. I suppose it's one of those films that is intensely intelligent...so intelligent that I think you need to be well versed in the oil industry and a politically brilliant mind. I don't consider myself unintelligent, I've been studying politics since my early teens and I enjoy an intelligent film but for the most part unless it's a documentary films are meant to be primarily entertaining as well as have a message. Syriana tried to be strictly intelligent and it does turn some people away. I would even go so far as to say that those who rave about it and insist it's a 10/10 are lying because they think they look better. This film was the most confusing, senseless, mindless dribble I have seen in awhile...Especially considering the critical acclaim, the Oscar nods, and the cast. Screenplay writer Stephen Gaghan has disappointed me yet again. His horribly written Havoc preceded this film and I think he's just trying way too hard. I can't believe he was offered the opportunity to write the Da Vinci Code screenplay. On top of that Gaghan directed the film which made it an absolute mess. I had no idea who anyone was, why things were happening, who was who and what was what. It was a disaster.

Because I don't really know who anyone was I can only mention the actors and what I thought of their performances because despite the horrendously complicated script the actors did alright. George Clooney plays C.I.A. field agent and assassin I think?? Bob Barnes. Clooney has never been a favorite of mine but lately he's managed to churn out some decent performances and this seemed to be a pretty good performance on his part. Barnes was a complex character with a sordid history and if I knew what was going on with him I would have really enjoyed his character. Matt Damon plays Bryan Woodman and he is rather bland and always looks like a deer in the headlights which I can understand his confusion after reading this script and then trying to perform it. Amanda Peet plays his wife and she does well in the few scenes she is given. Christopher Plummer makes a cameo appearance as someone doing something. I like Plummer and love seeing him show up even if he doesn't get top billing anymore.

The cast is intense if only the story made sense. I'd like to exact quote the description of plot on IMDb. "A missile disappears in Iran, but the CIA has other problems: the heir to an Emirate gives an oil contract to China, cutting out a US company that promptly fires its immigrant workers and merges with a small firm that has landed a Kazakhstani oil contract. The Department of Justice suspects bribery, and the oil company's law firm finds a scapegoat. The CIA also needs one when its plot to kill the Emir-apparent fails. Agent Bob Barnes, the fall guy, sorts out the double cross. An American economist parlays the death of his son into a contract to advise the sheik the CIA wants dead. The jobless Pakistanis join a fundamentalist group. All roads start and end in the oil fields." WHAT!?!? Say who now?? Syriana might be the thinking man's movie but it bored me to tears and no matter how hard I tried to stay with it I eventually surrendered and turned it off after an hour and a half and you couldn't have bribed me enough to get me to finish it. I suppose if you want to form an opinion than by all means watch it but I promise you someone looking for entertainment or an enjoyable film will be asleep in the first half hour. 1/10


Seldom do I give up on a movie without seeing the entire show. This is particularly true when I have rented it on DVD. Syriana was one in which I did give up. Half way through I turned it off in bored disgust.

This movie is disjointed, boring, confusing and lackluster. The acting was dry and without credible portrayals. The general plot was good but developed in such an insipid and boring fashion that it failed to grasp my attention or interest. The multiple sub plots often failed to connect to each other and seemed more like random stories than an actual connected plot. Too bad such a serious subject and such great actors could create such a flop. I cannot imagine this movie receiving any nominations much less an award.


Simply put: the movie is boring. Cliché upon cliché is confirmed and story lines never come together. It seems as if the director was unsure whether to make a movie or a documentary. The main plot is very thin (a CIA agent is ordered to kill an oil prince, gets caught and then warns the prince (why?)) and therefore some elements were added to make the movie more interesting. So, a kid dies, which results in the "natural" response of the father: freely advising the person indirectly responsible for his son's death. The lawyer has a drunk "friend" and keeps him around, why, no one knows. Some kids become suicide terrorists and blow up a ship.

All in all, this is one of the worst movies I have seen in quite a while. I was neither entertained nor intellectually challenged. I neither laughed nor cried, I did not gain an understanding nor was I compelled to learn more or take up a cause. It meant nothing to me, which in my eyes is the worst one can say about a movie.


This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up.

Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three.

And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching.

I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman.


I couldn't wait to receive the DVD after hearing so much about the film. What a disappointment! This became one of the most confusing films I've ever viewed. There were so many characters introduced, some resembling others, that it became impossible to follow the story line. I could not understand how George Clooney received an acting award for the film since he was hardly involved, at least in the first half of the movie. My wife and I gave up after about an hour of misery and stopped the DVD. I might have considered fast forwarding to see if the ending was any better but after so much confusion decided that chances for improvement were slim. A co-worker told me that a lot of the movie "comes together" in the last minute or less. I was glad I didn't waste another hour, waiting. I gave the DVD away the following day.


Exceedingly complicated and drab. I'm a bright guy, but this was just too much for a tired brain. It would really benefit from a few early clues as to who these people are and what they are doing. Probably better for the US market. GC himself hinted that this alone did not supply his Oscar and you can see why.

Still the sand dunes are pretty. The nail pulling is nasty. The attorneys drunk dad is a mystery. The cricket is good to see.

Very difficult to write the required ten lines on this, despite it being over 2 hours long. Thank heavens they shortened it. Admittedly we don't get to the pictures much, but the last film we saw, Walk the Line, was 10 times better and I don't really like Johnny Cash. My wife says George still looks good with the beard and a few extra pounds so there's that.....am I nearly there yet ?

How about now


This movie, supposedly a thriller, had about five sub-plots that developed simultaneously to climax at the end, but it ended up more as a yawn.

The writing was trite, the pace was slow and disjointed and the characters were boring. George Clooney looks like he needs to get into a gym, Matt Damon hammed it up and the others seemed to read their lines from a teleprompter.

The worst part of this movie was that it was carefully crafted to be politically correct and so it ended up saying nothing at all about big business, oil and the Middle-East. I have seen documentaries provide more excitement. Watch it only if there's absolutely nothing else to do.


OK Hollywood is not liberal.

Obviously I'm lieing because it is. Im a conservative but the politics i will leave out of my opinion of the movie. This movie was anti bush, anti middle east , anti big oil propaganda but that is not why it was bad.

Fist off i will give credit where credit is due. i saw this film opening night because i happen to like these kinds of films and am a political science major in collage. The cinematography was excellent and the acting was as far as i could tell very good.

The plot was impossible for me to decode however. I have been tested and have an IQ of 138 but no matter how hard i tried there was no way i could piece together the story line of the movie and what characters where doing what.

The story and scene sequence was totally incoherent and poorly organized.

Unless this is one of those movies that is meant to be watch many times to get the full depth pf the story, which it very well may be, i have no idea exactly what was going on.

Which makes sense because if you want to make a political argument and not receive any criticism then make your argument impossible to critique! If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with Bull S.


I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.

I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.

For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.

see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.


Contrary to most other comments about "Syriana" on the IMDb web-site, I and my family found watching this film on DVD at home a complete waste of time and space.

In short, this was a film based on a script whose writer was being too clever by far. Rather than trying to tell a complex story in an intelligent and clear manner, it was assumed that constantly throwing mostly vague and hard to connect with each other 30-second vignettes of different story-lines from a dozen or so "story-lines" at the audience made for great and clear viewing. No, sir, it does not. What does make for great viewing is total clarity, precision, plots and story-lines - and characterisations - which have a beginning, a middle, and an end.

This kind of cinematic presentation - akin to the Dim Sum experience in a Chinese restaurant - is pretentious and unintelligent in the extreme.

Thank goodness, then, for the TV and DVD presentations of the Hollywood and British film noirs of the 1940s and 1950s whose writers, director, and actors knew the value of clear story telling, diction, and acting that meant something.

This is one DVD that this family will not be sitting through again.


We gave up at the point where George Clooney's character has his finger-nails extracted. We were not squeamish - having sat through an hour of this drivel we just knew what it felt like. To say this film was incomprehensible, boring, pretentious twaddle would be to over-praise it! How did people manage to sit through this confusing, slow, depressing pseud's corner of a film, let alone nominate it for an Oscar? Clooney looked as ill as we felt watching him. What was he thinking? Oh .. and what was with those subtitles? - did we just have a dud DVD or was the original film done like that - sentences left hanging in mid-air? The film was hard enough to follow without that as well. I pity the cast, who obviously did their best with the material available.


Considering how much money was budgeted for this film, you would expect more from the story as a whole. This could be quite possibly the most worthless movie I have ever watched. There was no real advancement of anything. Character development, minimal. Plot advancement, maybe. Enjoyment, none. I'm not sure what points were even trying to be made. If you want to see a movie where terrorists are kinda good guys, American CIA bombs everything that doesn't agree with our opinions, all capitalists are corrupt, and you like to see anything resembling a storyboard advancement accompanied by a death, have at. For those of us who realize that it doesn't take killing off a good guy to make a point, we'll stick to other movies. In summary, this was a horrible attempt at an 'Ocean's 11' style hide-the-plot-so-person-has-to- think movie because not only do you not know what's going on, nobody who made the movie did either. Home Alone 3 was a better cinematic piece.


This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.

In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that:

1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again

2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script

3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted.

Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.


It seems that Salvatores couldn't decide what to do with this movie: some of it is a very weak thriller (and I say very, very weak), some of it is an attempt to explore the relationships between the main characters. Both things have been tried in psychological thrillers, but in this case the movie cannot hold things together, due to poor, superficial scripting, bad acting and a too dark, too dull cinematography. I'd say that Salvatores gave his best in other genres and in other settings, where he was free to look at the characters without having to think about the plot. On the whole, a B-movie, hardly worth your money... Vote: 4/10


Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.

Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.

Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)

It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.


I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.

I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.

I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.

I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.

The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.

It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.


I've been reading posts here concerning Wonder Woman's costume for this TV movie. It should be pointed out at the time the movie was made, she wasn't wearing her traditional outfit. The producers were actually sticking to the comic book writer's conception of WW for the early seventies.

As for the movie itself, I have to agree with many of the other posters here. Snoozefest! I was a kid when it appeared on ABC in 1974, so I was at the right age to have appreciated a movie about a comic book hero. Yet I was so "engrossed" with the plot, I stopped watching it three quarters into the movie.

Of course, I wasn't at the right age to appreciate Cathy Lee! :-)


I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.


This movie is so bad that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the writers, producers and director? How on earth did they get funding for this abomination? The plot is laughable, the acting is poor at best, the story... What story? The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps repeating itself until you want to turn it off.

I guess I'm the biggest looser for not turning this stupid movie off after the first minute.

*** SPOLER ALERT ***

I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 30 seconds...

I give it 1 out of 10 because it's the lowest grade IMDb has to offer.

Do yourself a favour: See an Uwe Boll movie instead... twice... it's more worthy of your time.


This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt.

The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla.

Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.


Ten minutes worth of story stretched out into the better part of two hours. When nothing of any significance had happened at the halfway point I should have left. But, ever hopeful, I stayed. And left with a feeling of guilt for having wasted the time. Acting was OK, but the story line is so transparent and weak. The script is about as lame as it could get, but again, stretching out the ten minute plot doesn't leave a whole lot of room for good dialogue.


Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.


Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke  Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.

So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?

No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film  or at least tries to be.

Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.

Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.

And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question

4 out of 10


I appreciate a think positive feel good about yourself film, but this is too much. In the end they look like a bunch of loonies. This film is one of those finding yourself 70's plots, I know the film is made in 1980. A lot more of Clint and girl friend movie. This movie is a 3/10.


This was one of those films that got a ton of play on the airwaves in the early 1970's, usually on the "4am Movie" or one time, on the 7:30 PM "Channel 6 Big Movie" and still another on Creature Double Feature.WHen local channels used to run movies as part of their local programming(mostly gone today in favor of infomercial time) It was of the time. A couple of low-rent Abbott and Costello wannabees(Frankie Ray and Robert Ball) are in a platoon of soldiers(half a dozen guys in Army Surplus remainders) who are sent on field maneuvers to look into some strange radiation, and wind up encountering extraterrestrials. They first go into Bronson Canyon to what would be later the famous Batcave on BATMAN, and encounter the remains of a dead "carrot monster". Later, in the cave they're chased by a living carrot creature-basically a guy in black suit and paper mache head, with sparkly things on it and ping-pong ball eyes. Two of them-complete geeks,Ray and Ball-are captured and wake up tied to tables and are being "examined" by space amazons-Dr Poona(nooo kidding!) and Professor Tanga who are stunningly beautiful and even moreso in their skimpy bikini "uniforms". We were too young at the time,to realize what later bondage and fetish scenarios this "examination" scene would more than suggest. Turns out that the two gals and their carrot monster, are stranded on earth with a ship that's well hidden and are trying to return to their world.

The film was made as a total comedy with varying degrees of taste but remember this was of the time when Eric Von Zipper and his crew from Frankie and Annette's films, were the height of B-film, drive-in comedy.So it only seemed a natural to jump on the bandwagon for some quick bucks.

For some reason I only thought I'd imagined seeing this film to start with. No, I really saw it. And when it was released on "restored" DVD I was assured in my memory. The comedy goes from mildly funny to just plain stupid, but whatever.The budget is non-existent, which, is a minor miracle when you think about it, that it even got made and we can talk about a "restored" version here and now-over 40 years later. The payoff is the girls who want to learn about "love" and "kissing" and, the upshot is the geeks-which all of us were- get the girls and love wins out. It's just goofy and silly and for the locations, has nostalgic significance.


Gloria Victor and Dolores Reed in space girl costumes.

I love 50 sci fi, I even love cheesy 50s sci fi, but this film is really, really bad. And not in a MST3K kinda way.

Virtually unwatchable as a couple of bozos do their best "hip cat" impression of Abott & Costello.

Chessecake can usually save cheesy sci fi, such as in "Cat Women On The Moon" but it can't in this case. This film requires a mute button and fast forward feature.

That said, I could watch Gloria and Dolores walk around the space ship for about an hour or so.


- Let me start by saying that I understand that Invasion of the Star Creatures was meant to be a parody of the sci-fi films of the 50s. I understand that none of it is to be taken seriously. The problem I have is that none of it works. A parody should be funny and this one just isn't. Not once during the entire runtime did I so much as crack a smile. In general, I am easily entertained, but I couldn't find a sliver of entertainment anywhere in Invasion of the Star Creatures.

- I knew I was in trouble right from the beginning. The two "stars" make their screen appearance with one of the lamest gags imaginable - a water hose they can't control that gets them both wet. These two come off as Bowery Boys wannabes. Why anyone would want to mime the act and persona of the Bowery Boys is beyond me. After the less than illustrious beginning, the movies goes on to feature comical chase sequences, dancing Indians, vegetable men, decoder rings, and other assorted unfunny bits. It's all just a complete waste of time.

- I bought this on the double feature DVD with Invasion of the Bee Girls. That movie is Academy Award winning stuff in comparison with Invasion of the Star Creatures.


Invasion of the Star Creatures would definitely be in the "so bad it's good" category if the film wasn't quite so sexist or racist. That it is such just makes it plain bad.

It has the same kind of hardline stereotypical sexism that you saw in Queen of Outer Space, and the kind of racist stereotypes (in this instance, Native Americans) that you would normally find in thirties & forties b-westerns. In terms of being non-funny, the same walking-through-the-cave gag is repeated well over ten times during the course of this fairly short movie. Ray does do one good impression of Jimmy Cagney (but can't make it work for two impressions of Cagney in a row, nor handle a Peter Lorre when he tries it). There really aren't any production values to speak of, as the "Star Creatures" make the Ro-Man from Robot Monster or Tor Johnson in Plan 9 from Outer Space look like creations of Industrial Light and Magic.

This film was definitely one of a vanguard of what you would have to call early independent cinema...not artsy enough for those theaters and not good enough for anything but the last feature of an all-night drive-in.


Some things need to be clarified. The picture of Mark Ferris is not the Mark Ferris who starred in this movie. I know that because he was my dad. Please remove that picture. Also, Mark Ferris was the writer, at least one of them. I have been trying to find a copy or a way to see this movie again. It has been years and if someone can point me in the direction of obtaining a copy, that would be great. The movie wasn't all that bad, and trying to compare it to todays world of Star Wars and other high tech sci fi's it futile. If you watch it, just enjoy it for the rediculousness and humor it possesses. Lighten up on being movie snobs and enjoy some less creative and innovated films.


This is the worst brain damaged, ultra cheap, super stupid, silly, pointless piece of trash I've ever seen, an unbelievable garbage of instant cult status among fans of the bizarre. If you think that Ed Wood's "Plan 9" is bad, well... let me tell you, looks like "Citizen Kane" compared to that one. ¿Special effects?...again, "Plan 9" is "Star Wars". ¿Acting?...Thor Johnson is Al Pacino... so it's beyond bad, really. But if you are looking for that kind of incredible movies, it's for you! I'm a fan of American International for so many glorious horror movies, the Price-Corman-Poe saga and some great blaxploitation stuff, but with "Star Creatures" they descend right down to the Z level. Of course, my 1 out of 10 works in reverse if you like to watch bad movies for fun (the guy playing an Indian chief is great) so have fun and enjoy... if you can.


The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!

1/10


Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.

Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.


'Home Alone 3' is the first of the Home Alone movies not to feature Culkin in the main role and the same villains. However, the plot is very similar to the original 'Home Alone' film. Instead of two comical villains, we get three or four of them. This film involves some traps, but it also has a long scene with a remote-control car. The slapstick humour is consistent as well, but the young boy and the villains really fail to make an impact in this film. (No pun intended.) This film offers nothing new or different than the previous films did, and there really is not the warm, holiday feeling or subplots that the other two films had. It's more of a pure comedy, but it did not succeed in making me laugh as the characters really did not do it for me. I would not recommend this film; it's pretty boring. If you are seeking a good holiday family film with comedy, then watch the original 'Home Alone' movie.


The first Home Alone was a decent enough film... the sequel was pretty much the same, at a new setting. This one tries to be original, and succeeds to some degree... of course, the formula is basically the same, so it's like watching the same movie for a third time with slightly altered plot. The new score is quite bad(though the new "setting traps" piece was, if nothing else, interesting and different), especially compared to the grand score of the first, and the almost-but-not-quite-as-good score of the second. It (almost) makes up for it by using some pretty good non-original music, but it's just not the same. The plot is fair, and somewhat original to the franchise, but it's still basically the same movie as the first two, with worse acting and a less impressive example of the 'scary character turning out to be good'. The acting is mostly unimpressive. The characters are mostly caricatures. The new thieves are less entertaining than the old ones(and they make fun of spy-stuff, which is almost criminal, given the limited amount of good spy flicks there are, and how precious few of them are cool). The fact that there are more of them(and thereby more traps) is just a weak attempt at trying to go one higher than the first two films... and it doesn't work. The idea behind the thieves and their mission is a tad too... adult and serious for a children's film(and there was a sexual joke or two, though that isn't the first time in the series). It's also unnecessarily complex, as is the plot in general. I could follow it, but I doubt a kid could. Some of the exposition are delivered so obviously that even children may find it stupid. The animal stuff is generally not amusing. There are fewer siblings, which should mean that those there are get developed more, but they have less personality than the least featured of those of the first two films. All in all, just not particularly good, or worth watching, unless you *really* love watching criminals getting hurt in cartoon-y violence. I recommend this to huge fans of the series only. 3/10


Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.