i searched video store everywhere to find this movie, being the huge elvis fan that i am, and i found it to be a huge disappointment. kurt russel had most of the "elvis moves" down and the voice imitation was great, but the dubbed in singing voice of elvis just didnt work for me. the voice didnt always match up with russels mouth, and it was hard for me to get lost in the plot because it bothered me that it was noticeable. also, there were so many freaking discrepancies in the film, people who dont know much about elvis would probably think them to be facts. songs are sung by him earlier than he recorded them in real life, the time when he got his first guitar is wrong, im pretty sure his brother jesse garron was buried in an unmarked grave, not one with a huge headstone reading JESSE GARRON. i know it was just a tv movie, but they skipped over important events, like the come-back-special, and dragged some scenes out for way too long. if you want to see a good movie that shows elvis in his prime rent THATS THE WAY IT IS, or another elvis concert. hearing and seeing the real elvis preform is the only way to truly see his talent. (brilliant statement i know, but still...go out and rent a good elvis flic.)


I can't believe this show is still rating a 9 out of 10. I could see if those votes were in the first 2 seasons, but what would possess anyone to continue to rate it high after that? I was a huge fan the 1st season. I was hooked - all the mystery, suspense, unexplained events. You never knew what was going to happen next. By season 2, I was still watching faithfully, but was getting a little frustrated that some basic things had yet to be explained. And instead of giving you more answers, it just seemed like more questions. I LOVE suspense, but you have to throw people a bone every now and then to keep them watching.

Now, I can't even remember what finally turned me off, but somewhere in season 2, I had enough. I'm not a big fan of appointment viewing - and you clearly can't miss an episode to stay up on what's happening. So, it was no longer worth the effort to me.

It's a shame that they couldn't have been a little smarter and more considerate of the loyal fans. I agree with some of the posters that it appears ABC just got greedy and decided to see how long they can stretch this show out. Don't they realize that in the end, they are going to lose more fans than they could possibly gain.


this movie is made for Asian/Chinese market, targeting particularly fans of Jay Chou, one of the biggest music star in Asian.

Jay Chou is a very talented song writer/singer. He is mediocre as an actor, although he did appear in several big-budget productions ("initial D", "Curse of the Golden Flower "). Amazingly, he won both golden horse (taiwan) and Hong Kong film awards for "initial D".

The supporting cast are very well chosen, which appeals basically everyone from China. The cast including many famous movie/TV actors, singers, even sport commentator (Huang Jianxiang from China). However, they were not given enough time to show their talents.

The biggest mistake is that Chu took over both director and writer position. He has a reputation of making shallow and brainless movies based off non-coherent scripts. With his poor directing and lam story, the whole talented cast, fancy vision effects and tones of production money was wasted.

However, the terrible movie successfully cashed in over 10 million dollars, maybe even more in Asian, which made this one of the biggest box office success in Asian.

The bottom line is: you can watch this movie only if you want to see how money and talents are wasted, or if you are simply accompanying your kids who are fans of Jay Chou.


Lot of silly plot holes in the film. First we see him watching his master practice kung-fu, and die in the midst of his practice. That's fine with me. And then at the end of the film, we see him use the kung-fu that he learned just by watching his master when he was still a kid. Is that even possible? I don't think so.

This show is purely for Jay Chou fans, and the film lacks a depth in terms of character development, cinematography styles and unfolding of plot.

Anybody notice that the captain of the basket team (forgot his name) and the idolized player Li Xiao look so similar to each other, to the extent that you'd think they were the one and same person? Long hair, sunshine-boy look, tall and strong. The two of them looked like they came out from a mass production factory designed to churn out products that makes teenage girls scream wild in orgasm. Not that those two actors had anything of value to contribute to the movie as a whole for the movie industry at all.

The jokes were lame and not funny at all.

The scene with regards to the 4 masters of Jay Chou coming back to help him out in the basketball court, degenerated into a pointless plot when they started bashing their opponents ala Royal Rumble style. Worse of all, when the 4 masters won the fight, the crowd began cheering, and the match continued. It was truly a WTF? moment.

At the end of the show, when they win the match, all thanks to Jay Chou's excellent kung fu skills. How he acquired those kung-fu skills is a mystery, because the show somehow shows him acquiring the skills just by observing his master.

And then his long-lost father comes out of the woodwork to acknowledge Jay Chou as his long-lost son seemed just a tad too quick of the director to wrap up the film.

In short, this is a Jay Chou-flick (instead of the usual "chick flick"). Watch it only if Jay Chou is your fan. If you are one of those whose tastes in movies coincide greatly with those in the list of IMDb's top 250 films of all time, then this film is not for you.


Kid found as a baby in the garbage and raised at a martial arts academy has a knack for sinking baskets. With the help of the man who found him he gets in to college and is promoted to the championship as he searches for his real parents. Infinitely better in pieces action comedy is a real mess as a whole. It seems to be striving for a hipper basketball version of Shaolin Soccer, but the comedy is scatter shot, its focus wanders more than a Chihuahua with ADD on quadruple espresso. I kept asking "What am I watching". I watched it from start to finish and I still don't know what the hell happened. Its a shame since there are some great action scenes, some amusing jokes and the occasional moment, but nothing, none of it ever comes together, I'd take a pass.


The direction had clearly stated that this film's idea and plot is totally original....however, as to those who have read 'slam dunk' comic, we can clearly see that the characters are very similar and even some jokes...

Another note is Jay Chow himself DO NOT know Kung Fu, it just won't impress anyone if he tries to act like he can, many people today can see the differences.. Luckily the movie do not contain much of KunG Fu fighting and much are enchanced by stunners and visual effects...

I think that Jay's acting is still a pain to watch, especially when almost everyone else in the film is so much better. The only reason I think why Jay is the main actor is simply is for his popularity.

Despite how hard I wish to stop anyone from watching this thus making this "orginal" movie getting what it shouldn't have, it has became one of the best budget films in China for this year.


Having read during many years about how great this film was, how it established Ruiz among the french critics (specially the snobbish Cahiers crowd), when I finally watched it about a year ago, I found it pretty disappointing (but then, I guess my expectations were sky-high). Shot in saturated black and white, this deliberately cerebral film (made for TV, and mercifully, only an hour long) is told in the form of a conversation between an art connoisseur and an off-screen narrator as they ponder through a series of paintings (which are shown in the style of tableaux vivants) and try to find if they hold some clues about a hidden political crime. (The awful Kate Beckinsale film Uncovered has a similar argument). Borgesian is a word I read a lot in reviews about this movie, but I would say almost any Borges story is more interesting than this film.


Years have gone by since Don Wilson used his martial arts expertise to take down a robot who was programmed to destroy him, he's also married to the blonde reporter (Stacie Foster) who led the rebellion in the first film, now a new conspiracy is in the works, one that involves look-alike droids who frame our two heroes, and a corporation looking to rule the world (There is no plot to back any of this up) and Cyber Tracker 2 becomes a virtual replay of the first movie. I admit that I have bought DVDs from the bargain bin that were made by PM, PM was a company that specialized in cheap-jack action flicks (like this) which had tons of explosions, little story and overall nothing but mean edged action. Some of these titles have been (mildly) enjoyable (Last Man Standing and The Sweeper) however Cyber Tracker 2 is stuck with the casting of the charisma-less Don Wilson. When comparing the protagonists of similar PM efforts both Jeff Wincott and C. Thomas Howell are Oscar nominees when compared to Don Wilson. Another telling sign is that this was directed by Richard Pepin who has none of the flair Joseph Merhi seems to have in crafting action sequences that feel much more expensive than their budgets. Then again though both C. Thomas and Wincott are probably more expensive to obtain. Cyber Tracker 2 is a rip off with a capitol R, there are so many steals from better movies (Robocop, Terminator, Universal Soldier to even Halloween III!) that it's almost as if Richard Pepin is trying to infuse a sense of identity to the pedestrian material yet without the intelligent ideas or at least the mindless zip of great action, Cyber Tracker 2 falls flat. There is literally no good idea that isn't borrowed from a better movie and the supporting cast overact. The only exception comes from Tony Burton who is miles better than the material. Also Stacie Foster looks like she could be better with far better material. However Cyber Tracker 2 comes off mainly as noisy, bland and lackluster as its leading man, however with no real martial arts sequences to fall back on, all there is, is lots of cars tipping over and that alone is no substitute for the bankruptcy of ambition expressed here.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)


Plot Synopsis: When his wife, a news reporter, is kidnapped & replaced with an android double, Secret Service agent Eric Phillips tracks her down & uncovers a plan by an arms dealer to create an army of invincible androids to assassinate world leaders.

I wasn't expecting much when I first saw this sequel to Richard Pepin's low-budget sci-fi / action hybrid "Cyber Tracker". That film was nothing special, not to mention a blatant rip-off of both "The Terminator" & "RoboCop". This sequel is the same as before, with an all-out action sequence opening the film. There are plenty of explosions, heavy gunfire & a huge bodycount, as well as some martial-arts moves courtesy of the film's star, Don "The Dragon" Wilson. The whole film seems like a series of action scenes strung together with minimal plot. On the acting front, Wilson is a bad actor. He really needs a personality transplant.


Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of "women who deserve it". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his "penis of steel". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.

Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.


This is one of those movies where I wish I had just stayed in the bar.

The film is quite frankly boring. What story there is is very flimsy and you pretty much have to guess at it. The film indulges itself with pretentious camera techniques that seem intent on causing migraines and makes it look like a student film. Did I say it was boring already? If all the characters had suddenly died at the end of the movie I would not have cared less as I had no emotional attachment to any of them.

There are about 4 good minutes in this movie, but that was about it. This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of a cinema during a performance, but I held on believing that it had to get better. I was wrong.

The sort of film you could threaten naughty children with.


The acting may be okay, the more u watch this movie, the more u wish you weren't, this movie is so horrible, that if I could get a hold of every copy, I would burn them all and not look back, this movie is terrible!!


This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker".


I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.

The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that.


OK, the box looks promising. Whoopi Goldberg standing next to Danny Glover parodying the famous farmer and his wife painting. Then you pop this baby in the DVD player and all hope is lost in less then five minutes. Supposed to be a comedy. And I must admit I did laugh once about ten minutes before the ending. This movie has the following elements: A battered and abused next door neighbor, a boring legal trial, racisim, talk of lynchings, and death and arson. Hilarious, huh? No, please, if you never listen to anyone's reviews, please do here. You cannot even force yourself to watch this crap. CRAP! I said it, CRAP! Whoever put there name on this should indeed sue.


I was true to my regard for Mr. Glover and Ms. Goldberg. I watched the entire film with my family and some friends. I have no idea what the movie was about. After much discussion, we all agreed that this was not one of their better efforts.

It doesn't hang together very well. It is too choppy, and there is little comedy. I am disappointed. It could have been much better.

I waited months to see this film based on the liner notes.

Don't waste your money unless you are a completist and just want to see all of Mr. Glover's and Ms. Goldberg's films.

It was a poor way to spend an evening.


I find myself wondering what the people who gave this a 10 saw in it that I didn't. This movie has a VERY hard time following and/or staying to a plot. If someone tells you it's a comedy, don't be fooled, it's about 98% percent odd-drama and 2% comedy. All actors turn in a great performance, that cannot be denied, however it seems like it really lost something somewhere. Don't know if the original script was good and it had to be edited down or what. This had potential, and instead it was really a flop. I would really like the hour and a half I invested in this movie back, but the video rental place doesn't do returns on time. Save your money and see something else.


This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.


I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.

In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague.

The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.


Well this just maybe the worst movie ever at least the worst movie i have ever seen. They have tried out these 666 child of Satan the anti Christ kinda movies about 1000 times and none of them is good and this just maybe the worst of them. They think that it's going to be better movie as more they use that fake blood. This movie doesn't have any idea in it, actors and filming is just terrible. Cant even make out that 10 line minium of this movie. Really nothing to tell about but that it's just horrible. How they can make movies like that in their right mind just can't understand that. This cant be a Hollywood movie, is it? Just don't go watch this use your money more wisely.


I was supposed to review this for a website, and I watched this with optimism that perhaps it would at least be a cheesy yet entertaining rip off, and it didn't even do that well enough.

"666: The Child" is probably one of the worst supernatural thrillers I've ever seen (Even worse than "Godsend") with scenes that rip from "The Omen" without shame. The ending is even very similar to the way "The Omen" ends.

Not to mention that the acting, writing, and story are all just hackneyed. If these movies make money, I'm sad to see where Asylum is headed. It's embarrassing.


I actually like Asylum movies. I've made it a habit to see as many as possible. Even the rip-offs they've done have been cool like EXORCISM And WHEN A KILLER CALLS. This is just plain lame. I can't believe that the same people who made DEAD MEN WALKING and DRACULA'S CURSE actually made this movie too!!! It's not even laughably bad like JOLLY ROGER or ALIEN ABDUCTION (which, by the way are pretty bad). This is just BAD! I mean, I can appreciate and/or forgive bad acting or lame special effects in an Asylum movie, but this film takes itself way too seriously. I really hope that SNAKES ON A TRAIN is better. Now that's a movie I can't wait to see.


Well, it's all been said about this movie and I hate it when writing reviews where everyone else already said what's to be said. But the thing is, I have seen zillions of movies and I am working on writing reviews on all the movies that I've seen. So, I have to write something.

The acting is stupid. It's truly stupid how the news anchor expresses her sadness towards the plane crash. The nun is nice though and the professional assistant who comes to take care of the child. the three main killings in the movie are just so weak that you wonder how stupid can the makers of this movie be. Don't they realize that even rip-offs can still be scary. We don't see how the granpa is killed. The dentist and his assistant made me feel they deserve to die, you just don't sympathize with them. And uncle tony in the garage dies in a way that could have been worked better. We just hear him scream and we see nothing!


This movie is quite possibly one of the most horrible horror flicks I've seen. The length wasn't nearly long enough to include a good storyline. Also, the way the foster parents died was just plain ridiculous. The mother suddenly dies from falling through a shower after tripping over an action figure, and the dad is shot by a police officer? I can see where some originality might have been what they were going for, but it could have been better. Also, the cheesiness of it all made me want to press stop before it was over. After hearing all of Lucy's name and figuring out it was 'Lucifer', I wanted to gag. Yes, it's interesting that Lucifer was a woman, but look at the name. It's a male's name. It should be given to a male character. All in all, the movie was a bore, and could have used a better plot.


Honestly I am not even joking when I say that this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! This film dosen't have a single ounce of originality in its flimsy dialog or its blatantly plagiarized story line. I can not even begin to count the number of things in this film that are obviously ripped off from "The Omen" and other movies like it. For example the nanny "Lucy" in this film is actually one of the devil's minions sent to guide and protect the spawn of Satan.....does this sound a lot like Mrs. Baylock to anyone else. Another thing is that the orphanage were they first got the child burned to the ground just a few months after he was adopted, just like in "The Omen". However luckily one priest survived the blaze and escaped with sever burns all over his body....yet another coincidence?????? And to top it all off the burned priest is staying in a hospital room with pictures of Jesus all over the walls, much like the priest in "The Omen" having pages of the Bible plastered on the walls like wall-paper. Please don't even get me started drawing comparisons between the ending of this movie and "The Omen" for you because as I've stated above there are far too many to mention here.


Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. What else can I say. Kate Jackson must have been desperate to direct. May be she should go back to acting...on second thought she was a bad actress to. Who would put money in to producing something this bad. I like anti-Christ movies and usually have a good laugh and the odd scare but this one is just Bad Bad Bad. The acting by the stars was worse than what you find on a soap opera. The special effects, if you can call them that, where laughable. I would not be surprised if you played the scenes in slow motion you would see the tubes the blood shoots out of. We had to turn the disc off after only 30 minutes. This so called movies original prints should be destroyed, all disc' and tapes destroyed and all the people associated with the making of the movie have to pay back money to the people that rented the movie. Then those people should never be allowed to act, direct or film any thing but their own home movies.


This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an "American Pie style comedy" it's not that either.

Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.

Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.

If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!


Mislead by the terrible lie on the cover, "fun as American Pie", my girlfriend and I sat in front of the TV waiting for a comedy... and this is definitely not one. You probably won't laugh one time if you're not one of those Jackass-like ever-teeny minds. It's not even an erotic movie, which would at least been something, given that it's about sex...

So, what is this? The erratic plot deals with a guy who wants to lose virginity (zero in originality, I remember "Losing it" for one) and his gang of friends. The rest of the characters (i.e. the girls) just come and go for no credible reason. Come on, there are even Dwarfs (so simple: "dwarves are fun ho ho"...) The acting is very TV-like (as is the video look throughout the movie) and definitely amateur in the case of most of the girls...

Awful movie. Amateurish, badly produced, and over all NOT FUNNY. Kids and teens will love to watch it with friends because of the swearing and sex jokes. Other than that, don't even think of renting this movie.


It was the tag-line "in the tradition of American Pie" that fooled me into renting this movie. What I got was a piece of junk in the style of Jackass, with the major difference that compared to this Jackass the Movie seems like a Citizen Kane.

This movie made me regret that I rewarded other movies with 1 out of 10, because now I can't go beneath that. This one makes quite some bad movies look like cinematic feats.

I actually turned it off after 45 minutes, and that's something I very rarely do. But it was just too plain boring, stupid, uninteresting and unnecessary.

Can't believe some people actually reward this with 10 out of 10. What did your parents do? Drop you on the head when you were just a child? Or was it the very first movie you ever saw, so you got nothing to compare it to? Are you still a virgin and are breasts all you ever think off? Something must be wrong, at least.

My advice: stay clear of this one. Even if your in the mood for a simple movie that doesn't require thinking, choose something else, or you'll regret it for sure.


my friend bought the movie for 5 (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.


The fact that this movie made it all the way to the rentalrack in Norway is bizarre. This movie is just awful. This image quality is just one teeny bit better than you get of a mobile phone and the plot is soooo bad. The main character is just plain annoying and the rest just suck. Every person affiliated with this movie should be ashamed. The fact that the people that made this movie put their name on this is extraordinary. And the distributors; did they even see it!? This is probably the worst movie I have ever seen. To label this a comedy is an insult to mankind. I urge you not to support this movie by buying or renting it.


I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.

Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.

I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.

And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.

I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.

There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.


This movie is an idiotic attempt at some kind of action thriller. A tour bus on its way to Las Vegas is attacked by a group of white trash hijackers driving dune buggies. They drive them out into the desert and then steal all of their valuables. The plot changes constantly. One minute they are looking to kidnap a rich ranchers daughter, the next they are looking for a collectible stamp worth 90,000 dollars. The dialogue is horrible.

Please don't watch this movie.


There are laughs in this film, that is for sure. Michael Keaton is a talent and he used to be funny (before he decided he was a serious actor). However, what bothers me so much about this film, is how unlikable practically all of the characters are. Other than the main two leads, everybody is a jerk. I mean, these small town losers are about as uncouth as you can get. You just watch and think, man, these losers should be unemployed. Moreover, the American factory worker is portrayed as a lazy and ungrateful slob. It made me wonder if this film was made by Japanese nationalists. Oh sure, in the end they all come together as one, but I just did not enjoy the trip to get there.


Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.


talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was...


...not that all Disney films are garbage.

Anyway, I saw "Legend of Boggy Creek" first and absolutely loved the film. When I heard it had 2 sequels, I was ecstatic. I finally found a copy of this and watched it one night. I don't see how they can make a G-rated sequel to a horror film. The original is a movie/documentary about the Fauke Monster, and can scare anyone. "Return" is for kids and should not be watched by anyone. I don't remember the plot too well, as it's been quite some time since I watched it and I will not watch it again, but... It's about these hunters coming to town and they go looking to kill Bigfoot. Three little kids sneek out of the house to stop them. A big monsoon comes through. The hunters get hurt, are saved by the kids. Then they all hide out in a boat with a big piece of tarp on top and try to wait out the storm. Then all of a sudden, Bigfoot comes and does something really sick. I don't wanna ruin the ending for any of yas, but it's not scary. Well....


Never saw the original movie in the series...I only hope it was a much better movie than this or the sequel made in the 1980's as if it is not how were these two terrible sequels even justified. This movie had a really good lead in when they were advertising it to be shown on one of those old independent stations that are a thing of the past now. Anyways it looked like it would be a pretty good scary movie. It was, however, a movie that would make some Walt Disney movies look dark. Really, this movie was just a bunch of light fluff with virtually no boggy creek creature to be seen. The only real sighting is near the end when you see its shape during a very heavy rainstorm, other than that there is virtually no sign of the creature which was really disappointing as a kid. The story is basically the old evil hunters must kill anything they see and are after the boggy creek creature and kids are out to help it or just some random hairy guy in the woods that likes to pull random boats through the water. Not really worth watching I would however like to see the original, granted the maker of that would make the also bad boggy creature of the 80's, but he also made a very good slasher movie in the 70's "The Town the Dreaded Sundown".


I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.


Has to be one of the worst wastes of 35mm movie film ever unleashed on the public, the sequel to the at least entertaining pseudo-documentary original film "The Legend of Boggy Creek". Bad script, worse acting, etc., etc., Dawn Wells had to be hoping that Gilligan would come rescue her and take her back to the island just to escape from this piece of clap-trap.


Between 1937 and 1939, Twentieth Century-Fox made a ton of Mr. Moto films. However, towards the end of the series, it was obvious that the studio had "jumped the shark", so to speak. This phrase indicates that a TV show has passed its prime and the executives in charge decided to invigorate the show by fundamentally changing the formula. For example, with "The Brady Bunch" they introduced the annoying 'Cousin Oliver' and with "Family Ties" they introduced a freak baby who grew up six years in only one season! With the Moto films, they'd jumped the shark by introducing comic relief because they thought that these intelligent films needed to be re-tooled. In the previous film, Warren Hymer played an annoying wrestler. And, in this film the character Archibald Featherstone appears. Featherstone might just be one of the most annoying examples of comic relief ever, as you kept hoping someone (preferably Moto) would kill him just to shut him up!! Although he's supposed to work for the famed Scotland Yard, he shows all the intelligence and acumen of a brain damaged turnip. Again and again, his scenes were boorish and unnecessary and Peter Lorre just looks pained as he stands there and watches this buffoon "act". It's so bad that it truly destroys what COULD have been one of the better Moto films due to its clever plot.

As for the plot, the crown of the Queen of Sheba is discovered in the opening scene. Moto, now more of an international policeman than the amoral character he originally was, is on hand to protect the precious item from being stolen. In a great twist, several thieves all try to steal the crown independently of each other.

Overall, the film is watchable but is also ample evidence that the Moto series should have ended here. With WWII approaching, the films couldn't have survived much longer anyway, as having a sympathetic Japanese leading character simply wouldn't have been accepted in the US or in allied countries.


After eight Moto films the series had run its course, as this last entry demonstrates. Peter Lorre was clearly weary of trying to pump some sort of human interest and entertainment value into the wispy character of Moto, and the dreadful idea of pairing him with a "funny" British sidekick utterly defeats all his efforts here.


My wife and I just finished watching Bûsu AKA The Booth. She fell asleep during some parts of the movie. I really wish I had taken a snooze with her, but the unfortunate fact is that the main character's voice is so loud and grating that it was impossible for me to sleep. When our protagonist speaks, it makes me want to hear Regis Philbin and William Shatner sing karaoke. He also has no redeeming qualities. I was hoping he'd get hit by a bus five minutes into the film.

Don't get me wrong, I love Asian horror cinema, but The Booth is extremely irritating and full of scenes that really make no damned sense at all. If you want some good Asian cinema, check out A Tale of Two Sisters or Into The Mirror. Avoid The Booth like the plague, especially if you suffer from frequent migraines.


Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.

The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.

The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.

The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.

The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.

So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.


* Some spoilers *

This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.

There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.

That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.

There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.

Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.

Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.

The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?

To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.

An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.

Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.

Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.

Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.

There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself.

Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?

The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.

Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.

As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.

It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.


I agree with most if not all of the previous commenter's Tom (bighouseaz@yahoo.com). The Zatoichi series is a great character study combined with great sword fighting and excitement.

I have seen Zatoichi 1-13,15,16; I believe 14 has not been released on Zone 1 (usa). Zatoichi the Outlaw was disappointing. The story line was complicated, and seemed to be a hodgepodge of many previous Zatoichi story lines. At one point, I was wondering if I was not seeing a remake of a previous Zatoichi film.

This film was disappointing because it started to depend on effects (a head rolling, limbs severed, blood) and less on the nobility of the Zatoichi character. All the previous films succeeded based on the storyline and action, and won a great following without having to resort to effects.

I am just hoping that the remaining Zatoichi films do NOT follow the same trend. This is the first Zatoichi film from his studio. I highly recommend all the previous Zatoichi films -- and recommend them.


The cult of personality has elevated the status of Roger Corman, Sam Arkoff, Lloyd Kaufman etc. as kings of the B's. Because the folks at Crown International were so key, they haven't been elevated to the status they richly deserve. A film like THE VAN may now seem like a disposable piece of Drive-in esoteria, but it was a sizable hit when it was released (not to mention subsequent re-releases as a double feature with other Crown hits).

THE VAN was a perfect example of Crown's hit strategy of seizing upon the mood of movie-goers at the time of a film's release. Here, it was sex, drugs, rock 'n roll and the brief "Custom Van" fad. As others have noted, it is ironic that the "hit" song in the film refers to a Chevy when the title vehicle is a Dodge in the film itself. I had a town Selectman where I was at the time even declare these vans to be "dens of sin on wheels!" A perfect ad line for the film!

There are the usual assortment of "good" and "bad" girls, muscle-heads and low-brow hijinks (including a supporting bit by Danny DeVito). In many ways this isn't much different from the old Beach Party movies of the 60's, but now spiced up with Nudity and Drug use. Obviously done on a limited budget and a limited schedule, the film coasts along pleasantly enough with a breezy charm that compensates for some, by today's standards certainly, un-PC views of women.

The classic touch is a Toaster for Bobby's den of sin on wheels. Yes, a Toaster! Hey, you gotta have something hot for those munchies!

Grindhouse Fest.


The title song for this movie ...........is the greatest free spirited ballad ever written! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

I first saw this movie back in 1978-79 when I first subscribed to cable. In 1979 cable was just starting to become common place in homes. (or at least that when it was becoming common here in Missouri).

This might very well be the first movie I ever watched on the pay channel called "The Movie Channel" - which was called "The Star Channel" back then, they changed the name to "The Movie Channel" in the early 1980's........I received a free month of "The Star Channel" with my new cable subscription. "The Van" was one of the movies that was in heavy rotation on that network at that time.

I remember watching this movie back then, and thinking it was a typical teen flick(along the same lines as other medium budget teen flicks) ...the ones where the plot revolves around nudity and parties.

I totally forgot that this movie even existed until I recently seen this movie again after having not seeing it for decades( I found a copy of it on DVD for sale in cheap bin) I recognized it, and bought it for a mere $4.99.

Seems like I had remembered this film being much better that it was(is). However watching it back then was a different experience than watching now(30+ years later).

It was fun to see the kids listing to rock n roll music, smoking weed, and having sex in the back a fancy van(often all at the same time). This is what a good teen party movie should be.

There isn't much of a plot other than the fact that the main character fantasizes about having sex with his arch rivals good looking girlfriend ...he blows all of his college savings money to purchase a tricked out Dodge Van(with shag carpet walls . mirrored ceiling and a water bed in it)to get her attention, and he eventually gets to have sex with her. But his arch rival finds out and comes looking for him (so that the two of them can settle their differences by drag racing their vans)....he and his arch rival end up wrecking both of their vans, and instead of stealing away his arch rivals girlfriend, he wins over the heart of a preppy(lesser attractive) girl that he half/ass dates through most of the movie and he decides he is happier/better off and the movie ends.

the movie does have it's funny moments. But watching this movie 30+ years later, it becomes more of a trip down memory lane. Because I still can remember Pizza parlors, pinball arcades, It also brought back memories of cruising around a small town while we smoked pot as we would yell at good looking girls and hoping to get laid (sometimes I'd get lucky and get some decent looking girl to share a joint with me and we'd screw in the backseat afterwords, I also remember many of the songs in this move(when they were new)......this movie serves as a perfect time capsule for that era in those regards (brought back lots of memories)

the one thing that is depicted in this movie that I honestly can not remember is ....I never remember a time when full sized vans were as popular as this film depicts them as being. I remember that era very well, and I don't young men going around wishing they had a van. Instead I remember young men in the 70's (self included) wanting a Pontiac Trans Am, Chevy Camaro or a hot rod Ford Mustang, but never a van. This movie makes it appear as if vans were most popular item going and that every young man wanted one(which just wasn't true of that era)


This film was abysmal. and not in the good way as some have claimed. First off the main character is a very unattractive gingerman. Second - WTF is going on with this van love. The plot, basically, is: boy wants sex so buys a van (which, in fairness is quite cool). Unbelievably given that he looks like a newt he scores with lots of chicks! And he fails with some. Then he scores with a really hot chick and realises he loves this dowdy bird who played hard to get. Then he drag races with the hot chicks boyfriend. And he tips his van. At which point danny devito saves the day. Although he didn't need to because in tipping the van the ginger kid crossed the line first. I gave this 2 *'s as i'm willing to assume that there's some sort of 70's Vanning subculture i'm not getting and also because there's some 70's boobage too.


Bobby is a goofy kid who smiles far too much and wants sex. So he buys a van to aid in this quest. The acting is lame, the comedy is pathetic and the script is no more than a loosely strung chain of clichés and cheap thrills. The makers of the film obviously wanted to capture some of the out there craziness of other films of the time, but fell a long way short. They even resort to Bobby slipping on a banana skin, because this will supposedly add comedic value.

I'm struggling to find a redeeming feature of the film. If you like DeVito, this is another classic DeVito kind of role - but he's only a supporting actor and there for cliché value.


The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!

2


This movie was packed pull of endless surprises! Just when you thought it couldn't get worse, they added more joints and more pink fuzzy-lined vans with raunchy sex scenes. As you can guess, I was a victim of the original version. We were tricked into watching it thinking it was Supervan, the host box which promised lasars, jail breaks, and much more. Who would have thought a Dollar Store Christmas present could have been so much fun!


I disagree with much that has been written and said about this supposed "masterpiece" of the German New Wave:

1) There are major flaws in simple exposition, in the basic communication of critical plot points, as relating to Maria's abortion and the secret contract between Oswald and her husband. How many viewers understood that the husband agreed, in exchange for substantial financial remuneration, not to return to and reclaim his wife until Oswald was dead?

2) The ending is highly unsatisfying because arbitrary and accidental. The original screenplay called for Maria to commit suicide after the reading of Oswald's will, on finding out that her husband had in effect sold their marriage to Oswald. In the final version, however, Maria only runs water from a faucet across her wrist in a gesture of suicide. Maria is then summarily blown up, rather than having to confront and live with the consequences of her self-delusion and moral compromise.

3) Fassbinder seeks to forcibly superimpose the public on the private, the political on the personal. Contrary to what the critics and "experts" assert, I don't think it works. Merely intruding historic radio news or the sound of the jackhammers of German reconstruction in the soundtrack on the dramatic events of the movie does not make those historical events integral to the drama.

The selfish ambition of Maria's rise from poverty to prosperity is meant to parallel the so-called economic miracle of postwar Germany. Maria is thus intended to be a woman specific to and reflective of her time and place, but is in reality unoriginal and nonspecific. Women have been asserting their independence by using sex for self-advancement for ages.

4) Lastly, there are several instances of inexcusable sloppiness and amateurishness -- Fassbinder's drug addiction and consequent impatience and inattention have had their effect. Unknown people talk off screen without ever being seen; music is clumsily intrusive in places; and melodramatic posturing sporadically substitutes for acting.

Strangely, for a movie condemning a country for willful collective amnesia of the holocaust, it itself never mentions it once.


This movie was, as Homer Simpson would have put it, "more boring than church." Maybe I don't understand it well enough, and I thought it started out pretty well, but after (START OF SPOILER) Hermann Braun is sent to jail and Maria starts working/sleeping with her boss it just started to drag, and I struggled to keep awake. Again, maybe it symbolizes something, but the explosion at the end seemed very forced and out of place. (END OF SPOILER). In the end, I fail to see why others think it's so great, as I found it extremely boring. By the way, I did not watch this movie by my own free will, as I was required to see it for a Film class.


Title: Robot Jox (1990)

Director: Stuart Gordon

Cast: Gary Graham, Anne Marie Johnson, Paul Koslo

Review: Stuart Gordon who we usually associate with extremely gory horror films such as Re-Animator, From Beyond, Dagon and Castle Freak, took a small detour here and did a little sci-fi flick. I stress the word "little" since this is a very low budget flick, and there in lies its main weakness.

The story takes place in the future. A world in which the great superpowers (that according to this movie are the United States and Russia) duke out their differences not by going on a full blown world war...but by fighting gladiator style battles with gigantic robots. Our hero Achilles must go up against the evil Russian robot fighter called Alexander. Lots of cheap stop motion animation ensues.

Well, the idea is awesome I guess. The great nations settleling territorial disputes with giant robots? Interesting premise and one that could have been handled properly if the proper budget had been available. Unfortunately what could have been a fun movie ends up being an embarrassment for an otherwise great director.

I as a kid loved this movie, and I guess if you want any enjoyment out of this movie, you'll have to revert back to little kid mode to have some fun with it. I showed this film to some of my friends and as the movie progressed my friends where like "what the hell is this piece of crap franco?" And I'm like well this movie is a sci-fi by one of my favorite directors Stuart Gordon?" But as the movie progressed into corny territory I almost felt like pressing stop and not having them go through that torture. I could go through it, cause I loved this film as a kid, and there's still a little nostalgia attached to watching it. But everyone else was just not going to get it.

And I myself realized that the movie isn't really that good. First off. The movie is about giant robots kicking the hell out of each other. And in order to achieve this in a credible fashion you'd have to use some damn good special effects to make it work, expensive effects that would help us the audience suspend disbelief. But unfortunately this being a small scale movie, from a small scale company (Empire Pictures, which went bankrupt after making this film!)the effects only help us giggle and laugh at them. Heck even the sets and some of the wardrobe looks unfinished or half assed.

OK granted, once you accept that you are watching a mixture of moderate stop animation and miniatures well you can sort of give in to the film and even enjoy the big robots kicking the hell out of each other. There are certain scenes when the robots are fighting that are kinda cool, and made me go "thats why I liked thid movie!" But every know and them, some crappy effect will take you right out of that protective little cocoon you were trying to hide in. And boom, your right back into realizing this film just doesn't live up to its premise.

And heres another thing that sort of bothered me a bit about the movie. This movie is basically a movie for kids. You know, giant robots duking it out? Stop motion animation? Hello? But this movies dialogue had a lot of sexual innuendos and the violence gets a little bloody. So I kept asking myself is this a kids movie or not? After a while I just came to the conclusion that basically this was a kids movie with adult sensibilities, which really isn't a good mix.

So for those of you who don't feel that certain naive childlike charm of watching two robots fighting each other and if you don't have a nostalgic connection to this movie (like I do) well Id suggest you steer clear away from this one. Gordons a great director, but this movie he made, just didn't do it for me. Well, at least not now that I'm a full grown adult.

Rating: 2 out of 5


R O B O T J O X.

Burn the master.

Grotesquely horrible.

No ending; no closure.

Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.

Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.

I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.


What an awful movie! The Idea of robots fighting each other is cool, but the storyline is ridiculous, real human action laughable, acting non-existent and special effects (on which, this type of movie must depend) are archaic. I thought it must have been made around '80-'84 and was amazed to see it was from 1990. That's 5 years after Aliens! OK, lots of people said it was good considering the low budget, but I just think 'what's the point?'. it looks totally unbelievable. I wouldn't mind seeing a remake with modern special effects and a completely re-written story because I still like the idea of huge robots beating crap out of each other.


There are a number of problems with this movie, but the bottom line is that it tried to do too much with too little. The base story is quite good, but the money just wasn't there to do the story justice. The non-existent budget really killed this movie. Stuart Gordon (the writer/director) has writing credit on 'Honey, I Shrunk the Kids', which was a box office smash. However, that movie had some serious cash backing from Disney. Honestly, this is a good example of when to not make a movie. Had he waited a few more years, technology would have made it cheaper to do many of the effects. (not to mention he could have found a company with money.)


OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles.

Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as "manos the hands of fate."

The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.

Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch.


I actually paid to see this movie in the theater.

It would get a 1-rating, but the fight scenes between the robots are okay, and there's a surprise.

I realize that some movies have larger budgets than others. I don't have a problem with that. Unfortunately, science fiction movies probably suffer the most on a small budget for obvious reasons. But, one way this movie fails is that just about every piece of each set looked cheesy and cheap. I mean, couldn't they even make it "look" good?

The other major reason this movie is horrible is the acting If I watched the movie now and knew what to expect, I might just enjoy it for the cheese-factor, but at the time, I was expecting a good movie and had no clue as to how horrible it would actually end up being.

Thankfully, the experience was over in only 85 minutes.


Think a darker version of one of those kid shows such as "Power Rangers" and you have this film from 1990, "Robot Jox". A movie where you fight with giant robots, two men enter the arena and whoever comes out their country wins. The robots are huge and look like slightly better versions of the ones from said shows mainly because they are less colorful so while this movie is not good, it isn't all bad to watch. There are as I recall two robot fights in this one, one that ends badly and the final showdown. There is a plot twist part way through as a traitor is revealed, but in the end the plot is nothing that is going to stick with you for any amount of time after the picture is done. The fights themselves look like giant toys on the rampage, but still somewhat fun to watch. This movie would also spawn a couple of other films with similar plot devices such as the giant robots and the tournament. So it is worth checking out once, but probably not more than that.


This movie is the perfect illustration of how NOT to make a sci fi movie. The worst tendency in sci-fi is to make your theme an awful, sophomoric, pseudo-Orwellian/Huxleyan/whateverian "vision" of "the human future."

Science fiction filmmakers (and authors), as geeks, take themselves very seriously given the high crap-to-good-stuff ratio of their genre. I think other genres with a high CTGSR (yes, I just made it up, relax), like horror or action or even romantic comedy, seem to have a little better grasp of the fact that they are not changing the world with some profound "message."

Sci fi can certainly be successful on a serious level, as numerous great filmmakers have proven. But there is an immense downside to the whole concept, which is represented by "Robot Jox," with its low-rent construction of "the future" (lone good design element: the bizarre, slick-looking billboard ads all over the place that encourage women to have more babies) and its painfully heavy-handed "Iliad" parallels (He's NAMED ACHILLES FOR GOD'S SAKE! I actually didn't pick up on this until I saw the film for like the tenth time, but I went to public school, so the filmmakers are not exonerated.)

Of course, if you're a crazy movie freak like me, this downside has a great upside. I absolutely LOVE movies like this, because bad movies are quite often more fun and sometimes even more interesting than good ones. It's kind of a Lester Bangs approach to movie viewing, I guess.

Note: The lead in this movie (Gary Graham? Is that his name? I refuse to go check.) is really not that bad. He makes a go of it. He's kind of cool, especially when he's drunk/hung over.


Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.


This movie is an abomination, and its making should have been considered a capital crime.

One of the great mysteries of film-making is why nobody ever has made a faithful movie adaptation of this wonderful mystery. It is a tale of a really gripping mystery, nice old-fashioned romance, and dry English humor. Why did the makers have to change Richard Gordon from a Scotland Yard policeman to an amateur detective, introduce the idiotic role and caricature of his English servant, change the part of the main storyline about the murder charge and circumstances of Gordon's struggle to save the accused, etc., etc.? These producers and directors who always think they can make a better story than the one in the book should write the original script themselves and not to rape another person's product.


I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.


When I first saw this film, I thought it should have come from the children's section - It's very fun and at times humorous, and is actually quite a good story, but it severely lacks the "romantic chemistry" that actors like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins are capable of delivering. I must note that Walter Matthau is perfect for the part of Albert Einstein, and his performance is extraordinary, but that's the sole exception. This film appears a bit forced, the directing lacks substance, and oh yeah...the music is ridiculously awful, it didn't put me in a very good mood. But if you are not expecting a smart, well-crafted comedy/romance tale, then this certainly can be entertaining, like I said..it should be in the children's section. Einstein and his buddies are a good relief from Tim Robbins' boring, almost tense quest to steal Meg Ryan's heart. A very conflicting film, but as long as it's not taken seriously this can be an alright movie.


Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****


Director Fred Schepisi(Roxanne) directs this well intentioned, but inferior comedy about Albert Einstein(Matthau) trying to hook his scientific niece(Ryan) up with ordinary guy Tim Robbins in order to get her to relax and enjoy life in the 1950's. To get Ryan to like Robbins, Einstein tries to make Robbins look like a brilliant scientist. The idea is cute, but the film falls flat with corny situations and silly dialogue. Tim Robbins, Meg Ryan, and the terrific supporting cast do their best to keep this silly comedy afloat, but are unable to rescue the film. Its unfortunate that so much talent went into producing such a lackluster movie. I would not recommend to anybody unless they are huge fans of Meg Ryan.


This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.

In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....

There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.

Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.


Just in time to capitalize on the long-awaited movie version of "Dreamgirls" is the DVD release of this semi-forgotten 1976 musical melodrama that also takes the rise of the Supremes as its inspiration. Released five years before the Broadway opening of "Dreamgirls" and partially set in the same period, it has a predominantly black cast and a story revolving around an up-and-coming girl group, and that's where the resemblance basically ends. Written by Joel Schumacher well before he became a big-league director of mainstream studio product ("Batman Forever", "The Phantom of the Opera"), this movie seems grittier on the surface. True to form, however, Schumacher weakens the storyline and character development by injecting an abundance of clichés and eye-rolling one-liners. With little affinity for staging musical numbers, Sam O'Steen, a highly regarded film editor but neophyte director, helms the production like a low-budget TV-movie with a frustratingly episodic structure.

The story follows three Harlem sisters - sexy Sister, self-righteous Delores and sweet Sparkle - as they sing in the church choir, meet smooth-talking but well-intentioned boys Stix and Levi, and then find their first taste of success as a singing group - first as a sweater-wearing quintet called the Hearts and then as a glitzy trio known as Sister and the Sisters. But naturally there are problems beyond the silly name for the group - Sister gets involved with nasty drug dealer Satin Struthers who beats her and turns her into a cocaine junkie; Levi goes to prison for getting caught in a drug pick-up for Satin; Stix gets frustrated by failure and unwisely turns to some Jewish mobsters for financial help; Delores just gets plain fed up; and poor little Sparkle has to decide what kind of future she wants. A big plus is that R&B great Curtis Mayfield wrote the atmospheric songs, some catchy and one, "Look Into Your Heart", a real winner.

The solid cast does its best under the contrived circumstances. Lonette McKee's valiant attempt to make Sister a tragic figure is undercut by some of the ham-fisted plot turns, including a sad Billie Holliday-like turn at the mike. Before they hit it big on primetime TV, Philip Michael Thomas and Dorian Harewood portray Stix and Levi with boyish vitality if not much credibility. The best work comes from Mary Alice in a relatively silent turn as the girls' patient mother and a pre-"Fame" Irene Cara who effortlessly exudes sincerity in the title role (though her costumer and hair stylist should be shot for the hideous look she achieves in the final scene). The DVD just comes with the original theatrical trailer complete with an unctuous voice-over by DJ Casey Kasem and a bonus CD of five of the film's songs performed not by the original cast but by Aretha Franklin off her 1976 recording of the soundtrack. It's not a terrible movie, just an interesting if lacking curio that happens to cover the same ground as "Dreamgirls".


About time they released this movie on DVD. I know some say WB rush the release of this movie because of The Dreamgirls movie. But, how can you rush the release of a movie that's been in you catalog since 1976.

I'm very disappointed with the DVD release of this movie, no special feature, no 5.1 DD sound. come on WB, you can do much better then this. The audio and picture quality on this movie needs some serious help.

Seem WB didn't place as much time and attention to this movie because it is a black movie and my have okay sales. They could have kept the CD which by the way dose not have all the songs the original CD has.

Would I recommend this DVD for purchase. Yes, because it is a classic film. But WB need to go add some more special feature. Take notes from other group movies, The Five Heatbeats, or The Temptation were you may view just the performance, and the sound on both are much, much, much better than this DVD.


This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.


I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.


I've seen enough of both Little Richard in interviews and in performances and enough of poor Leon pigeonholed into these 50s/60s musical bio pics to know that Leon was not the right actor for this role. Leon was so right as David Ruffin in The Temptations, but fails utterly to capture the essence of Little Richard in this film.

Actor Miguel Núñez who played Little Richard in "Why Do Fools Fall in Love?" was a much more suitable choice, having pulled off the musician's powerful but effeminate persona.

If the performances are unconvincing then the film will be as well. And this is what has happened here. Glossed over or missed entirely are LR's forays into homosexuality and voyeurism. What "The Temptations" did so well in capturing the rise of the group, warts and all, this film misses by a wide mark.

What is going on with director Robert Townsend who started off so well with "The Hollywood Shuffle"? He's a talented, funny guy but hasn't delivered anything near that first effort.


Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.

The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing "Spot the Villain" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.

A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is.


What a poor excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm ashamed to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background for God's sake! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is weak, the acting is weaker and the new Zealand/American accents just don't work. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was a waste of money better spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could make better movies with their cell phones. Goof: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. I'd love to go on but it just isn't worth the trouble in any way.


Yet another Die Hard straight to video rip off with cardboard villains How many more of these god awful cheaply (and badly) made rip off of the more popular action movies of the late 1980's and early 1990's are there still lurking out there? For the record (not that you will care really) this one is yet another blatant rip off of a combination of Die Hard, Under Siege and Speed 2 complete with a full complement of clichés and predictability.

The non descript villains are the usual selection of cardboard cut out gun toting thugs who are dispatched by various means as the film progresses, the hero naturally is an ex cop or something that has family and attitude problems and of course he brings along to the party not only the usual emotional baggage but also a matching piece of eye candy and his annoying son.

The supposed luxury cruise liner that is running between Florida and Mexico is carefully described as a cross between a liner and a ferry  this goes someway to explaining how come they appear to be larking around on a rusty cross channel ferry  in New Zealand! The acting is as wooden as the deck, the script woeful, the one liners predictable, the villains utterly inept and the plot has holes in it you could sail a boat through.

There seems to be a never ending tide of this sort of rip off straight to video rubbish polluting the late night slots of television and the DVD bargain bins of supermarkets everywhere (although even this film is so bad it has yet to see a DVD release yet but give it time!) Is there any chance of something at least half decently made, semi believable and most important ORIGINAL?!? No, I thought not..


I saw this on TV the other night or rather I flicked over to another channel every so often to watch infomercials when I couldn't stand watching it any longer. It was bad. Really, really bad. Not "so bad it's good" just flat out bad. How did it get funded? Who thought this was a good idea? An actor friend of mine auditioned and was told he wasn't good enough to play a bad guy but I think what they meant was "save yourself and runaway from this steaming pile of @#$%." I bet the rest of the cast had been given the option. To be fair the acting was hard to judge because of the appalling fake American ascents. The shooting was dullllllllllll. The action was awkward and stilted. The dialog was inane. By far the saddest thing was ship. In real life the Interislander ferry is a shabby boat and on film it doesn't scrub up well. Instead of trying very unsuccessfully to make it look like a new crews liner with bits of tinsel wrapped around rusting polls, I kid you not, they could have change the script to explain or even celebrate the shabbiness. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. Don't watch this movie, not even as a joke.


Van Dien must cringe with embarrassment at the memory of this ludicrously poor film, as indeed must every single individual involved. To be honest I am rather embarrassed to admit I watched it from start to finish. Production values are somewhere between the original series of 'Crossroads' and 'Prisoner Cell Block H'. Most five year olds would be able to come up with more realistic dialogue and a more plausible plot. As for the acting performances, if you can imagine the most rubbish porno you have ever seen - one of those ones where the action is padded out with some interminable 'story' to explain how some pouting old peroxide blonde boiler has come to be getting spit-roasted by a couple of blokes with moustaches - you will have some idea of the standard of acting in 'Maiden Voyage'. Worse still, you can't even fast forward to the sex scenes, because there aren't any. An appallingly dreadful film.


The cast of this film contain some of New Zealander's better actors, many of who I have seen in fabulous roles, this film however fills me with a deep shame just to be from the same country as them. The fake American accents are the first clue that things are about to go spectacularly wrong. As another review rather astutely noted the luxury cruise ship is in fact an old car ferry, decorated with a few of the multi colour flags stolen from a used car lot. Most of the cast appear to be from the (great) long running New Zealand soap Shortland Street. It's as if this movie was dreamt up at a Shortland Street cast Christmas party, the result of too many gins, and possibly a bit of salmonella. Imagine "Under Siege" meets "The Love Boat", staged by your local primary school and directed by an autistic and you get the idea.

If you are an actor, I recommend you see this film, as a study on how to destroy your carer.


Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.

Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.

This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.

Yes, it's that bad.

I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.

Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.


There is only one problem with this website, you can't give a negative rating. Additionally a mate rated this as a D grade movie. I say he was being too nice. A piece of wood could show more emotion that the actors in this movie, and the money used to produce this movie would have been better used to start a fire. This is absolutely terrible, 2 hours of life that anyone who endures this untalented bloodbath will never get back. After watching 5 minutes, myself and the boys wondered if sinking bulk heavies would make this anymore entertaining. Half a carto and a bottle of 151 later I finally found some of this G grade acting remotely funny. It's an insult upon this entire planet that the director thought anyone could find anything beneficial from this more, he should go and buy a rope. And to the actors in this flick, I hope you got paid well to be in this joke because I doubt you will ever work again. In summary I fine everyone in this movie 100 grand and 12 demerit points off your acting licence.


I would list this film under the horror film genre.I did this because I am not aware of a genre called horrible. Since the genre horror comes the nearest to horrible I have decided to put it in this category. The acting was amateurish. You know who the villains would be at the first scene. The heroine is as ugly as the movie. Students of movie making should take this movie as an example for the lesson what not to do in a movie. It is that bad. Man the word bad is an understatement. The villains hijack an ocean liner and want 10 million dollars. They want the money to be delivered on an inhabited Rose Island in the middle of the pacific. They would be sitting ducks after they got the money. Is there no getaway plan. How dumb. The female Cruise Director is a former cop, navy seal, kung fu I am scared. The hilarious part is the way the defuses the time bomb. He says he knows what he is doing and he keeps pulling all the wires one by one. He then puts it in his pocket and according to the movie with all the connections in place. Is he mad? As mad us who watched this RIDICULOUS. If you have a M-i-L whom you do not like. To annoy her rent this movie and pretend you enjoy it. I assure you she will definitely tell your spouse that you have such bad taste and that her son/daughter has married a person below her family standard.