Problem with these type of movies is that literally dozens of them are being made each year. Luckily for use only a handful are given a theatrical release, while the others are being pushed straight to video or TV, such as this movie.

The foremost problem of this movie is really its originality. It's one of those movies which uses the "Die Hard" formula of a tough but troubled guy being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case it's a character played by Casper Van Dien, who works for a security agency that thoroughly test safety procedures for companies and individuals. In this case he's being send to a cruise ship, which of course gets hijacked. You can see this movie as a sort of mix of "Die Hard" and "Air Force One" and the movie doesn't even try to conceal that those two movies were probably its biggest source of 'inspiration'. So really, you can't regard this movie as an original one at all. It uses all of the clichés out of the book and this movie really doesn't offer any surprises or anything that remotely resembles anything original.

Like you can expect from a movie such as this, it has a very weak script. Or rather said, it features some very lazy writing. Like I said before, the movie features nothing original but also the actual story itself features some elements which are far from likely and are just plain ridicules truthfully. I mean, hijacking an huge cruise ship with only about 8 guys, of which halve only carry some small guns and then ask for a ransom of 'only' 10 million dollars, for a ship that is about worth 10 times that amount is itself already quite ridicules. How do they even intend to split that money afterward? Every person gets just over a million or something? That's hardly profitable for such a big and risky undertaking. And then there is the case of taking the passengers hostage. Somehow they manage to take all passengers on the huge ship hostage and they manage to put them inside one room, with only one guy with his pistol, which he can't even seem to be able to hold right, watching them. You never see more than like 30 hostages however, as if they were all the people who were aboard at the time. Also when the Van Dien character goes looking for his son and vice versa, no matter which room they walk in through on the huge cruise ship, they always bump into each other instantly. Just some examples of the lazy writing within the movie.

But it of course is an action flick, so the story of course becomes secondary. But then again, it's not as if this movie features any good action at all. Halve of the actors look as if they had never hold a weapon before and the movie is filled with some ridicules slow-motion. It really becomes laughable at points.

Of course the movie also doesn't feature the best actors, though I must say that Casper Van Dien really isn't a bad 'action hero' and actor, as far as the genre and B-movie circuit is concerned. He just however also suffers from the same problem as Tom Cruise; no matter how old he is, he just never looks convincing enough to play the father of a teenager. Van Dien once started out as a promising new young actor but starring in movies like this really doesn't help his career much. He's probably capable of something better, though he is never really given the right opportunity to show it. All of the other actors also do a fair enough job but their characters are just so formulaic that they never truly become interesting.

Oh well, it's not the worst genre movie I have ever seen but it also ain't exactly the most original or memorable one either.

4/10


What a joke. I am watching it on Channel 1 and I think watching paint dry is much more entertaining. What happened to Caspar Van Dien that got him roped into this nightmare. Terrible acting, very boring plot and terrible direction. It so terrible, it's funny. It's suppose to be full of suspense, but it more a comedy. If you want to see terrible acting, ridiculous script writing and sub-par plot, check this movie out. If I was Van Dien, I would not only ask for my 10% from my agent, but fire the bastard in the process. What a turkey. It's not even fit to be on MST 3K!! It would be a good movie to cure you insomnia. I especially love the part where Van Dien is throw overboard and then makes it back in just a few minutes! I can only image that this was written by non-union writers taking advantage of the writer's strike. What a horrible movie!!!


A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!


I think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.

Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!!


Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole "so bad it's good" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the "bag guy guards" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.

Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.


What a sad sight these TV stalwarts make, running out the clock on their careers stumbling about a little rusting hulk of a ship - boat might be more appropriate. The whole production feels cheap and shabby, and it's not helped by a "big name" star who is barely capable of spitting out the few lines that he's given in a credible fashion.

At no time do the supporting cast rise above the material; they're clearly watching the clock here. Bang out the scenes, get the pay cheque, go home, and try to forget all about it.

It's not particularly badly scripted or filmed; there are no real clangers, it's just utterly anodyne, and shot in a very limited number of cramped sets with a small cast of extras. The pacing is a little bizarre; an embarrassingly tentative romantic sub-plot is only begun after the main action starts, which makes it feel irrelevant.

Maiden Voyage scores a couple of points for being competently scored, and for being a fun game of "spot the Kiwi bit parters"; most of the cast are graduates of Shortland Street or Xena: Warrior Princess. The saddest thing about this production is that this film probably constitutes their big break.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.

This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *


What an incomprehensible mess of a movie. Something about a cop who extracts bullets from himself after he gets shot and keeps them in a glass jar in his bathroom (and from the size of the jar he's been shot about fifty times by now) and a top secret tank guarded by five or six incompetent soldiers who for some reason drive it into Mexico. Whether they were sent there intentionally or just got really really lost is never made clear. And you'll never hear another screenplay feature the word "butthorn" either. Gary Busey tries out the Mel Gibson role from "Lethal Weapon" and while Busey is a serviceable actor the screenplay damns the whole movie to mediocrity. William Smith does another turn as a Russian soldier, the same character he played in "Red Dawn" a few years earlier. After playing biker heavies for most of the 70s it was sort of nice to see him expand his range playing Communist heavies. Sadly he'll probably always be remembered best as the guy who Clint Eastwood whupped in "Every Which Way You Can."


Take "Rambo," mix in some "Miami Vice," slice the budget about 80%, and you've got something that a few ten-year-old boys could come up with if they have a big enough backyard & too much access to "Penthouse." Cop and ex-commando McBain (Busey, and with a name like McBain, you know he's as gritty as they come) is recruited to retrieve an American supertank that has been stolen & hidden in Mexico. Captured with the tank were hardbitten Sgt. Major O'Rourke (Jones) & McBain's former love Devon (Fluegel), the officer in command & now meat for the depraved terrorists/spies/drug peddlers, who have no sense of decency, blah, blah, blah. For an action movie with depraved sex, there's a dearth of action and not much sex. The running joke is that McBain gets shot all the time & survives, keeping the bullets as souvenirs. Apparently the writers didn't see "The Magnificent Seven" ("The man for us is the one who GAVE him that face"), nor thought to give McBain even a pretense of intelligence. Even for a budget actioner, the production values are poor, with distant shots during dialog and very little movement. The main prop, the tank, is silly enough for an Ed Wood production. Fluegel, who might have been a blonde Julia Roberts (she had a far bigger role in "Crime Story" than Julia!) has to go from simpering to frightened to butt-kicking & back again on an instant's notice. Jones, who's been in an amazing array of films, pretty much hits bottom right here. Both he & Busey were probably just out for some easy money & a couple of laughs. Look for talented, future character actor Danny Trejo ("Heat," "Once Upon a Time in Mexico") in a stereotyped, menacing bit part. Much too dull even for a guilty pleasure, "Bulletproof" is still noisy enough to play when you leave your house but want people to think there's someone home.


What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.


There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.


I still can't believe that Wes Craven was responsible for this piece of crap.This movie is worse than "Deadly Friend".The plot is stupid,the acting is mediocre and the film is deadly dull.I don't know why Wes Craven hates his debut "Last House on the Left"-an absolute masterpiece of the genre and likes(probably)this turkey.Don't get me wrong,I really like some of his movies,but it was a real torture sitting and watching this.


Unspeakably discombobulated turkey, a mix of anti-Nazi musical (!!), pre-war Americana and Agatha Christie whodunit spoof with one big, big problem: it's deadly unfunny. Besides the single-digit I.Q. plot and dialog, the most amazing aspect of "Lady..." is the berserk casting. Gene Wilder (star AND co-writer) tries hard at it all: he plays a romantic lead (with his looks!! and his age!! he and Woody Allen should start a club for clueless, mirrorless ageing comedians), and he tries to be moving and funny and poignant and smart, and tries to sing and dance, and succeeds in NONE!! A looong shot from his good old days with Mel Brooks.

For a while I thought I was having a myopia fit, because everybody in the movie keeps saying Cherry Jones is this pretty hot chick, and that Michael Cumpsty is this impossibly handsome stallion!! The guy who plays Claire Bloom's male secretary is a bespectacled balding thin actor as sexy as a chair and is the object of passion of the two leading ladies!! Mike Starr's over-the-top acting as the most incompetent, phoniest cop you EVER saw deserves to rank among the 10 most abhorrent performances in recent film history. The saddest note is to see wonderful Claire Bloom and Barbara Sukowa completely miscast and offensively wasted. At least I hope both stars payed their bills back home (and subsequently fired their agents) with this flop. No wonder acting prodigy Sukowa returned to Germany after she saw what Hollywood had in store for her!!

If you want to see how to accomplish a really bad film out of a really bad script with a berserk casting director, study this one - otherwise stay away!!! - 1/10


(Spoilers galore) This is an absolutely awful film. First of all it has that guy from medium. I guess he's made a career out of playing super doting dads. It was OK the first time he tried to scare his son by pretending to be a monster...but then 10 minutes later they cloyingly did it again! And so it goes, this film moves in excruciating real time. At one point, I started imaging it was days later, until I was reminded that the story line was only at the next day...in the early afternoon still! I'm not really sure who this couple is supposed to be in real life. First of all they are presented as sort of a Manhattan yuppie couple who grew up and had a kid. But they drive an old blue Volvo. Those types stopped driving Volvos decades ago. Today they drive Priuses. But in 2002, I'm sure they still weren't driving Volvos.

OK, then there's Wendigo. A "mysterious Indian man" gives the boy a little magic Wendigo statue and tells him of its powerful magic. C'mon...are we still doing ancient Indian mysteries. Just to drive it home, they pan across every Indian statue in their tourist trap upstate New York town. American Indians are portrayed in a manner not seen for decades in this film! Oh, and about Wendigo. He is not actually the cause of the horror. He doesn't kill the kid's dad which is the most horrible thing in the film...he's just killed by an ordinary hick with a grudge and a high powered rifle. The Wendigo only comes out late in the film to avenge the guy who killed the dad...oh, but wait, it seemed earlier that Wendigo was kind of mad at the dad, maybe because he killed a deer...so then Wendigo must have been happy that the dad was killed...but...

And so it goes...insulting, boring and nonsensical. There is no reason to watch this film at all.


I had never heard of Larry Fessenden before but judging by this effort into writing and directing, he should keep his day job as a journeyman actor. Like many others on here, I don't know how to categorize this film, it wasn't scary or spooky so can't be called a horror, the plot was so wafer thin it can't be a drama, there was no suspense so it can't be a thriller, its just a bad film that you should only see if you were a fan of the Blair witch project. People who liked this film used words, like "ambiguity" and complex and subtle but they were reading into something that wasn't there. Like the Blair witch, people got scared because people assumed they should be scared and bought into some guff that it was terrifying. This movie actually started off well with the family "meeting" the locals after hitting a deer. It looked like being a modern day deliverance but then for the next 45 minutes, (well over half the film), nothing happened, the family potted about their holiday home which was all very nice and dandy but not the slightest bit entertaining. It was obvious the locals would be involved in some way at some stage but Essendon clearly has no idea how to build suspense in a movie. Finally, when something does happen, its not even clear how the father was shot, how he dies, (the nurse said his liver was only grazed), and all the time this wendigo spirit apparently tracks down the apparent shooter in a very clumsy way with 3rd grade special effects. The film is called Wendigo but no attempt is made to explain it in any clear way, the film ends all muddled and leaves you very unsatisfied, i would have bailed out with 15 minutes to go but I wanted to see if this movie could redeem itself. It didn't.


The opening scene of this film sets the pace for the entirety of its ninety minutes. The shots are generic, conventional, and of television movie quality. The snow drenched scenery is gorgeous, yet the characters held with in it have a similar quality to that of looking at a photograph of such scenery, the overwhelming feeling being that of distance. Some of the editing is fairly high quality and the work of an veteran professional, the dialogue however is clunky and artificial, having little bearing on 'real' conversations at all seemingly. Any emotional insight is displaced in favour of swearing, which is of course the way in which everyone shows their true feelings. The action is slow and underwhelming, the overall feeling being one of someone trickling cold water over your head, but so slowly that you barely notice, yet eventually you feel pathetic and slightly sorry for yourself for being caught in such a incomprehensible situation.

The mixture of genres that the Fessenden has seemingly tried to use; psychological thriller, horror and family drama, although commendable suffers from a serious lack of tension and interesting dialogue. The way in which the husband, wife and child trio interact is particularly unrealistic. The themes of family relationships being played out in haunting setting have been covered countless times before by far superior films, an instant example being that of The Shining (1980). The family unit here are torn by innocuous troubles which are hard to understand or sympathise with considering the relative ambiguity of the script.

The family unit is hardly stalked throughout the film, Fessenden playing down the thriller possibilities of the narrative in favour of a slow family drama for the majority of the running time. The 'stalker' figure Otis has few apparent motives for his behaviour and despite being perhaps the most interesting and well acted character is still very underdeveloped. The main characters are empty husks of people who it was extremely hard to relate to, their relationships with each other being particularly void of any sentiment or feeling. Although the ignorance of the Erik per Sullivan's young character by his parents is presumably part of the story, surely any reasonable person would question their son if he allegedly spoke to someone who seemingly doesn't exist? People can accept this film as intelligent because of its relative lack of conventional aspects regarding creature based horror movies but this film fails in respect of whichever genre you wished to pigeonhole it in. You can read deep psychological meanings into every single minute detail of anything if you should so wish to but I think people would be better off over analysing their carpet for some deep emotional meaning, rather than these vacuous sub-human creations.


I first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's "Scary Stories" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.

The movie "Wendigo" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.

Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle") have done far better than this.


This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.

The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).

The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.

The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.

There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.

Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.

I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.


If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.

I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.

My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.


for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??

the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.

don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.

sadly, from a guy from wings.

the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.

if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.


i was disappointed. the film was a bit predictable and did not live up to the hype plastered all over the box. Having said that, the characters were well developed, the windego myth was used in a unique premise and the house was pretty spooky but it just missed for me. I kept waiting for that big AHHHHH or BOO! But it never came.

Furthermore the movie was plagued with poor filming of poor special effects. Thus showing to much of a bad thing and not using atmosphere and viewer imagination to create the horror and suspense. Try movies like Session 9 or the Cube if your looking for a low-budget but well conceived horror movie.


As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie.


if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's).


Anyone who actually had the ability to sit through this movie and walk away feeling like it was a good film does not appreciate quality movies. This movie was an insult to watch, the direction was high school film class quality as well as the cinematography. The Blair Witch Project had better cinematography and I hate that move with a passion! The storyline had the potential to be a very intense very good movie but it fell flat from the first 10 minutes through the rest of the movie. Someone mentioned that this film was about a child's imagination, okay thats all good and fine. But they still could have done better things with this script than what they did. I mean come on, the Indian in the store. Did the kid look at the little idol and suddenly imagine the Indian and the entire story about an Indian spirit called Wendigo? Which they mention to the store employee and she casually says there is no one but me that works here, so you think okay creepy ghost scenario, but then she just barters for the amount on the idol and we forget about the little kid seeing this guy. That was so lame it goes beyond pathetic. The ending left you wondering not only what happened to Otis in the hospital but also with the feeling of OMG!!! Why the hell did I just waste my time watching this!! This is a move that I recommend NOT to watch, there are definitely better quality films out there that won't insult your intelligence! Thank god I never had to pay to see this movie, I would have demanded my money back! For those that were easily entertained by this movie.... it's very sad that you lowered your standards to this level of film making to actually say that it was a good movie.


I remember back when I was little when I was away at camp and we would campout under the stars. There was always someone there that would have a good story to tell that involved the woods that surrounded us and they would always creep me out. Well, when I found Wendigo at the library, I checked it out hoping to be one of those films that had a supernatural being haunting people in the woods much like the stories that were told at camp. Well, much to my dismay, I was so far from the truth. Wendigo is really bad. The story starts of when a family of three is driving to their winter cabin, which looks like your normal suburban home and nothing like a cabin in the woods, and they run into a deer. Well, it seems the local rednecks were actually hunting this particular deer and are pretty upset at our city folk. The movie spends far too much time following the families everyday activities instead of getting to the point of the film. It wasn't until about the last 15 minutes that we actually have some action involving the "wendigo." My suggestion is that you stay very far away this film. It will leave you wanting your hour and a half back.


I've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.

It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.


I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.

Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.

Terrible film.


This wasn't all that great. Not terrible or hateful or anything, just forgettable.

It had a sort of, um, hesitant, diluted air, like it never properly knew whether it wanted to go for laughs or for sweetness or for satire. So we were left with weak mix of the three. The actors seemed kinda lost.

Also, the ideas were really tired and recycled, almost zombified themselves. How many more times do we have to be told the 50's in the States were infected with a banal sense of conformity? And that this was perpetuated by aggressive consumerism? And that emotional repression in men is a baaaaad thing? Old hat.

Its biggest crime in my eyes though was just how detached from reality it was. I know it was a comedy and all, but - especially in a full movie where you must keep the interest of an audience for a prolonged period - you still need some sort of emotional anchor, some relatable guide through the story, to make it engaging. For the 'hero' kid to watch an old woman, two fellow school pupils and ultimately his father die painfully at the hands of zombies or whatever and for him to greet it all with a cheery smile and a shrug of the shoulders, then I just struggle to deal with that in any sort of positive way. The mum was the same. If you make your two main characters so inhuman on that level, then you risk losing me and that's what happened.

Biggest positive I can offer is that I love the look of that sort of apple pie suburbia and this captured it well enough, it was a handsome film, especially some of those wide angled shots of the street and inside the Robinsons' house. Also, the opening newsreel was cute, in a been-done-before-but-still-funny sort of way.

And I thought Billy Connolly was OK and that comes from someone who isn't a big fan of Billy Connolly: Movie Star. I just had this fear he was going to be hamming it up and trying to steal every scene, but he played it pretty low-key for him and probably came out the most sympathetic character in the whole film.

All in all, not great though.


This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.

However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.

The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.

I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.

A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.

4/10


There's been a vogue for the past few years for often-as-not ironic zombie-related films, as well as other media incarnations of the flesh- eating resurrected dead. "Fido" is a film that's either an attempt to cash in on that, simply a manifestation of it, or both -- and it falls squarely into the category of ironic zombies. The joke here is that we get to see the walking dead in the contrasting context of a broadly stereotyped, squeaky-clean, alternate-history (we are in the wake of a great Zombie War, and the creatures are now being domesticated as slaves) version of a 1950s suburb.

It's a moderately funny concept on its own, and enough perhaps for a five-minute comedy sketch, but it can't hold up a feature-film on its own. The joke that rotting corpses for servants are incongruous with this idealized version of a small town is repeated over and over again, and loses all effectiveness. The soundtrack relentlessly plays sunny tunes while zombies cannibalize bystanders. The word "zombie" is constantly inserted into an otherwise familiarly homey line for a cheap attempt at a laugh.

The very broadness and artificiality of the representation of "the nineteen fifties" here can't help but irritate me. It is so stylized, in it evidently "Pleasantville-"inspired way, that it is more apparent in waving markers of its 1950s-ness around than actually bearing any resemblance to anything that might have happened between 1950 and 1959. There is something obnoxiously sneering about it, as if the film is bragging emptily and thoughtlessly about how more open, down-to-Earth, and superior the 2000s are.

Because the characters are such broad representations of pop-culture 1950s "types," it's difficult to develop much emotional investment in them. Each has a few character traits thrown at him or her -- Helen is obsessed with appearances, and Bill loves golf and his haunted by having had to kill his father -- but they remain quite two-dimensional. Performances within the constraints of this bad writing are fine. The best is Billy Connolly as Fido the zombie, who in the tradition of Boris Karloff in "Frankenstein" actually imparts character and sympathy to a lumbering green monster who cannot speak.

There are little bits of unsubtle allegory thrown around -- to commodity fetishism, racism, classism, war paranoia, et cetera, but none of it really works on a comprehensive level, and the filmmakers don;t really stick with anything.

Unfortunately, this film doesn't really get past sticking with the flimsy joke of "Look! Zombies in 'Leave it to Beaver!'" for a good hour- and-a-half.


This would be a watchable Hollywood mediocre if it had a good editing. It relies on the typical American thriller plot - "who is going to outsmart everyone". Acting is below average, but with shining appearance of the detective who is the best actor in the film and he is mostly responsible if the tension in the film rises. Film was completely suffocated by blank video and sound shots and most of it looks like raw film material. All in all, if you don't mind watching a movie that looks like a student film project, this is a film to watch. I guess that would be enough to say on this film, everything else could really spoil the tension that is probably low enough.


Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...


I don't know how to describe this movie. It's definitely one of the weirdest movies I've seen in a long time. It is very unsettling at times but also boring in other places. The scenes of dental torture are very elaborate and may attract anyone who's into gore & splatter. I found myself holding my teeth during some of the aforementioned scenes. The clever thing about the movie is that it plays with our fears and The Dentist is therefore quite unsettling.

The humor of the film is somehow hidden and may not be recognized by everyone. But if you're a fan of weird and strange entertainment and teeth getting drilled to dust this is just the film you were looking for.

If you read the comment and feel somehow attracted by this kind of entertainment, give it a try!

My rating: 4/10 (maybe a little too weird for my taste)


Well, I do like the gore in this movie - it is genuingly unsetteling. Anyone that's been to the dentist will know why. The story really isn't that bad, Corbin Bersen's character's motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies.

I've seen worse acting, directing, script, etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. So it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. I tried to watch the sequel, but it was exactly, exactly the same thing as this movie. Just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist, then this is the movie for you!


There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.

Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...

As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.

5/10.


I really wanted to like this movie, but it never gave me a chance. It's basically meant to be Spinal Tap with a hip hop theme, but it fails miserably. It consistently feels like it was written and acted by high-school kids for some school project, and that's also the level the humor seems to be aimed at. There is no subtlety and, more damningly for a mockumentary, it never once feels like a documentary. And while the lines aren't funny in the first place, an attempt at dead-pan delivery would have helped -- certainly, anything would be better than the shrill overacting we are subjected to.

I'd recommend this to people who like "comedies" in the vein of "Big Momma's House" or "Norbit"; people who think that words like "butt" are inherently hysterically funny. Other people should stay away and not waste their time.


Obviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka "The Shape of Things to Come") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.

Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.

The film opens in 1940 in a London-like "Everytown". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.

That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.

It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.

In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.

But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is "a film about ideas". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.

The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude "progress"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.

That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.

Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the "wandering sickness" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.

Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.

Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his "predictions". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.


I cant describe how terrible this movie is. Am i the only one here who finds the way its animated totaly disgusting? The Men of Rohan look 100% fake with their poorly colored hair, that doesnt even come close to matching what the actors look like. The orcs looked terrible. Why does gandalf walk with a bad limp? Why cant they pronounce things correctly? Saruman isnt Aruman. There were other what sounded like terrible pronounciation*sp* of Tolkiens characters. All and all im glad the studio who made this pulled the plug out from the sequal, it was just a terrible terrible adaptaion. Go watch the hobbit cartoon for a better cartoon of Tolkiens work. Hell, even the cartoon version of ROTK is better then this dribble. 2/10


Some people don't like the animation. Personally, I think the animation was quite remarkable given when this movie was done. There are lots of older cartoons that I just love. My problems with this movie are not the animation, but basically the way it was constructed. The characters are all just... well, goofy. And for this movie, they shouldn't be. Apparently, everyone in LOTR has a limping problem (for starters.) Just the way they acted in general annoyed me. My two sisters and I were laughing through most of this movie. I think that if many people had seen this before seeing the newer ones, they wouldn't have gone. I'm glad I rented this and didn't buy it. There are few movies that give me a headache. This was one of them. However, this isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, although it ranks up there. Or down there, depending on your view.


I saw this movie during a Tolkien-themed Interim class during my sophomore year of college. I was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy- everyone else was laughing, but they weren't within constant eyesight.

Let's get it out of the way: the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' films do owe something to the Bakshi film. In Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, the scene in which the Black Riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in Bakshi's film, shot by shot. You could call this plagiarism or homage, depending on your agenda.

I'm sure the similarities don't stop there. I'm not going to do any research to find out what they are, because that would imply I have some mote of respect for this film. I'm sure others have outlined the similarities- look around.

This movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor, and many, many people died in the accident. I've decided to list what I can remember in a more or less chronological fashion- If I've left out anything else that offended me it's because I'm completely overwhelmed, confronted with a wealth of failure (and, at high points, mediocrity).

*Due to heavy use of rotoscoping, Gandalf is no longer a gentle, wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film).

*Saruman the White is sometimes referred to as 'Aruman' during the film, without explanation. He wears purple and red for some mysterious reason.

*Sam is flat out hideous. The portrayal of his friendship with Frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. Yes, hobbits are small like children, but they are NOT children.

*Merry and Pippin are never introduced--they simply appear during a scene change with a one-sentence explanation. The film is filled with sloppy editing like this.

*Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. One of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back--which was not visible before--and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into "la-la-la"s. AWFUL.

*Aragorn, apparently, is a Native American dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants), complete with huge, square pilgrim belt buckle. He is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie--oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass.

*The Black Riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. They limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. This is disturbing to be sure, but not frightening.

*The scene before the Black Riders attempt to cross the Ford of Bruinen (in which they stare at Frodo, who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever, during which time the Riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and... do nothing else. The scene was probably intended to illustrate Frodo's hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. It turns out to be more plodding than anything else.

*Gimli the Dwarf is just as tall as Legolas the Elf. He's a DWARF. There is simply no excuse for that. He also looks like a bastardized David the Gnome. It's a crude but accurate description.

*Boromir appears to have pilfered Elmer Fudd's golden Viking armor from that Bugs Bunny opera episode. He looks ridiculous.

*Despite the similarity to Tolkien's illustration, the Balrog is howl inducing and the least-threatening villain in the entire film. It looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers, and it's barely taller than Gandalf. "Purists" may prefer this Balrog, but I'll take Jackson's version any day.

*The battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. Almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. I'm not asking for action-packed scenes like those in Jackson's film, but they ARE supposed to be fighting.

*Treebeard makes a very short appearance, and I was sorry he bothered to show up at all. Watch the film, you'll see what I mean.

Alright, now for the GOOD parts of the film.

*Some of the voice acting is pretty good. It isn't that Aragorn SOUNDS bad, he just looks kind of like the Jolly Green Giant.

*Galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal; like Tom Bombadil, she seems immune to the Ring's powers of temptation, and her voice actress isn't horrible either.

*Boromir's death isn't as heart wrenching as in Jackson's portrayal of the same scene, but it's still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book, though I don't believe Jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did).

*As my professor pointed out (between whispered threats), the orcs (mainly at Helm's Deep, if I'm correct) resemble the war-ravaged corpses of soldiers, a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what's being attempted.

*While this isn't really a positive point about the film, Bakshi can't be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie, or so I've been told--the project was on a tight budget, and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher-ups (who I'm sure hadn't read the books).

Let me be clear: I respect Bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. I simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product.

Overall, I cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of Tolkien's classic trilogy even for laughs, unless you've already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters, places and events. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will pick a copy of this up in confusion; if you do, keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it.


I remember going to see the movie in the summer of '78 with my parents, and being pretty into it at the time. Of course, I was seven at the time.

Right before the Jackson movies came out, my wife and I rented this movie since she had never seen it and I was feeling nostalgic.

Ralph Bakshi ran out of money about mid-way through the animation process for this movie, and was forced to drastically cut corners on this production. Since this movie was done primarily with rotoscoping, the animation technique for people on a budget, this is saying something. Much of this movie is animation only in the very loosest sense of the word. There are some scenes which are very obviously just people standing in front of a screen, with maybe some animation effects superimposed on top of them.

Because of budget constraints, the movie -- already a compression of "The Fellowship of the Rings" and part of "The Two Towers" -- was pared down even more. What you get is sort of like a film-strip version of the Cliff Notes of the books.

Its not all bad, though, the animation brings a warmth to it, that I found lacking in the Jackson movies. Its nice to imagine what it could have been like with decent funding.

This movie is also noteworthy for having the sequel which never came. Several years later, a half-hearted half-hour long TV special was aired, which was meant to wrap things up. All I will say about that is that it was a musical.


I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.

The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.


I might have given this movie a higher rating before Peter Jackson's trilogy came out, but seeing the two of them side by side there is simply no comparison. The pace of this movie is rushed, many important scenes from the book are left out, and there is little character development. The animation is a strange mixture of traditional cartoon drawings and live action scenes that were painted over, which I found distracting. And the most disappointing thing about this movie is that it breaks off in the middle of the story and was never finished. There are some good points- the battle scenes are exciting to watch, and the dialogue follows the book pretty much to the letter. Watch this one if you're in a hurry and can't spend 10 hours watching the new trilogy. But if you haven't read the book you'll probably be confused, because there is a lot missing from this version. 4 out of 10.


Watching this again recently, I found it heartwarming to see the way they sincerely tried to bring the book to the screen, even if the shoestring budget and hammy actors meant inevitable failure. By any objective measure this was a disaster, but I found it easy to imagination how good a Lord of the Rings movie could be if someone was to make one sincerely - and with the money to employ the most talented artists and script writers. Unfortunately, thanks to Jackson, that will not be possible for a long time.

Watching this movie left me with the impression that with any sort of budget at all, then this story simply couldn't be stuffed up. Fantasy just provides so many opportunities for making an interesting film. There were many moments in this film that were potentially more interesting than the way that Peter Jackson did it, although of course you always have to use your imagination due to the poor execution. The way they tried to show the wraith world from Frodo's point of view for example. Or the way that Galadriel showed Sam what was happening back home for another.

Another thing I really appreciated in this version - the silent moments. There were moments when dialog was spoken with no background music against a still back-drop. Compare that to the grandiose swooping camera of the Jackson films, and the intrusive score which seemed designed to stress how each and every scene was the most poignant and powerful scene we had ever watched. Jackson's films were full of their own importance, this was quieter and a lot more modest.

Jackson and co hit this with more than US$270 million dollars in production costs, at least $90 million dollars more for marketing, a massive tax break from the NZ government, and also gained massive savings from filming in NZ not the USA. However, despite the marketing claims, the intention to be faithful was never there. This is well documented. Philippa Boyens said as much in an interview, when she said they deliberately didn't re-read the books before writing the script. Jackson also stated that they originally intended to make a fantasy film "along the lines of" the lord of the rings, and that the one he really wanted to do was Return of the King, because it had a lot of battles but no character development.

In contrast, this film tried to be more true. Of course a lot of things were wrong, the acting was awful and pretty much sunk everything, and the pace was too fast. Naturally they cut a lot, and adapted other scenes, and for this they deserve credit. While Jackson added a lot of action scenes that served no plot purpose, Bakshi cut book scenes which did nothing to advance the plot anyway. There's actually a curious similarity between the structure of the Jackson and Bakshi films near the beginning - in that they both deviate from the original books in the same way - although of course some of this could be coincidence.

This was not a good film, but the potential was there. Bakshi said in an interview to the Onion AV club that only animation could do the lord of the rings justice. His version didn't work, but he might have been right.


This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10


I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).

So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.

I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.

None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all.

The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.

I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better.

I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.

3/10


Bashki should be congratulated for attempting to convert one of the great works of English fiction into a movie, and then slapped silly for this attempt. The animation was poor, the characters looked ridiculous, the music was overwhelmingly blaring, and the film was a ramshackle blitz through the first book and a half of Tolkien's masterpiece. I can still remember my sheer disappointment and loathing for the movie when I first saw it. Now I realize that any attempt to convert a book into a movie is bound to fail in many ways, simply because of the medium, but this movie, regardless of the source of the story, is just plain pathetic. Bashki is capable of much more.


The premise and subject about making a criminal realize what his victims went through by capturing his family hostage sounds promising and interesting. But this is the only interesting part which was also dealt 20 years ago with quite finesse by director Ravi Tandon in his film "Jawab'(1985) too. The problem here is Ace Director Rajkumar Santoshi found himself in some sort of confusion as to whether to make it a fast paced action-thriller (viz. Khakee) or an emotions-rich heavy duty drama (Viz. Damini) and this confusion is quite evident in the final outcome. If we ignore two of his-Pukar (2000) and Lajja(2001), this brilliant director has always given us fairly engrossing films with high entertainment value. Therefore this film comes as a surprise, as to what made this script sensitive director going for half-baked characterization of both of his protagonists-Amitabh Bachchan and Aryeman. As the film is getting over, audience didn't know whom to hate and whom to sympathize with and this factor is the major limiting force in the complete narration. Therefore what starts as a war between a common man and an underworld don ends on a strange note of self-realization and regret by the Don about what went wrong with his own family. The revelation of Don's son as a real baddie does not come as a surprise element in the climax which if compared to similar situation in 'Khakee" worked so effectively with Aishwarya's character. That is not all, there is more to it. The whole dramatization of life of an Underworld Don, operating from abroad looks quite illogical. His openly landing up at Mumbai from where he is suppose to be absconding as well as running after his enemies and shooting them himself does not look believable. Pitching a mediocre, newcomer actor like Aryeman opposite Mr. Bachchan is again not a good idea. But nonetheless film has some plus points. Ashok Mehta's fine camera-work, two good fight sequences (co-ordinator Abbas Ali Moughal), some light well-acted scenes of Akshay Kumar in the Ist half, Santoshi's fast-paced slick treatment and of course Mr. Bachchan as usual trying hard to put some life into his lifeless character. But all these put together does not make this viewing an exciting experience for you and your Family!


After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer

RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about

The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled

The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family

The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization

RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore

Music is boring

Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times

Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams

Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes

Bhumika emerges the best of the lot

The rest are okay


Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.

This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.

In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.

Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.

The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.

A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.

But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.

So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.


Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.


Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though!

I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!

The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!


this is not just a bad film, it's one of the worst films ever. it's so bad that i found it to be quite enjoyable. the acting, oh my god, the script, you gotta be kiddin'. how can you imagine the writer coming up with things like: - a kid who makes fireworks in school, fireworks SO powerfull, that when someone gets hit by it, they fly a hundred yards backwards and explode. -a girl is trapped in the celler, the killer is trying to break open the door. she gets a drill, but the wire isn't long enough. she first makes an extension cord, oh the horror, and then, when she's done, she drills through the door and drills through the head of the killer. WOW - and there are plenty more examples like that. oh yeah, and what happened to George Kennedy, he used to be great (Thunderbolt and Lightfoot/Cool hand Luke)


I don't know why I keep doing this to myself!! I keep on defending the Dutch and Belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances...and then they smack you around the head with junk like this! Intensive Care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the Dutch-speaking countries. It's a Dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise, clearly based on mainstrain American slasher classics such as Friday the 13th and Halloween. The producers and writers aimed really high with this, but fell really low. Intensive Care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. It's almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it's only showed on special occasions, like "the Night of Distaste". For exactly 5 minutes, Intensive Care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline...then it changes into a lame and low-brain slash 'n stalk movie with gruesome - yet very hilarious and cheap - make up effects. The acting of the entire cast is abominable, even though there are a few respected names involved. The leading male role is played by Koen Wauters...This guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in Belgium. He's a beloved singer, host of TV-shows and idol of many young girls. He never ever mentions this thing he starred in, though. Like everybody else in The Netherlands, he's trying to convince himself Intensive Care never happened.


I thought "Intensive Care" was quite bad and very unintentionally funny. But at least not as bad as I thought it might be. Sometimes it's somewhat suspenseful, but never a good shocker.

SPOILER AHEAD

The fun lies in ridiculous moments. But the all-time classic moment is this: Peter (Koen Wauters) is stabbed and beaten by the killer. He lies moaning in the corner of the hallway. Amy (Nada van Nie) kneels beside him and asks "Poor Peter, shall I get you a band-aid?".

This movie was shot in Dutch and English. To spare costs, all license plates are USA, and the background in the news studio is a skyline of Manhattan. Very funny if you're Dutch and watching the original version in Dutch.


Koen Wouters is a flemish singer and presenter. In the early ninety's he tried his hand on movies as well. But this unbelievable piece of junk ended his acting career once and for all. It also ended the acting career of dutch actress Nada van Nie who went on being a football-wife a TV presenter and program-maker. I actually did see this in an ( almost empty) theatre because I used to be a fan of the band of Koen Wouters, Clouseau. I so regret spending money on it. It looks cheap, it is a terrible story and it is executed bad in every possible way. Some people think it's so bad it's funny. I am not one of them. I just found it an incredible waste of time and money.


"Intensive Care" by Dorna von Rouveroy is easily one of the worst horror movies ever made.This extremely cheap Dutch slasher flick offers some gore and plenty of absurd situations.A horror veteran George Kennedy is completely wasted as as Professor Bruckner.The acting is abysmal,the action is slow and the climax is laughable.A famous surgeon has a car accident.He lies in a coma seven years and then he wakes up and goes on a bloody rampage."Intensive Care" is clearly influenced by American slasher films including "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" series.The killings are hilarious and the dialogs are painfully stupid.Still if you are in the right mood you can give this piece of trash a look.You'll laugh until it hurts with this one-you can believe me!


This infamous ending to Koen Wauters' career came to my attention through the 'Night of Bad Taste'. Judging by the comment index i wasn't the first and i am not to be the last person in Western Europe to learn that this musician (undoubtedly one of the best on our contemporary pop scene, even the Dutch agree on that) tried to be an actor. Whether he should have made the attempt or not cannot be judged.

In 'Intensive Care' he's quite likable, but he seems to be uncomfortable with the flick in which he is participating. No one can blame him. It deserves its ranking in Verheyen's Hall of Fame by all means & standards. The story of the Murderous Maniac Who is Supposed To Have Died In An Accident But Is Alive And Wrathful has been told dozens of times before, and even without original twists a director can deliver a more than mediocre story through innovative settings and cinematography.

 IC contents itself with a hospital wing and a couple of middle class houses. The pace is dull. The tension looses the last bit of its credibility to the musical score, for every appearance of the murderer is accompagnied by a tedious menacing melody, followed by orchestral outbursts during the murders, which or largely suggested and in any case as bloodless as a small budget can make them. The sex scene is gratuitous but not in the least appealing. The couple from Amsterdamned could have made it work, though. While dealing with the couple subject : the whole subplot between Wauters and the girl does not work. A more effective emotional connection could have been established on screen if they had just been fellow victims-to-be, who loosen their nerves halfway through physical intercourse. I will not even grant the other cast members the dignity of a mentioning, for they should all have been chopped up into tiny greasy pieces. As a matter of fact, most of them do. The ones i recall where obvious for the genre : a pretty nurse and two cops.

Hence, in a slasher, the cavalry only comes in time to need rescue itself. The (anti-) hero has to take out the villain, mostly through clever thinking, for former red berets don't often get parts in these films; they might overcome the illusion of invincibility that surrounds the killer. Translated to the events, Wauters kills the doctor and saves the dame in distress.

No people, i am not finished. This is not how the story goes. Wauters makes his heroic attempt but gets beaten up with a fury that comes close to "A Clockwork Orange", so it is up to the girl to pick up the driller killer act and pierce through the doctors brains. Though this method ensures the killer's death more than the usual rounds of 9mm bullets, the doctor survives in order to enable IC to reach the 80 min mark.

I should have made my point by now. Intensive Care is a bad movie, which can only be enjoyed by Bad Taste lovers, who can verify Verheyen's catchy statements and make some up for themselves and that way try to sit through it. For example, the (unintended) parody value of the doctor's clown mask (Halloween) and the final confrontation in the park (the chase at the end of Friday the 13th).

However, let me conclude by giving an overview by a few measly elements which give IC a little credit. George Kennedy is not one of them. All he has to do is endure a horrible monologue by a fellow doctor/French actor and look horrified when they let him go down in flames in order to tag his big name on a stand-in. He could have played his Naked Gun part again, to end up as beef, but with a longer screen time. The finale may be one of them. I had never seen a maniac being brought down by launching fireworks into his guts in order to crush him against a flexible fence. It is good for a laugh.

Name one good truly point about Intensive Care ... Koen Wauters learned his lesson and devoted himself entirely to his musical career. It makes me wonder how many editions of the Paris-Dakar race he has to abort before coming to his senses.


Well, I'll start by admitting I'm not a John Ford fan. (I watched "The Informer" only because I'm trying to work my way through a list of the "greats.") So if you are, just move along, 'cause you're not going to agree with me.

What an overwrought and dated piece of silliness this is! I will say that there is a good idea for a movie here (it made me think about how few films there are about the Irish Revolution) but, as usual, Ford is determined to bury it under over-acting and cheap sentiment. I suppose it's somewhat interesting to watch for a while in order to see the less-than-seamless transition that was being made from the silents to the "talkies" -- the acting styles of some of the principals have that overbroad quality endemic to early films and movie does feel as if it might play better with title cards than spoken dialogue. (Of course, title cards would prevent Ford from restating every bit of emotion six times.) What dialogue there is usually has a "They're always after me Lucky Charms!" quality that is aggravated by the fact that each actor seems to have been allowed to use his or her own personal version of an Irish accent. Of course, as bad as they are, the accents are helpful in reminding us we're in Ireland because the sets mostly look as if they were dragged in from from some German expressionist piece being filmed on the next soundstage over. (It feels as if, with an eagle eye, you might see some villagers off to torch Dr. Frankenstein in the background.)

Techniques change. Tastes change. So I won't go off on how crazy it seems that this film was so acclaimed in its day. But it's not one of the classics that hold up --- more just "fair warning" about the kind of over-simplified malarkey to which Ford was going to devote his career.


I've seen about 820 movies released between 1931-39, and THE INFORMER is the worst major release I've seen from that time span. Awful, despicable, unpleasant, unhappy, unredeemable saga of a complete Loser. Watch a 1934 B Western instead.


I will warn you here: I chose to believe those reviewers who said that this wasn't an action film in the usual sense, rather a psychological drama so you should appreciate it on that basis and you will be alright.

I am here to tell you that they were wrong. Completely wrong.

Well, no, not completely; it is very disappointing if you are looking for an action flick, they were right about that. But it is also very unsatisfying on all other levels as well.

Tom Beringer wasn't too bad, I suppose, no worse than usual; but what possessed them to cast Billy Zane in this? Was it some sort of death wish on the part of the producers? A way to made their film a guaranteed flop? In that case, it worked.

If they were actually aiming for success, then why not cast somebody who can act? Oh, and might as well go for a screenwriter who knows how to write. Ah, yes, and a director who knows how to direct.

As someone who sat through this mess, actually believing it would shortly redeem itself, I can assure you it never did. Pity, it could've been a good film.


Realistic movie,sure,except for the fact that the characters don't look like to be scared. When Billy Zane tries to kill someone, he feels bad...but he doesn't look like to. That's why I don't like his performance in this movie. Tom Berenger is again playing a soldier. No good thrill, realistic sequences. Not always shooting, that is one great thing. Well filmed. I hate the helicopter sequence, cause only one terrorist kills almost the whole marine bunch...I give it **and a half out of *****


Despite its interesting premise, 'Sniper' is quite tedious. With a tighter script and sharper directing it could have been electrifying; instead it plods along with little tension.


Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.

4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's)


Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.


First of all, I ain't American or Middle-Eastern. Second of all, I don't have a religion. The closest thing to a religion I have are sports and movies. Henceforth, I believe I would be best served to supply an opinion of neutrality and free from bias.

Most of these short films are an utter disgrace. This dreadful event should be used to commemorated all those innocent people whom were murdered by "some" barbaric and uncivilized morons. Instead, most of what I saw in these short films were conceited attempts to score varied political points. Examples:

1) Ken Loach's segment. Sure, we are all sad that this dude had a hard life in his country but what has that got to do with the innocent victims of 2001? Two wrongs don't make a right?! Whatever! This film should have a subtitle for those who have trouble listening to a partially incoherent Chilean-English accent.

2) Most disturbing is Youssef Chahine's segment. It is obvious that he has trouble with logic. He justified the murders due to - America being a democracy and because some Americans voted the politicians in power, then all Americans in the end are responsible for the actions and decisions made by their leaders on the Middle-East. Helloooo! Is this guy for real?? Some Americans don't even vote! Some Americans don't even know where the Middle-East is; some don't even know what religion is practiced there; and majority don't know the real political issues that are played behind the scenes. ### Mr Chahine, the reason why we have all these problems in the world is because there are too many people with your kind of logic. The innocent victims in the Twin Towers came from around the world. The murdered firefighters, rescuers, office workers, by-standers and flight passengers have nothing to do with politics. And yet, we are not allowed to go about our lives because "some" people think everyone has to choose a side or a religion. We are perceived as fair game for the extreme politics.

3) The Israeli segment showed their own bombed victims. Another filmmaker using this event to push their own political agenda. Sometimes, it is not about you. Some people always think about the "me, me, me." Sometimes, it is about other people.

4) Idrissa Ouedraogo's segment is a joke and another political point scorer. They obviously want money from the international community by highlighting their poverty. Blah, blah, blah.

This movie denigrates the memory of "Sept. 11th, 2001" victims.

The best thing for it is the TRASH CAN.


I have never panned a film on-line, but I felt moved to do so, after seeing this one. One doesn't show up at someone's funeral and say to the bereaved, "My relatives died, so why should I care about yours?"

Minus the propaganda, there was little, if anything, that could be called "art." As the daughter of deaf parents, I was particularly annoyed by the use of deafness as a gimmick. Any deaf person feeling a vibration of that immensity would likely have investigated, not ignored it.

The word "chutzpah" comes to mind. As a writer, there are few subjects I would stay away from: the Holocaust is one; this is another. I wish these movie makers had not been so arrogant (and inept).


I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.


Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.


I had been looking forward to seeing this film for a long time, after seeing "Return to Paradise," which I found to be gritty. I was so disappointed. The most realistic thing about it was the unpredictable ending which I think was partly stolen from "Return to Paradise."

Maybe I was expecting too much.

On the positive side Danes, Beckinsale and Pullman were fantastic in their roles. Although I didnt like Danes's character and first and found her very annoying.

I couldnt see anything realistic about the film. It could of been done so much better, for example there could of been more emphasis on the prison conditions and the sheer horror. It was too cheery a movie to be realistic. There could also of been more action and tension

The best thing about this film is the "tragic" ending. I couldnt of predicted that. But by that time I really didnt care what happened to them.

3/10


A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?

In fact, what is the point of it?

The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.

The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.

Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.


Brokedown Palace is not the kind of movie I would ever like to see. I also did not like the movie when some Aussie man smuggled drugs in Thailand and accused Claire Danes and Kate Beckinsale of drug smuggling. I would not go to that country no matter what after I saw this movie. In fact this movie stinks. I prefer to visit Germany to meet beautiful single women. Germany is the country I tolerate. I also would rather stick to the United States instead. After I saw some of the movie in the theatre including the false accusation of drug smuggling, I left the theatre and had my money refunded because I cannot tolerate this movie. If you are going to to Thailand to meet someone there who could be a drug smuggler, forget this!


(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.

In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.

Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".

4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action


Nothing positive to say. Meandering nonsense, huffing and puffing with a "message". New Russian (post-Soviet) films can be very good (Cuckoo comes to mind), yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (Nochnoi Dozor would be a good example). This is a "dozor" type of emptiness. Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. Special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that Blair Witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame?) and takes are geared towards attention-deficit pre-teens who subside on CounterStrike and masturbation. The female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often, male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren't bad: rather expressive eyes.) One (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non-art. Anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the "auteurs".


It's a really cheesy parody of Tomb Raider and some Indiana Jones, the humor's cheesy, and so is the acting. But after all it is a soft core movie, which is expected and doesn't matter because what you really want is the sex. Which gets me to the biggest problem of all, there barely is any of it. Which makes you feel like you're watching TV at 3 am and the independent movies are playing and the one that is on was made by some college kid that's going nowhere in that industry. You're left a very long time waiting for an actual sex scene, a lot of times you are thinking something is going to happen, then just left hanging. The one(maybe two, or one with two parts)that actually goes somewhere is very pleasing though. I personally can't recommend this unless you found it in a clear out bin for a dollar or two. If you lucking for a good movie with a plot and good acting, you don't want this. If you looking for a good soft core lesbian film, you don't want this either.


**Possible Spoilers**

This straight-to-video mess combines a gun-toting heroine, grade-Z effects, nazis, a mummy and endless lesbian footage and it's still boring; the video's 45 minute running time only SEEMS like Eternity.The only good part is one of the blooper outtakes, wherein the bad guys force a 400-pound Egyptologist into a chair--and one villain's foot almost gets crushed under a chair leg. Take this snoozer back to the video store and watch televised golf, bowling or tennis instead.


This movie is not for the faint or weak of heart. It couldn't decide if it was going to be porn or legit. It was neither one. It was just bad. There was nothing in this movie to make me want to see anything else made by these people again.


Someone had a great idea: let's have Misty Mundae do her own, R-rated version of Lara Croft - firing two guns not only in skimpy outfits, but topless as well. It WAS indeed a great idea. The problem is that the people who had it couldn't come up with any sort of script or budget to support it. Therefore, we get a "film" that barely reaches medium length by replaying many of its parts (often in slow-motion), and was apparently shot entirely inside a garage. The appeal of Misty Mundae is still evident: she is unbelievably cute and has a natural girl-next-door beauty. However her two female co-stars here, with whom she shares a lengthy lesbian scene, are nowhere near her league. If "Mummy Raider" was presented as a Youtube video, I'd rate it higher, but as a "film" destined for DVD consumption it cannot get more than 1/2 a * out of 4.


Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.


I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing. The film only runs for forty five minutes, and this is definitely a good thing as there isn't nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. It has something to do with an evil Nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a Nazi scientist ever could), a mummy, which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and Misty - this film's version of Tomb Raider, who keeps her top on for much less time than Angelina Jolie did in the big budget version. I have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings, this film could have been better. It's got Misty Mundae for a start, and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter Darian Caine. The pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a Seduction Cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot, although that isn't really a bad thing. Obviously, this is a rubbish film - but the fact that it's short is to its credit, and if you're after a bit of lesbian sex, you could do worse.