Bug Buster (1998)

4/10

Not funny enough to be a horror-trash-classic!

siggirules21 January 2021

For people that really enjoy trashy low budget horror movies that don't take themselves serious, there is definitely something here. However Bug Busters is too inconsistent to fall in the cult classic or hidden gem category.

Rany Quaid as gun-tooting, ex-military pest exterminator is on fire, unfortunately he only appears on the scene in the last 25 minutes (besides some funny commercials), the rest of the cast is a bit hit and miss, especially an early performance from Katherine Heigl. The tone is inconsistent here while some actors go for camp, others play it straight, it's neither here nor there until the movie finally commits for the third act.

Don't expect too many memorable effects either, the practical effects look dated and where not really great back when this was released either. So I recommend it to trash fans, but you might want to fast forward quite a bit during the first our.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

Quoth Randy Quaid: "I'm gonna kick some bug a**!"

jcaraway34 October 2009

Warning: Spoilers

I can't say there's anything truly original about the plot: A family moves out to the country to avoid the pressures of city life, only to find out there's something much, much worse waiting for them in Mountainview. This movie appears to want to be a parody of bug movies, but only succeeds in bringing campiness to a new level. If this movie were made ten years earlier, I would have enjoyed it. I just can't stand bad 90's and 00's digital effects. I think they show the same digital shot of rain and the bugs coming out of the water at least four times. Randy Quaid's face is proudly presented on the DVD cover, but I think he was one of the weakest parts of the whole movie. All his character does is say things like "I'm gonna kick some bug a**!" and shoot various firearms. In fact, I think the movie got 100 times worse once he actually showed up outside of his commercials. Scotty and Mr.Sulu appear in this film (what, the filmmakers couldn't get Captain Kirk and Spock?), but oddly enough never share a scene together. I did notice one unusual thing though: The two stupid youngsters attempting to make love at the lake are supposed to die in their first scene but don't: They actually die in different, later parts of the movie. So, overall, a fairly weak entry in the evil bug parody sub genre, which goes slowly downhill once Quaid shows up, with an exceptionally weak climax and a lame "suprise" ending.Well, I really shouldn't complain. I only spent $3.99 on it(used)after all. Well, I'm gonna go kick some bug a** now. Good night.

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

4/10

Unfunny & unscary comedy horror creature feature.

poolandrews26 April 2008

Warning: Spoilers

Bug Buster is set in the Californian town of Mountview thirteen years after the place was dusted with an experimental pesticide. Gil Griffin (Bernie Kopell) has brought a lodge in Mountview & together with his wife Cammie (Anne Lockhart) & teenage daughter Shannon (Katherine Heigl) move in, however what should be a dream life quickly turns into a nightmare as several dead bodies start popping up around the town. Bodies infested with Cockroach like insects, local veterinarian Laura Casey (Brenda Epperson Doumani) haven't seen anything like them before & thinks they may be a new species. A new species that are gradually wiping out the town...

Co-produced & directed by Lorenzo Doumani this creature feature from the late 90's is a pretty forgettable & uneven mix of comedy & horror that feels like it was conceived as a cheap rip-off of Mimic (1997). The script by Malick Khoury has your standard creature feature scenario, some sort of genetically altered insect/animal starts killing off humans in some isolated location. Here for the most part it's Cockroaches although the script has plenty of holes in it. If these attacks started thirteen years after the pesticides were used what were these bugs doing for that amount of time? Why is there only one big mother bug when that Professor guy managed to make one hatch simply by putting one of the Cockroaches in water? There were also loads of eggs in the mine so why did none of those hatch? Then there are the character's whom are poor, the comedy relief bug buster General George is irritating, Shannon remains remarkably calm despite both of her parents being killed by the bugs, the fat garage attendant only there so he can sit on a toilet & fart a lot for more childish comedy relief as well as the subplot about a local resident who wanted the bugs to kill everyone so he could buy the whole town cheap & make money in the long-run which is forgotten about as soon as it is mentioned. The film also takes ages to get going, everyone goes round in circles for the first seventy odd minutes, people are dying & the local authorities discover that bugs are responsible & then spend ages going back & forth doing nothing in particular.

Director Doumani misjudges the tone badly, there are some really childish, silly & just downright embarrassing slapstick comedy moments that don't work at all & are far from funny. Then the horror content is downplayed & neither the comedy or horror elements satisfy. It's certainly not scary, the scene showing Cockroaches crawling over Shannon while she is asleep is as creepy as it gets & as such the exact same scene is show no less than four times. There's no gore at all apart from one mouldy corpse. The special effects are poor too, the guy in a bad rubber suit mother bug at the end looks terrible as does the CGI. There are also lots & lots of blatant references to other films like in Scream (1996), from Jaws to The Wizard of Oz to Outbreak.

According to the IMDb Bug Buster had a budget of about $8,500,000 which amazes me. In fact I am positive that Bug Buster didn't have anywhere near that much money, I think the IMDb has made a mistake & put one '0' too many. The film looks cheap & is forgettable in every respect. The acting is mixed, Randy Quaid is truly terrible & only turns up for the last twenty odd minutes. Katherine Heigl is alright & she is a real babe which helps. Two Star Trek actors make cameo appearances, James Doohan better known as Scotty & George Takei better known as Sulu have small roles. They never actually meet each other on screen though.

Bug Buster is a poor creature feature that adds nothing new to the genre & is a badly judged uneven mishmash of comedy & horror. I was disappointed & I can't see too many people enjoying this.

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I was in the movie...

yonhope7 March 2004

Hi, Everyone,

I was the keyboard player in the band "Trailer Park Trash" in the movie. Fortunately they misspelled my last name in the movie credits. No, just joking. It was a fun experience (making the movie was fun, watching it was a little excruciating).

Johnny Legend and Melba Toast and I had performed lots of times at various Country Music spots in L.A. over the years of the 80s and 90s. We performed for the producer at some of his Christmas parties. He decided to use us for the scene in the lodge. It was very very hot when we did our scene. It was over 100 outside and hotter inside. The air conditioning had to be turned off while we were filming.

It was nice to work with the cast and crew. The movie turned out pretty bad but still fun to watch if you have friends over on a Saturday night and you want to laugh at the screen. Maybe the perfect DVD to get for your mother-in-law or your wife's attorney.

The bugs that attacked Johnny Legend during our musical numbers were very real. Not some special effect. There was a "bug wrangler" on the set. They are some kind of cockroach from South America or somewhere and they are as long as a grown man's index finger and as fat as a man's thumb.

I would like to say something really good about the movie but I will have to come back if I can think of something.

Tom Willett

11 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Cheap & Nasty

Meredith-726 July 2004

Although I assume this film is meant to be tongue in cheek, it is still one of the worst comedy/horror films of all time. While I was watching this all I could think of was how good Arachnophobia actually was. The acting in this film is really average, it was disappointing to see an actress such as Meredith Salenger, who showed such promise in her younger years, reduced to a supporting role as a bimbo. Katherine Heigl was very wooden in her role, but then again...she did not have much to work with. The special effects at the end are shocking, quite reminiscent of Godzilla 1985, but this was made late 90's (there have been many technological advances since then...)Doesn't even rate as a B movie in my book, probably best to stay away from this film at all costs.

6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

Yet Another Randy Quaid Turkey

Gislef3 December 1999

My wife can't stand Randy Quaid (except in ID4), and I'm beginning to come around to her point of view. Actually, though, he's the comedy highlight (sad but true) of this really weird rip-off of Arachnophobia. He plays the John Goodman character, except less seriously. His self-styled "bug commando" resembles nothing less than Wyle Coyote as he detonates a hand grenade on himself but is later "recovering nicely" by the end of the movie.

For extra fun, you can watch Star Trek vets George Takei and James Doohan humiliate themselves. If only they could have got Nichelle Nichols, Grace Lee Whitney, and Marina Sirtis, the cast of has-been Star Trek actors would have been complete.

Oh, the plot? Well, it's somewhat of a mess. There are these roaches (although sometimes they're worms and sometimes they're really big mosquitos - not for the screenwriters the hobgoblins of consistency and continuity!) and they're overrunning a small lakeside community. There's no real explanation for this. The local sherriff (Doohan) seems to be in on this (he's taking advantage of the devalued property to buy up the land cheap), but maybe he isn't. Maybe he's being controlled by the "queen" roach. Maybe he isn't. It's hard to tell.

Essentially the bugs get inside human bodies and eat their way out after breeding within. The daughter of a local lodge owners is the heroine, inexplicably stalked by a Peeping Tom who preaches doom and despair (what he has to do with the movie's plot is never made clear either, although we do get to see her in near-naked once or twice).

Anyhoo, she becomes romantically involved with the local bad boy (who is being stalked by the local even badder girl, who meets a suitably gory end), and together they must try to defeat the roaches. A few more people die, including Takei's scientific character (poor George seems to have picked up William Shatner's acting style through osmosis - oh the humanity!), and Bernie Kopell and Anne Lockhart (in the middle of a sex scene - ugghhh!).

Our hapless heroes must call in General Merlin, Quaid in a remarkably low-budget role for him (he usually humiliates himself in much bigger films) as a military man turned bug exterminator. They eventually wander off, find the roaches lair, defeat the queen roach (after she finishes off a big slab of ham, i.e., James Doohan), and even though there's at least one other giant bug out there (the one that killed Takei's character), and the female scientist and the surviving deputy are making ominous "something is out there still" noises, the heroine drives off the end for a shock ending that will surprise absolutely no one.

The CGI of the giant queen roach isn't bad, but watching Quaid spar with the puppet version (complete with unconcealed wires) has to be seen to be believed. The rest of the movie is typical gross-out fodder. There seems to be a kind of tongue-in-cheek intent here, but that only works if the movie is funny. It isn't. Sorry.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

God Awful!

Spock-83 January 2004

Gross, idiotic farce of a horror film It greatly pained me to see James Doohan and George Takei taking part in this movie! I can't imagine anyone needing the money that bad! Say what you want about their acting abilities, but this is Scotty and Sulu of the legendary Star Trek genre! James, George, the next time you need money, please contact me. I'll do whatever I can to help.

3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

2/10

A silly mockery of a horror flick.

michaelRokeefe21 May 2000

What good can you say about this. Well...some of the scenes of very large cockroaches are interesting. The story is stale and the cast is as exciting as a rerun of LOVE BOAT. May be too scary for the pre-teens this is geared to attract.

A retired couple buys a lakeside resort in time for the arrival of killer cockroaches. The nasty critters end up meeting their match when a crazed exterminator's hot line is called.

Most of the cast is past their prime: Bernie Kopell, James Doohan and George Takei. Randy Quaid is the self proclaimed best of the bug busters. The alluring Katherine Heigl shows promise of a future. Lame enough for a laugh.

2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

this movie is ATROCIOUS

ifh16 September 2000

let me put this in a perspecive that everyone will understand -- this is randy quaid's WORST movie. please, i am begging that you not lose respect for me simply because i sat through the movie long enough to make that judgement. for the record, it was 3am, i had already watched sportscenter 4 times that day, and SNL was not on comedy centrel. we all have some deep, dark secret that we are ashamed of, the fact that i watched this movie happens to be mine.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Is Lorenzo Doumani the Reincarnation of Ed Wood?

claudio_carvalho24 May 2006

In the small lakeside town of Mountview, in California, the Major decides to pulverize a dangerous substance to protect the local plantation. Thirteen years later, a harmful and lethal species of cockroaches appears nearby the lake, threatening and killing the local dwellers. The famous exterminator General George S. Merlin (Randy Quaid) is called to fight against the bugs.

Yesterday I was walking around downtown of Rio de Janeiro, and I found this DVD on sale for less than US$ 3.00. When I saw the names of Star Trek crew James "Scotty" Doohan, George "Sulu" Takei, Randy Quaid and the delicious Katherine Heigl in the cast I immediately bought and saw it at night.

The story of "Bug Buster" is simply ridiculous and the performances are awful, being difficult to highlight the worst in the "amazing" cast: the hero David Lipper, in the role of Steve Williams? Ty O'Neal, the smart Deputy Bo? Meredith Salenger, the slut Veronica Hart? George Takei, the crazy entomologist Professor Hiro Fujimoto? Randy Quaid, the exaggerated General George S. Merlin? I believe the correct answer would be all of them. Further, the cheap special effects are laughable. But this director Lorenzo Doumani is "hors-concours", seeming to be the reincarnation of Ed Wood. In spite of being so bad, the most impressive is that in the end I liked this flick, and I laughed a lot. It has also a great potential of cult-movie, a big joke, missing only the usual naked women, or the breast of Katherine Heigl to complete the appeal. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Baratas Assassinas" ("Cockroaches Killers")

14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Scotty, Beam this movie outta here!

ebert_jr19 April 1999

Truly Abysmal. Not even "B movie" material. Try a D-, and that's being generous. How some of the original star trek cast ended up here is a mystery. I'm almost certain this movie resulted in some hollywood producer's son wanting a crack at directing and being handed his shot. An excruciating mess.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

This is one of the funniest films since Leprechaun!

ukotranto12 October 2002

Well, what can I say? What is wrong with you guys! Its pretty obvious you have missed the entire point of this film: to entertain! So the effects aren't great and the cast isn't A-list but who cares when you have old man Judediah bumbling round the town wide eyed and slack jawed ranting and peering through Katherine Heigl's window while she showers! And they say he is mad!

Randy Quaid has been in a few duff films but this is by far his best to date! Watch the General George adverts to see what I mean.

Its obvious that a country that finds Benny Hill funny would miss the point of a film like this. Just remember one thing, we only sent him to you because we got tired of his abuse of short bald old men.

Who cares if the guy used to be in the Love Boat? Who cares about ex Star Trek cast members? So they were in ST, they aren't now so get over it. George Takei did very well considering all his scenes featured no other humans (including the opening scene!)

A true classic of the B movie genre. You guys stick to your What Women Want and your Runaway Brides. I'm going to turn on, tune in and Kick Bug Ass.

Its ok, the General said so.

At ease.

Peace, Out.

If you enjoyed this film, may I recommend Leprechaun too?!

8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

I dunno how you can hate this film.

Agent_Smoulder19 April 2021

If the title didn't put you off of this film I don't understand how you could make it past a trailer or the description in order to slam this with a score lower than a 4, it's really not worse than a 4 even when taken completely objectively.

I'm assuming that most of the low ratings are from people under the mistaken impression that some of the people in this film are these great actors. They're not but they are good at delivering lines and showing the pepper emotion the scene requires.

If you think of a movie going for something a bit more on the goofy side instead of the seriousness of Tremors you're in the right frame of mind. Randy Quaid's General George is like a scenery chewing version of the Burt Gummer character from Tremors 2.

There are some pretty shocking deaths in this film that you will not see coming and the second half of the film really makes up for the more SyFy original moments of the first half.

Also that band is great!

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Squish!

Preussener17 August 2003

The writer alone should be tortured to death! Usually bad movies are at least funny but this is painful. Scotty and Sulu should not have beamed down for this turkey. They were particularly horrific. Wow, what a stinker! I'd like to meet the dumb jack-asses that put up the production money for this one. I could use some extra cash.

1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

If you think this is bad, you don't watch many movies...

innocuous19 April 2003

Come on, people! This is one of the "worst" movies you've ever seen? I can think of dozens of much worse movies. Take a look at another bug movie, "Mimic", that played on the SF channel today right after "Bug Buster". Is it really any better than "BB"? "BB" is a low-budget movie that doesn't take itself seriously. It doesn't try to be anything more than it is. Randy Quaid does an excellent job of playing the same character he always does. The dialogue and special effects are often (intentionally) hilarious.

This is not a work of art, but it's a heck of a lot better than half the pretentious, over-produced junk currently coming out of both Hollywood and the indies. Take a chill pill, kick back, and watch it for what it is...not what you think it ought to be.

If you want a genuinely bad (i.e., just about unwatchable) movie, check out John Waters' "Multiple Maniacs" or some other truly deserving dreck.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Terrible

AL01-312 July 2000

Katherine Heigl is beautiful as always. That's about the only positive comment I can make about this film. This movie is revolting and insulting, and the supposed jokes and gags aren't even unintentionally funny.

If you want to see a movie about insects that infest and devour people from the inside, then this is the film for you. If you want to be entertained, see something else.

1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

A collective of cut-rate actors, the cast should be a warning.

xanadubbs17 October 2000

With a Jame Doohan (Scotty), George Takei (Sulu), and Bernie Kopell (Doc from 'Love Boat') I knew this was a turkey, but I said, "What the hey.", and rented it for 50 cents. I expected to see them make a movie poking fun at B-movies but they are actually trying to be serious! No StarTrek or Love Boat chiche' was even attemped by the writer. There should be something to be said about the director being related to the actress (wife/girlfriend/mom who knows?) that plays the town's Doctor who is a vet. What really makes this movie so awful is, actors acting worse than you ever could expect them to act. The 'dream sequence' is played three to four times in the movie and never makes a plot connection. The bugs used are the standard hissing cockroaches and the 'Mother Bug' at the end of the movie is beyond disappointment. I would rather sit in a doctor's waiting room for an hour or two than sit through this one again.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Wow.....a lesson for us all

BradleyUK19 June 2003

What an incredible film. Incredible in the fact that the Cast & Crew have admitted they made it, and that it actually got released. Thankfully it did and a copy made it to a local news agent in east London and was then purchased by a friend of mine (5 DVD's for £10 or some other offer) The joy I had watching this was like scratching the soles of my feet, it tickles & irritates & annoy's yet at the same time it relieves them and i want to do it more..argh!!! The acting IS the worst i've ever seen (I watch a lot of rubbish movies) the script is just as bad & Randy Quaid deserves an Oscar for the worst performance by a 'trained' actor. I loved the use of Star Trek old timers, there performances just add to the badness of the whole production. This is a perfect example that the saying 'its so bad its good' isnt always true. Plan 9 fitted into this catogory yet this film seems too knowledgable of its own badness to pull it off. After saying all this bad stuff i must admit I havent laughed so much for years. I advise all people into film to watch this as an example of how bad films can be & how much we should appreciate it when a decently scripted,acted & directed film hits the silver screen......think i might watch it again after all this talk...i need a good laugh.....1/10 (although 10/10 for being such a freak of a film) P.S. Many thanks to my so called mate for lending me this pile of.....

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

90 minutes I won't get back!!!

sidmsdw23 June 2014

Absolutely worthless, mirthless would-be comedy/horror trash! If you like your low-budget horror slow-moving and completely without any kind of tension or scariness, well, my friends, you're in luck! This is the movie for you!! No scares, no nudity, no sexual tension (despite the presence of a coupla skin-worthy starlets), precious little gore... Thanks for wasting my time, BUG BUSTER! I hope the filmmakers die from cancer of the soul. That's what I felt like watching their putrid turd of a half-witted effort. Any movie that can waste the efforts of likable talents like Katherine Heigl and Meredith Salenger and Bernie Kopell has really not got a lot going for it. We won't even speak of the wasted time and efforts of our favorite STAR TREK supporting players George Takei and James Doohan. Hope you got sizable checks for this, guys.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

The Single most Idiotic Movie Ever Made

chev827 January 2001

Lets get straight down to it: The single most idiotic movie ever made. I cannot believe that any actor, director, or producer would decide to take part in it, let alone why someone would write it. Is it supposed to be funny? Scary? A Sci-Fi? I have no clue. It is an insult to any of the actors in it, especially Randy Quaid, who is a favorite of mine. And as for the "special effects", they look like a mixture of cheap puppets, glue, and the first Godzilla and King Kong movies. I will never talk about this movie again, even to ridicule it, because Im embarassed that i watched it the first time

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Worst movie ever made!

drdre128 December 2000

Clearly, the is the worst movie I have ever seen. Total stupidity in all aspects and I have lost all respect for Randy Quaid as an actor. This movie makes Bloody Murder and Dude, Where's My Car look like Oscar Contenders for Best Picture. This movie gets a rating of 1 only for the sight of the beautiful Katherine Heigl.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

Beam Me Up Buggy

jcholguin16 August 2003

The title itself makes you believe that this would be a terrible film but don't judge a film by its title. This is a fun film because of the characters involved. James Doohan as the sheriff is once again a man with a mission, to solve murders involving bugs killing people. George Takei as Dr Fujimoto is wonderful as he steers toward the truth of this new species of bug. Bernie Kopell and Anne Lockhart as a married couple that have the bad luck of buying a hotel resort in the area makes you wonder if Bernie turns to Anne and says "sorry about that, honey!" Lastly, Randy Quaid as an overbearing bug exterminator with funny commercials and his overbearing personality is just wonderful for attacking slimy creatures. Death by being indigested by hungry insects in unusual places: a musical instrument and a theater showing a horror film is just perfect. A must see if you want to enjoy a warm night viewing old friends from television's glory days.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Lord have mercy!!!

gothicgoblin133427 April 2006

Warning: Spoilers

I watched this 'bum-kickin' film with my friend one day in the UK while we were eating lunch and flipping through channels. To our surprise, we found the name of this movie, 'Bug-Buster' with RANDY QUAID! You know, the guy who was 'mad' at Clark...immediately, we went to the Sci-fi channel (we saw the name on the Guide) and what do you know? We start laughing and singing the Ghostbusters theme while we eat and laugh AT this pitiful film...let me begin by saying: well, this is obviously a low-budget spoof on good films by David Cronenberg (one of Hollywood's most authentic and genius visionaries) Ed Wood, and Roger Corman (the others don't need an introduction...) Basically the film, well, I question the PG-13 rating first of all... (Moans and sighs) Basically the film is about some drunk and ignorant teens that discover these tiny low-budget bugs and their queen. Here's a spoiler: THE Sheriff Is Working for the Bug!! No kidding, actually. You really have to see this film to believe it.

0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

I wish it were worse

eminges22 July 2002

See, when I go to my local used tape store, I write down a bunch of titles and check 'em out on imdb. I got Bug Buster on the basis of the seriously negative reviews, and, by and large, it was pretty bad.

The big problem is that Lorenzo Wossname that directed this bumph doesn't know how to move his actors around on a set and have them speak clearly and distinctly into the camera, moving their hands when required to convey emotion-OK, OK, the guy can't direct for squat. The plot creaks when it moves, and the only original thought in the entire movie is turning Bernie Kopell into a love god.

And, yeah, the Quaid sucks on toast. And, yeah, the Julie Brown character is even worse. But, dammit, Meredith Salenger overcomes the lousy direction, and her last scene is really disturbing and convincing, to the extent that I replayed it just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating from too much Diet Dr. Pepper. And the Mama Bug at the end wasn't half bad, for having been constructed at a total cost of a new Kia Sephia with a crappy radio.

So, frankly, I wish it'd been a lot worse. If I lay down five bucks for a used tape, I want it to bite majorly. I want it to make Night of Horror look like The Innocents. I want to strengthen my belief in the futility of human endeavor.

This wasn't bad enough. Sure, it's a mess, both completely unbelievable and with every plot twist and virtually every line stolen from somebody else. But it's nicely shot, Johnny Legend is in it and is pretty good, Meredith Salenger overcomes an earlier speech she was forced to make at gunpoint about how nice her boobs are and does something she can be proud of, and the Mama Bug provided an OK finish.

Rats. Oh, well. On the same trip I also copped Pink Motel, and I have high hopes.

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed