Reviews

This is the first movie I've seen where Ninjas use rollerskates with blades sticking out of the sides. Where do they sell those things? I want some.

So the movie is pretty bad, yes. Bad enough to be funny? Sure. It's not the best bad movie out there but it does have its moments. One key bad element is the completely unconvincing fighting on display. There are moments where I know I could have done better, and I have no training in the area whatsoever. Particularly bad is the final showdown at the end. I'm not going to ruin it for you by revealing who's fighting who. I will mention that it was one of the crummiest attempts at portraying a fighting move in the history of cinema.

Another reviewer mentioned the bad acting on the part of the woman who portrays the hero's wife. She is the worst actor in the film, but I quite liked her scenes. She managed to deliver each of her lines in such a way that any dramatic tension that could have existed was vanquished. She's fun. Troll II, anyone? She could easily fit in there.

It's not all the fault of bad acting, either. Some of the attempts at buddy-picture humor between the main guy and his kickboxing friend are dead at the script level.

If you like bad movies, go ahead and check this one out. And stay tuned to the end, because immediately before the credits we are treated to stirring orchestral music while we see clips from the film we've just watched followed by the title, LETHAL NINJA. I think they want to you feel like you've just watched an 80-minute epic.

Yeah, this is a B-movie and it isn't terribly original. A computer whiz figures out a way to monitor the machines at various Las Vegas casinos and he and his girlfriend make a killing. Some thugs get interested and kidnap them and force them to give them the ill-gotten money. The rest of the film consists of Bo Svenson (a cop) and Fred Williamson (a helicopter pilot for hire) trying to track down the thugs and recover the money.

Fred and Bo make a great team, and even though the buddy-formula is cliched, they make it work. The chase scenes are ridiculously long, but they are completely entertaining. And the score, what can I say about that insane score? It pops up in so many variations throughout the film and I cannot get it out of my head.

Some bad films I watch just to laugh at. Somehow this is a bad film that makes me feel like I'm laughing with it.

I do realize that I may be the only one in the world who loves this film. It also contains the most insane scene involving made-up computer gibberish ever (so it just changed from an 'A' to a 'B'?). You gotta love Bo Svenson.

"I don't give a damn, I am the Cobra." That is a terrific theme song. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't come close to High Crime or Street Law. But Day of the Cobra has its moments. Most of these moments are courtesy of Franco Nero. This guy is fun to watch even if he's just endlessly running or descending stairs. I was pretty entertained for about the first third of the film. After that, the plot started to lose some of its sparkle. The whole father/son subplot where we cut to scenes of Nero and his son playing baseball or discussing how they'll "be together forever" just didn't seem to fit. Overall, a good film but not the best Nero/Castellari collaboration.

Bad. Avoid. Oh, I suppose I should be more specific. This isn't really a direct sequel to War Bus. The first one took place in Vietnam, this one takes place in Afghanistan. And if you've seen the first one, you know that this can't really be the same bus anyway. The two films share none of the same characters. First, I should explain that I love bad, silly, cheesy movies that make me laugh. That is why I sought this out. C'mon, it's got Mark Gregory! Thunder from Thunder Warrior I-III! Trash from 1990:Bronx Warriors & Escape from the Bronx! My hopes were set high, and I was completely disappointed. The first War Bus was a solid, albiet unrealistic, war flick. This one is boring. There's not a whole lot to laugh at and there are but a few fleeting glimpses of competence. So if you're looking for a good war film, rent the first War Bus instead. If you're looking for a good Mark Gregory film, THIS IS NOT IT. But hey, if you're reading this, you'll probably ignore me and just watch it anyway. I understand, I'd do the same thing.

This is not the funniest war movie ever made, don't believe that for a second. I found this an enjoyable way to waste 90 minutes. The acting is bad? I didn't think so. You want bad acting, watch Troll 2. Bad special effects? Wrong again. Actual things actually blow up real good. I liked the characters as well. No, it isn't realistic. You want realism, go watch Band of Brothers. This film is just fun, that's it. The dialogue isn't laugh-inducing, either. Do yourself a favor and skip the sequel, though. Even the brilliant Mark Gregory can't save that one.

I just saw this at the cheap theater, and I'll just say it wasn't good and leave it at that. There was an element of the movie that amused me, and scanning through the 50 previous posts here, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned it yet. The killer wears fencing garb, right? The killer obviously wears the outfit & fencing mask to disguise his/her identity (I won't spoil the thrilling surprise of who the killer is, even though the red herrings are so abundant it could have been anybody). Okay, the disguise is fine, the masked killer is a fine old slasher tradition and the fencing gear is a new costume. Here's the funny part: at two different points, the killer puts another disguise ON TOP OF the fencing disguise. Once the killer puts a monster mask OVER the fencing mask. Another time the killer dresses up like a miner, donning a cowboy-type felt hat ON TOP OF the fencing mask. Huh? I guess the fencing gear was for the audience, so we didn't get confused and think that there were two or more killers. Then, for variety, the killer decides to put on another costume for the victims, presumably, although that doesn't make much sense, either.

VICTIM: Ohmygod! A miner is coming to kill me with a pickaxe!

(The killer removes the miner's hat)

VICTIM: Ohmygod! It's really someone in a fencing outfit with a pickaxe coming to kill me!

If you insist on seeing this movie (as I foolishly did), at least keep your eye out for that. It's funny, and perhaps the movie's only saving grace.

End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.

I recently rented this on DVD and first I want to say how happy I am that ADV, the company that released this, is providing the option of watching these movies in japanese with english subtitles. I personally do not enjoy watching dubbed movies, but often I find there is no other option. About the movie: the DVD contains an advertisement for the series, which I have not seen, but this "motion picture" seems complete in itself. The animation was not spectacular, but it wasn't too bad, either. I loved the story and characters. The movie felt like an epic, even though it runs only 80 or so minutes. A boy sees his father, a pacifist king, murdered by his own elite guard, and is run out of the kingdom. He heads off to gather power for revenge but soon finds himself in the land of the gods in an entirely different adventure filled with a mythos all its own. If you enjoy these movies at all, check this one out. There is little blood and no sex, so go elsewhere if that's what you're seeking.

I hated this movie. I laughed a few times, but they were laughs born out of painful disbelief. Out of the current wave of monster attack movies (Lake Placid, Deep Blue Sea, Anaconda), Bats is by far the worst. Yes, Bats is even worse than King Cobra! Filled with cliches (the evil mad scientist) and unbelievably stupid actions on the part of the heroes, Bats has to go down in history as one of the bottom 20 most idiotic horror movies I have ever seen. The stupidest scene: after the bats attack the police and attempt to enter the police vehicle and kill the occupants, the bats mysteriously fly away. Now, it is still night, right? But for some reason, the cop/scientist/government team that was just attacked hang out in the open and discuss tactics, right there where they were just attacked, in the middle of the night with no defenses! This movie is filled with stupid scenes like that and with multiple, overlong "gearing-up" scenes. To give this movie a little credit, the bats themselves act ridiculous when attacking, but they aren't as funny-looking (to put it mildly) as the creatures in say, Hobgoblins or (my personal favorite) The Sea Serpent.

This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. "Thank you, God!" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, "What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3/10.

I noticed that four people (as of this review) have rated Howling IV a 10/10. I wish one of those people would write a review. The movie I saw was boring. I have never read any of the books that these movies are based on, so maybe part IV is a more faithful adaptation than the first movie. But I felt like it took out all the interesting elements from the first Howling, left the boring stretches, and then added in some new boring elements. I guess the makers of this film felt they were improving on the original, but was The Howling such a classic that it deserved a remake? If you've seen the first, you'll be familiar with the structure of part IV: A writer is stressed out, so she and her husband go to a small town to relax. She's having weird visions/nightmares and always hears howling late at night. Her husband thinks she's silly and so do the townspeople. Anyway, she meets a fan of her literary work and the two begin to investigate the town's history and residents. You can probably guess what happens. I was just horribly bored. At least the first three movies weren't this boring. Well, actually, part two was. The subtitle "The Original Nightmare" is very amusing to me. How can this, part four, be the "original" anything? It's the fourth one! I think they should have called this movie Howling IV: Part One Again.

This movie seems to have some fans; I am not one of them. Okay, this is a slasher movie, so I wasn't expecting a great movie, but The Slumber Party Massacre is just uninspired garbage. The killings are boring (no pun intended). There really isn't any decent gore, just some bloody t-shirts. There is no atmosphere; the film just feels bland. The music is unexceptional. Everything is just so mediocre, and that really hurts this movie. Slasher movies usually at least have one interesting element. This doesn't even have an interesting killer. It's just some 40-something guy in ordinary clothes. I never thought I'd say this, but The Slumber Party Massacre makes me appreciate all the interesting elements in a movie like Class Reunion Massacre. I really don't see how so many people rated this a 10! It's not even bad enough to like it on a cheesy level. This movie is just bland.

Reading through the comments, most people seem to think this is a poor entry in the series. I just viewed TCM III for the first time, and I cam to a different conclusion. I have always thought the first entry was very good as far as slasher movies go, but I found the second movie to be a big disappointment. The first half or so is pretty decent, but once Dennis Hopper reaches the underground lair, the movie quickly stagnates (although the final chainsaw battle is cool). So after a very uneven #2, Leatherface was a nice surprise. The movie has some genuinely tense moments, and is surprisingly solid all the way through. The characters are interesting and the actors do a good job. Maybe the movie looks like a B-Movie cheapie, but that's because it is! I do like Leatherface (the character) less in #3 than in #1 or #2, but otherwise I'd recommend this movie pretty quickly. (For some reason, two books I've seen claim #3 is more of a remake than a sequel. I do not see why someone would think this.) 8 stars out of 10.

I was expecting a lot more fighting, but I still enjoyed this movie quite a bit. Jet Li is a very likeable actor no matter what he's doing. Much of the comic relief does fall flat, though. And any time you get a Hong Kong DVD, you've just got to put up with the ridiculous translations masquerading as subtitles (i.e. "Are you taking her advantage?").

This movie is really lame, unless you're really into Eurocine films, in which case you kind of know what to expect (i.e. Zombies Lake or Oasis of the Living Dead). We start with a young doctor receiving a request for his immediate help at Professor Orloff's Castle. Of course, when he tries to find a ride at a tavern, people act like he's crazy to be going up there; behavior which he ignores. People even slam doors in his face as soon as he mentions Orloff. But we get no real feeling that the doctor wonders why people react this way. I guess he's just really determined to help strangers. The movie is very sloppy and is full of many errors. When his carriage gets stuck, he decides to walk to the castle. The carriage continues in the same direction and the doctor heads off in the direction he just came from?!? Later we meet Orloff's daughter and hear her description of this invisible man: "...it was shapeless and substantial...somehow it was transparent and opaque!" Maybe they should have called it The Invisible Yet Still Somehow Visible Dead. The doctor, after meeting two of the hired help and on his way to meet Professor Orloff, makes this judgment about his daughter: "Visions are not uncommon among girls who live alone." Okay, doc, but what about women who live with three other people? The "invisible dead" is really just one guy/beast thing which Orloff orders to do mostly mundane things: "Get the lantern. Now hold it up higher. Open the door." You know, things that Orloff is perfectly capable of doing. This movie really drags along, though. And even though it seems a lot longer than 90 minutes, the ending is abrupt and sort of cartoony and out of place.

I first saw this movie when I was in high school and quickly showed it to a few friends. At the time, we thought it was incredibly hysterical. Especially, near the beginning, there is a seemingly endless scene of the main character driving around in his car. I suppose from this the audience is supposed to gather how upset he is after finding out about his wife's affair. All I kept thinking was, "I cannot believe that he's still driving!" Anyway, a decade or so later, I came across it at a video store and was raving about how hilarious it was to another friend. This time it seems mostly boring, except for maybe the unbelievable ending credits song. I can't figure out if this movie was an intentional joke or not. There are moments that completely confuse me. As the killer drives up next to a group of kids, there are a few frames flashed of those same "kids" (actually about 30 years old, but that's not anything new in this genre) all dressed up in some sort of posh, country club clothes. All other "subliminal" flashes in the film make a little sense. This one does not. I guess you can rent this for a few laughs, but I really don't see how anyone rated this a '10.' Come on, this is not scary, very rarely funny, and most often dull.

The copy I saw was called Tör, and the illustration on the box was far more exciting than anything in the movie. The story is about these bad people oppressing these innocent villagers and how Taur and his cowardly (but equally muscle-bound) companion go about liberating them. This movie is just horribly dull and mostly devoid of even unintentional humor. The fights consist of Taur knocking away the soldiers' weapons and then quickly dispatching them with a simple wrestling move. There really aren't any swords or stabbing or even blood. Who knows, maybe you'll just love it.