joebridge

Wow.

This movie begins in a somewhat interesting way - they don't waste time introducing the alien element. A nice big spaceship and fighters.

However, it is eventually known that the movie has no sense of suspense, pacing, or much of anything else - and is so silly at times, I feel uncomfortable keeping my eyes open, much like the feeling with certain episodes of the Brady Bunch when one of the kids gets into trouble for something really ridiculous.

I was always expecting the lead character to break out in a rockabilly performance.

The alien female, dressed up like Cher when first floating about, goes from powerful to helpless to powerful every other scene. Her first appearance kind of causes me to do a double-take and withhold laughter.

One thing I am certain of, no one in this movie can drive, fly a helicopter, shoot, fly a spaceship or even walk without issues... The car chases might have been more entertaining if they made the slightest sense in continuity. Cars drive right off the road and crash for no reason whatsoever, two at a time yet, plus they appear and disappear at will. The alien female angel (whatever) doesn't even need to keep them away with her ball lightning. They prefer just driving off the road or crashing into each other.

No one can fly a helicopter either, which is probably a good thing, since they shoot up office buildings without any care at all, before crashing for no reason. The alien female can not fly the spaceship very well, either.

The "bad guy" gives the orders to shoot the intruders about five minutes before at least two of them casually leave the area. He speaks really, really SLOWLY, but once he finishes, he is asked several times to confirm this, and he gives the order very, very slowly again. That was actually the most amusing scene in the movie.

They (the "bad guys" aka government/military), of course, need the "advanced technology" of the spaceship, which was so advanced that it couldn't outmaneuver a couple helicopters without getting shot-up like tinfoil...

The nice aliens wave at the man whose son is older than him or some such.

The actors were all very nice and calm for the most part, saying their lines very softly. Has a "Happy Days" feel at times. Mork from Ork could have appeared and I wouldn't have felt surprised.

The next plan from outer space (plan 10? 11? 12 1/2?) involves a small group of aliens with white eyebrows. This helps the viewer to understand that they are aliens and not human, although many old HUMANS I have seen do indeed have white eyebrows. Oh well, they tried. Though they come from a distant galaxy, they somehow are able to use (primarily) human blood to heal their illness, and this involves harvesting humans with the government's permission. They hold lotteries, apparently, to see who is going.

The makeup is atrocious - some sort of bluish price-reduction sticker on their cheeks and some sort of mossy-coloured squashed play-doh stuck on their neck. I almost expected to see newspaper hats. One Adams-family-like alien talks in a completely different manner and accent than the others. His voice also has such a high, hissy lisp, it is almost above the range of human hearing. I had to really focus and turn the volume up every time he spoke. It was akin to an animated snake reading Gothic poetry. Somehow, he even lisped letters like "b" and "k"...

The most hilarious scene in this movie in when the alien tapes a girl's mouth shut with duct tape. This utterly ridiculous scene should really be put on a special compilation video of bad Science Fiction. So... not only do aliens from a distant galaxy have duct tape, they also carry it on their person just in case a human starts talking and annoys them, apparently.

The other funniest thing is that when a car (or space ship) is shot with the laser weapon, it somehow turns into a flying cluster of metal storm gutters and other random bits.

A lot of strange stuff going on in this movie, yet not quite hilarious enough to invest too much time in it... Watch Marvin the Martian shorts instead, I think he uses the same weapons.

I just saw this movie, and as soon as it started with the bizarre, embarrassingly bad "Red Riding Hood" opening credits and horrid cheap-sounding soundtrack, I was certain it was some sort of fake "knock-off" video, especially as someone gave me this copy as sold in Indonesia. The ending credits were really bad and fake-looking as well, so maybe both were replaced in the Indonesian version, not sure, but it also is so bad throughout, perhaps the entire movie was replaced? While watching this, my friends and I were almost certain the actor credits were fake and that it was filmed by a group of amateur film-makers (as it was so utterly badly made - I was certain it was made in Indonesia or other Foreign country and was meant to make fun of the West), until Keifer Sutherland showed up and we were fairly certain it was him. Was this a straight-to-video movie? It was just so badly made and badly acted even for a dark comedy. Just because it is a comedy doesn't mean you have to act as if you are playing around with the script and not saying the lines in any way that makes sense.

The acting was so disturbingly over-the-top bad, the accents annoying and ridiculous throughout (sounded mostly like hillbillies from the more isolated areas of Kentucky - yet supposedly was taking place in California), and the actors themselves looking so awful in every way possible (even Brooke Shields looked as if they used CGI to warp her body into something not quite human in that weird sailor outfit - again unless our copy was tampered with), I'm certain this was MEANT to be a farce/comedy, especially with the ludicrous climax regarding the actual Little Red Riding Hood story - which kind of added insult to injury - how could any writer be THAT ridiculous? Obviously it wasn't meant to be crime drama or anything like that, even though the premise suggested it was drama. It does have an overwhelming "quickly made television movie" and "print every first take" feel.

So it appears that this movie (or a version of it) WAS released in the USA (not sure about here in Australia) after all? I'm still fairly certain our copy was tampered with (especially the ridiculous looking and sounding opening and ending credits - that were in static-ridden Foreign-sounding music and in mono - which wouldn't meet even the lowest standards these days), as nothing could be that badly made and be released. Most of us thought that it was one of those "experimental" films that was made especially for places like Indonesia and never placed directly in the actors' credits, and which wasn't released elsewhere, but seeing the information on IMDb is quite stunning in its implications about the general populace... Unbelievable.

This movie starts out with "Peaceful Patton" (Hoot Gibson) riding right into the middle of a gunfight to try to get them to solve their problems without fighting. One immediately wonders what on Earth is wrong with him (perhaps he was dropped on his head numerous times as a baby) as this movie has an extremely weird take on what might otherwise be cliché (for example - if Don Knotts was in the role), but that's what makes it so amusing in parts, I guess.

Seriously, having a "rule" to not fight certainly doesn't mean you are going to go way out of your way to make sure you get killed; in other words, Patton seems totally oblivious to almost every facet of reality around him for the first half-hour. Oh well, as long as his mother is happy (although she tends to shout and nag a lot). It is about halfway through the movie before Patton comes to see that people think he's the "Hard Hombre", but then the movie goes quickly downhill from that point, especially when Patton then actually has a gun for a short time (thus simply throwing his lifelong "rule" out the window for the sole benefit of hamming it up for no discernible reason) - kind of ruins the continuity and previous takes.

The "Mexican" women certainly act, sound, and look a lot more like FRENCH maids. In fact, sometimes they sound so "French", it's like they're doing bad Napolean impressions. To be honest, I was seriously expecting a "certainly monsieur" in several scenes, and had this movie been filmed in Paris, I probably wouldn't have noticed. The Mexican man about 20 minutes in isn't much better - he sounds more like Werner Klemperer in an episode of "Hogan's Heroes".

What I learned from this movie - "The Golden Rule" means "ladies first".

I won't reveal the ending, but you'll probably be rolling on the floor with it.

6/10

$40,000 is the main topic of this movie. It moves around quite a bit, and even spends some time in a large sausage. I assume the $40,000 is in $5,000 notes, as it is a very small bundle for such a large amount.

The vocal styles and interesting manner (including the rather strange dance-like movements in some scenes) of almost every actor is fun to watch. Plenty of action as well as the comic elements.

Beware; many of the characters are masters at soft knock-out blows. A light tap, and the person is rendered unconscious for some time. Haha.

There are the "clacky" fist-fights (you know, the odd, light clacking sound of someone getting punched in these old movies as opposed to the explosive deep bass sound of a punch in some modern movies), a very well-done comic piano and vocal performance by the deli bloke (far more entertaining than the one on the David Letterman show for sure), and even chimney-climbing! It's also a lot of fun seeing (and trying to identify) all these old cars from the 1930s.

I consider the writing above average for a movie of this kind and of this era. Certainly worth the hour of enjoyment it brings.

There are other comic/crime dramas from this era. This is certainly one of the more amusing and entertaining ones.

8/10

This has to be one of the more amusing and highly entertaining westerns that I have seen in some time.

The plot is simple enough. A villain (The Kootney Kid...hahaha) is a mail-robber who finds a letter relative to identification of the rightful heir - Everett Tarkington Clark (who is Bob Steele, known by friends as John) of his mother's property. The Kootney Kid wants it because of a potential oil deal so he sets about to convince the law that he's really Everett and that Everett (Steele) is HIM.

I guess that it's a good thing that there are driver's licenses and other forms of identification these days, including actual records, which really helps, hahaha. I'm almost sure that there were records and REAL identification methods in the era this movie was set in, but it certainly doesn't seem that way watching it.

The judge is a laugh riot, almost as amusing as Buck Conners as Bootch Collum (Bootch? Kootney Kid? Fun names in this movie as well).

Almost the entire second half of this movie is filled with tongue-twisters, or at least the actors speak their lines as if they were tongue-twisters. You'd have to hear all the actors speak their lines to believe they ever even got through this at all.

Actually, there does seem to be one scene involving the judge where an off-camera voice seems to be holding back a loud burst of laughs and it literally sounds like they are hurting themselves trying to hold back the outburst. It seems that way, but still, there's no edit at the point that I could detect.

Very entertaining and easily worth several views.

I should strongly point out (perhaps even warn) - and it seems a bit strange - that Bob Steele in this looks EXACTLY like a silent film star ready to lick the rest of a pie from his face at a sped-up pace. I don't know why, but that's all I could think of during the courtroom scenes. It does subtract just a little from the western atmosphere, but perhaps it couldn't be helped. Perhaps it was just a combination of the expressions, haircut, and makeup(?)

Earl Dwire (The Kootney Kid, hehe) is also quite entertaining, and even very convincing in his villainous sincerity throughout, unlike the more cardboard characters in similar movies.

I also feel that all of the actors involved in this really are enjoying their roles and trying their best, unlike many other movies.

9/10

Painfully bland Canadian Mountie movie starring Rin Tin Tin (Jr.) with most of the actors barely showing any emotion and saying their lines in a matter-of-fact "let's get this done on the first take" kinda way. The only actual acting is by Earl Dwire (Inspector Bradshaw), who brings some humanity, certainty, and nobility to the otherwise static cast.

Not much to say, just a simple plot involving embezzled funds and a woman who is brave enough to try to stop it, which is the basis for the whole thing. Being "smart", she sends the bonds to her uncle, which of course gets him killed, but there is no "oh I feel so guilty" here, which I did expect. In fact, this rather odd nuance in the plot is just taken for granted by every single character in this. Ah well.

One thing that kind of stood out was the nearly complete lack of sound and music. Music would have helped in some parts, as there are times when I was almost waiting for some mournful strings or some action music, but...nothing. There is one scene where Rinty looks as if he is snarling, but no growls emerge. Yes, other movies like this do not have a soundtrack, but for some reason, I noticed it more in this one. Still, the lack of sound was very effective with the first shots of the forest and the cabin.

At no time anywhere in the movie was I remotely convinced that the dog was actually of above average intelligence or that he was injured in any way (especially when he was slinking along near the cabin and just immediately stood up to do the climbing bit). Still worth a watch, though, primarily for historical reasons and film research.

For some bizarre reason, the UK title is supposedly "Get That Girl", which makes less sense than even "Caryl of the Mountains".

But thank goodness it's only about an hour long.

5/10

This cheesy classic is a great way to waste a rainy afternoon. A woman loses her head and a "mad doctor" keeps it alive, because, well, it's both in the name of science and in the name of love. And so it goes.

Once you get past the incredibly annoying and wildly goofy orchestral music in the scene where he is carrying the wrapped-up head through the woods, the rest is fully enjoyable, especially the Doris Powell character, who is meant to be the victim (read "new body" for Jan in the pan).

By far, some the weirdest "acting" - even to the point of being of a consuming nature - that I have seen in any movie ever is done by Adele Lamont as Doris Powell. Her acting and extremely weird timing and amazing enunciation of her lines was so "off", it was quite intoxicating. That's a rare gem with bad acting, especially in movies of this time period. (Honestly, it was so intoxicating and ridiculous, I probably shouldn't even label it as "bad" in this case):

Doris: "Listen...Galaaahaaaaaad...I trusted a man once...all the way...what did it GET me...he GETS his head full of jealous lies...and I GET..."

Doc: "You GOT to for-GET what happened..." (Hehe. Like perfect rhythm and poetry.)

More funny quotes (by Jan in the Pan):

"Knock twice if I'm not the first..." (Thump. Thump.)

"I'm only a head...and you're whatever you are..."

"He intends to kill somebody...then rob them of their body..." WHAT? If you've been killed, someone "robbing you of your body" would be the least of your worries, I'd think.

"I've got to see your hideousness. You've got to see mine." (For some reason, after Virginia Leith starts this particular sequence of lines including the part about the grave, she seems GENUINELY upset and REALLY annoyed - something that is hard to fake. Maybe she was very uncomfortable and tired of doing takes.)

Also listen for how, for some reason, Kurt's (Bill's assistant) accent gets thicker and thicker and more exotic-sounding as the movie progresses.

Great fun. Do you "almost want to believe me...almost want to believe me..." Shall I say it again, Galaaahaaaaaad? Haha... Recommended.

4/10

I really like this fairly short little movie. There's always something interesting about old comic "haunted" Westerns (even more-so when it isn't a "real" haunting). Al St. John effortlessly steals the show from Buster Crabbe and the absurdity of supposed twins (living away from each other) having identical beards doesn't really spoil it either.

I also really like the titles and credits; the hand turning the pages (as in "Cat Ballou") of a big, interesting book, and that quick fumble of the title page. (I guess they could only do one take, heh, but it looks like they still practiced for a while.)

The plot basically involves Al St. John in two roles, playing both Andy Jones and his twin brother who comes in to take over after Andy is shot, who plays the vengeful ghost angle rather amusingly against Thorn and his men, who are killing the sharecroppers. Fully enjoyable, even though much of the spoken line continuity makes little sense. For example, the brother having to be told that he is to play Andy's ghost after he already scares off two of Thorn's men by merely walking into the room and saying "boo", and an odd line about convincing them that Andy is "still alive" (contrary to the ghost angle) and the idea of the somewhat bumbling Andy having more ability to organize than many men working together (which is actually why Andy called Billy in in the first place).

Some chair and wardrobe busting up during a fight in the final third. It wouldn't be Western without that.

The music is pretty good as well and fits just right, and there's a better than average (and highly amusing) feel-good ending.

Funny lines (what it SOUNDS like to me, anyway):

Doc (seeming to partially forget his lines): "We didn't expect - all these...mer-ders...Thorn."

Thorn: "Well what DID you expect? You hired me to get rid of the sharecroppers and I'm doing it."

Doc: "Aw, I goes it's all-what (all-right?)..."

There's one part near the end that almost made me fall out of my chair laughing; somehow a couple people "see" that it isn't really Andy Jones, even though it is the SAME actor, looking exactly the same. Heh.

"You better talk or that mug of yours is going to look like a spoiled custard pie..." Hahaha.

8/10

G'day. I will start by saying, yes, I did only pay a dollar for this DVD, plus it came with "Dream a Little Dream 2", but one dollar was ten dollars too much, hahaha.

There is not one single good thing I can say about this, which is honestly the first time I have been in this situation. I'm at a loss for words.

Basically, it just involves a man (would-be actor) acting pointlessly crazy, screaming and laughing, and talking to himself, and carrying his dead girlfriend around, and for some reason, her body never becomes even slightly stiff and she never even loses the light from her eyes. Not for one moment does she actually look lifeless, which would have helped with the darker side this movie tries so hard to project.

I would also like to take the opportunity to mention that the ending to this almost turned my friends and I off movies for life...

Hey, I even enjoyed "Weekend at Bernie's" a little bit, but this? "Bleh" times a thousand.

I don't really "get" any of it, but perhaps I am to blame and not the ones who put it out. Oh well.

The fact that this movie has less than a hundred votes (nearly 50 giving it a 10, yeah right) indicates that the true public totally ignored this one, which can only be a good thing (especially for Val Kilmer fans).

1/10. Sorry, that's my one and only verdict. Worst movie ever. Although there are plenty of movies far better than this, which I also gave only a 1/10. On a scale of 1 to 1,000, I'd still give it a 1...

Perhaps I should point out that all the others I saw this with also said it was the worst movie they'd ever seen, and one of them was nearly 50, so I'm not alone.

As usual, on IMDb, going by the majority vote instead of the "weighted average" is far more indicative of the movie's entertainment value. In this case, the majority gives it a "one". How right they are! To start my review, I'll first admit that I am completely clueless as to why this movie is titled "Alien Intruder". It does involve space and even an "alien" (I suppose), but there's no rhyme or reason (at all) for anything in the long run, at least, no actual plot basis or resolution that I can make out anywhere.

There are quite a few scenes that are so atrocious (with regard to both the lines, the timing, and how they are spoken), that it far exceeds the weird feeling you get when watching similar really bad movies. I have no idea about that part near the beginning where an electronic Bugs Bunny seems to be ranting about something.

The "plot" solely involves an area of space known as the G-Spot, sorry, make that G-Sector...and a virtual reality program infected with some sort of alien(?) virus. I think it is alien since the image of the otherwise normal Ariel appears as a photographic negative.

For most of the movie, we see people getting shot with space weapons, falling out of lofts, and seemingly endless, pointless close shots of "Where's Ariel?", "Can't find Ariel" (pointless because most of the other shots INCLUDE interaction with Ariel, anyway - whatever) on a computer monitor. Commander Skyler (Billy Dee), sits and watches each fantasy of the convict's VR programs hoping to find this Alien virus and become one with it...??? Or maybe I missed something...

Billy Dee Williams took a few courses on "how to act in despair" prior to the filming of this. We know this because he spends a lot of time moving his fingers down over his face and looking mournful.

The docking scene with the nose of one ship going into the rear of the other was semi-hilarious at least, and provided for a laugh in addition to the early scenes where we see several shots of the ship as it is just spinning in a circle, looking much like a Lego experiment gone awry.

It seems everyone dies in this movie, so why bother? Even the VR females get killed, as if that is supposed to mean anything (especially since everyone else dies anyway)...outrageous.

Because of the money I save on groceries, I won't rant about wanting my money back that I paid for the DVD of this. The dollar that I saved on that bag of vanilla wafers paid for this reviewer's time.

I'll just add that the story itself, at least as a novel, and with far more detail added, could probably be quite interesting with the right author.

1/10

I'm quite surprised by all the strangely negative reviews. I thought it was okay for the dollar it cost me to see it. I watched this directly after reading all the reviews here and don't even understand some of them after watching this.

My main complaint, if you can even call it a complaint, is the lack of a more coherent focus on the nuances of the plot, but basically it's just "crazy man in space" so who cares for plot? The plot involves some sort of brainwashing by terrorists - of the lead character, but also seems to involve his unstable nature once on the station.

In terms of acting and events, it is much like a comic book with regard to the intellectual (or lack thereof) facets, which doesn't immediately condemn a movie in my opinion.

In no way does this movie warrant such a low rating as a 1 when you consider some of the other films out there, so I gave it a 5.

I actually enjoyed this far more than "Event Horizon" (which I thought was utter rubbish), and the acting isn't any worse than a few of the scenes from any given "Star Wars" movie, seriously.

Yes, it is rather over-the-top silly (but I seriously doubt it was MEANT to be bad in that light as another reviewer suggested) mostly because of the stereotypes and plastic characters. I mean, how DO you play the role of a crazy person well or in a "convincing" way? Think about it. The acting is really not that much cheesier than that of Anthony Perkins in the psycho sequels.

If you're looking for a "crazy man in space" movie, THIS is it. In fact, if you've seen "Turbulance" (a pretty bad "crazy man on a plane" movie), it is very similar in some respects.

Again, 5/10. Seriously. There are hundreds of far worse movies than this, INCLUDING "Turbulance", which it would make a good double-feature with, regardless, haha.

Wow, this is one action-packed nerve-jangling movie from start to finish.

Completely contrived of course, but that's not a bad thing in this case and I feel it does have great historic value.

With regard to being contrived, I mean, really, first you have amazing scenes of wild cats fighting in a cage, wild cats that are never found together in nature, then, lo and behold, our friends end up on an uncharted island where, unlike everywhere else in the world, those same wild cats just happen to live (and of course, fight) together naturally. Or, I don't know, maybe their cages fell from a plane on the way to the circus? But seriously, there are few movies that cause your hair to stand on end for real. I have been around lions and with some, their roar travels an amazing distance. Two people I know mistook a lion's roar for what they seriously thought was a big metal bridge being hit by strong winds! I think certain sections of this movie/serial WOULD have perhaps fit the science fiction genre if they had used weird-looking hybrid species of wild cats on the uncharted island. That would have made it more intense and even more unusual, as well..."Tiglons and ligers and bears, oh my." 8/10.

Excellent Roy Rogers vehicle with a great, wily performance by John Carradine as an added bonus.

Good pacing and good direction (and yes, a few very good stunts) place this way above similar movies. Even the usually annoying side-kick role (with this one, it's Smiley Burnette as "Frog") isn't that bad at all.

Also, far less corny than some would first expect if you've seen others with similar plots from this time period.

There are a few very good action sequences, and some very funny lines if you're in the right mood.

The story mostly involves a "mail-order bride"; Mary the reporter going in to get a story about the "playboy" rancher and what is obviously a "phoney deal". Rogers is only trying to help his boss. However, the rancher is shot (admittedly, it was one unbelievably good shot through a car window from a fair distance) and Roy is conveniently framed when he shows up at the accident scene to check things out. Of course, you know that everything is bound to turn out for the best. There is also time for a couple good old songs.

10/10.

I saw this movie TWICE within the same week. Yes I did, believe it or not, but I do not ordinarily subject myself to such pure torture, but the main reason was (other than sharing my find with a close friend) - I wanted to count the number of times that the exact same chord sequence and jangling flamenco guitar riff repeated (plus, I kept expecting a villain to appear from behind the bat-wing doors of an old western tavern). I confess that I gave up and threw my notebook at the screen after only about ten minutes in. Yet I continued to watch it again, slowly tugging at my hair, whilst my friend stared at the screen with his mouth open during the amazingly weird voice-overs that may have found a place in a commercial for men's cheap cologne...

Okay, it isn't a movie solely about an infinite flamenco guitar motif as it also has someone banging a key or two on the piano here and there at inopportune moments throughout... I confess that I still heard parts of the soundtrack in my head about three days after I last saw this, so be careful if you value your sanity.

Anyway, it's about a mad doctor who seemingly doesn't even know the difference between spiders and insects, which is no surprise, really. His experiments, other that making giant mutant spiders that are shy and need to hide behind a folding dressing screen, is producing beautiful strong women, and very short ugly men. Why the women turn out beautiful instead of more spider-like (unlike what is implied) is anyone's guess.

I would guess that the dance of Tarantella is supposed to be somewhat erotic and I guess it is, in a way, and probably the only thing worth watching other than laughing yourself sick at Masterson's gleeful stare whilst pretending to be quite mad. (I assume he was just pretending, anyway.)

Seriously, if you want to hear an endless flamenco guitar motif that deeply embeds itself in your brain forever and ever, this is the one to watch!

1/10.

I had to laugh at the review that gave this a one, but even more at the review which gave it a ten! I'll give it a two for its pure audacity!

Are there warm, tender "family moments"? Yes, enough to catch pneumonia, which mom does. Also, every single time someone is being rescued by someone else, which is required quite often. I simply can't believe that life in the wilderness would present you with so many nerve-jangling dangers. I'd move back to the city, and lock my door when that creepy Boomer shows up!

Regardless of the sudden horrifying dangers, like disease, fire, avalanches, bears, wolves, etc. the mood always seems to jump back to "everything is fine". Weeeeee! (By the way, would you like a pet bear? They are really CUTE!)

Also, no one is forcing members of a family to watch the telly or to "not be together as a family", so why "escape" from the city, when you can just live in a better part of the city (hopefully with better neighbors who say "varmint" a bit less often) and live the way you wish. With intelligence, a person should be able to live well in just about any environment, in my opinion (even if he really does prefer being chased by wolves on a daily basis). And have a look at that wacky underwear!

This movie continuously wavers between "Aw, isn't that cute?" to "Oh-my-gosh-he's-going-to-DIE-what-an-idiot!" Complete with a bit of embarrassing music here and there.

2/10!

Watch this movie closely (if you dare), and you will see certain of the same fairly long sequences repeated only a few minutes apart (such as when they are walking up the mountain and when they are searching the city sewers near the end), not including the ridiculous loop of the snow creature of which various short segments play now and then, both in forward and reverse, from start to finish (amazing how well he can walk backwards). Seriously, near the end, it is so awkward when you see random bits of the loop right close together which literally made a friend and I groan out of discomfort, almost as if the editor was trying to drive the viewer mad, especially when it sometimes freezes for a moment as if the projector just stopped, before the next scene begins.

The snow creature looks much like a man/poodle hybrid! It's true!

There are some really horrible elements of this movie, which are a mix of incoherence and that of the ludicrous:

1. I'm not quite sure what happens when they capture the snow creature. It seems he is trying to bring down the cave ceiling to kill the intruders, but his female and baby snow creature are killed instead and he knocks HIMSELF out to add insult to injury! (Or maybe it was some sort of suicidal act?) If he already had a female, then why did he kidnap the woman, and why did they give up the search for her so quickly?

2. The part where an inspector from the US Customs Service wants to know if the creature is a man or a beast after they arrive is ludicrous, and jaw-droppingly silly. That part alone makes the movie a joke.

3. I may be wrong on this, but why would the sewers be so much cooler, (even cold) for the snow creature to prefer being down there? Wouldn't they be a lot warmer? I know in most other movies, even if it is cold in the city, you see steam rising from the manholes. I am nitpicking perhaps, but I CAN see him hiding down there just because it is cave-like.

All of the ridiculous technical points, even as to why a botanist is freezing in heaps of snow and strong winds (maybe it was solely for the botanist-becomes-Yeti-hunter plot twist) and the shooting of the "radio machine" (and the exchanging of the booze and the radio in their respective containers to hide the damaged radio for fixing later) make this just a bit "too much" to enjoy.

1/10. I mean, they have got to be kidding. Like my friend's father used to say, "I know a poodle when I see one!"

I personally found this movie to be quite watchable compared to many others, especially useful as a late night movie, and I really do not see it as a bad movie at all with regard to either the acting or the way it was filmed, even regardless of some of the ludicrous concepts.

You probably are familiar with the plot; two men, one "good", one "bad", end up on an island with exotic women and try to both kill each other and save one another at least once each.

I don't understand the title, though, as there are NO "she gods" (whatever happened to "goddess", anyway?), only unseen "shark gods" (represented by an ugly idol) and an island full of women who collect (and protect) pearls for "The Company" (which we never learn much about or actually see, even though it is implied we will see them).

One important thing that I learned from this movie is that it is okay to throw young girls into the ocean for the sharks to eat, as long as you report any suspicious strangers to the local police on the next island over! Weird! We are also supposed to believe that this "queen" (who oversees the sacrifices made to the shark gods) somehow is able to tell if anyone is correctly reading her maritime signal flag messages just by glancing into the horizon when you can't even see any other island!

I'm also wondering how both Lee and Pua easily swam all the way back to the island with no trouble at all in those shark-infested waters!

Anyway, the parts just prior to the ending were somewhat confusing and there ARE a couple of other incredibly dumb scenes. For example, the part where Queen Pua brags about having saved and taken care of Mahia, when she was the one who had thrown her to the sharks! She even cries about her sailing off away from her! Weird!

The color on my DVD copy was fairly bad; the ocean kept changing between purples, greens, pinks, and blues, but the overall style and filming is somewhat attractive.

5/10. Not bad, not great. Again, it's fine for a late night watch before finally falling asleep.

An unbearable movie (which feels about three hours long) about a giant prehistoric caveman - who one day actually decides (because of a nicely-scented girl) to walk just a little farther from his cave, straight into modern civilization. Problem Number One - is that according to what I understand about ancient man and evolution (which has nothing at all to do with Bible verses as the movie implies), cavemen were actually much SMALLER than modern man. By the way, where did he get that huge bone that still had a bit of meat on it? It looked like it came from a mastodon or something.

This movie should have been called "Disembodied Voices", because whenever someone (especially Eegah) is talking loudly or shouting, their lips are barely moving (or badly out of sync) or NOT MOVING AT ALL, from start to finish! The most ludicrous scene is when Tom is singing and playing guitar and instead of the guitar, we hear a band and some additional female vocals. The scene cuts to Eegah and the music seems at a lower volume as if he is hearing an invisible band and invisible singers from a distance, then it seems to get louder again when cutting back! The other thing that makes no sense (and nor is it amusing in any way) is how he keeps loudly growling "Eegah" (with lips not moving) throughout. Yes, I know it is supposed to be funny, but I didn't find myself enjoying it much. Why would you be wandering around growling your own name endlessly, anyway? Some sort of identity crisis?

Certain young children MIGHT enjoy this movie (except for the naughty grabbing and shaving bits), but I wouldn't be too sure.

Roxy can never seem to decide whether she wants to play with Eegah's face or scream in fear.

I absolutely DETESTED the ending, also, which didn't fit at all for the general style and overall comical mood of the movie. In fact, if it had actually had a decent ending, I might have given it a three. I also might have rated it one higher had it not felt like it was so long.

2/10. I gave it as high as a two because of the very interesting opening titles, which were about a hundred times better than what came later. In fact, the opening titles looked as if ten times more was spent on those sequences than the entire rest of the movie.

"We are now prepared to invade this black wilderness." Well, actually they weren't, since the cable of the diving bell snaps, sending them to a tourist attraction with nice stalactites and stalagmites that I guess is supposed to resemble petrified wood or something. A very long technical explanation about the snapped cable is given later but that comes off like gibberish to me.

The only part worth watching is the genuinely exciting octopus and shark battle at the beginning, but which looks as if it was filmed in a small fish tank which had only a bit of sand poured over the bottom. You might as well turn it off after that part and have a nice nap instead.

The diving bell seems as big as a rocket-ship on the inside, but only about the size of an overinflated beach ball on the outside. This makes for some real laughs, especially when it is hanging and swaying about from the ship's crane and the actors are near it. It doesn't look like even one child could fit inside it, let alone the two men and two women, with a lot of room to spare, and the high ceiling.

Absolutely nothing happens in this movie after they get into the diving bell. They don't even show the implied trip to the volcano area with the lead characters! Instead, we get some sort of senseless and brief argument between the two women and Popeye's grandfather (or so he appears) making bizarre faces, as if he were in a "make the weirdest face and win fantastic prizes" contest. Silly beyond words and certainly belonging in a movie other than this one. At one point, his eyes are popping so far out, they look like they could just fall out of his face.

Later, "Popeye's grandfather" actually moves closer to the cave wall and slowly leans against it so that more rocks can hit him! (You can actually tell that he is trying to get under the path of the larger fake falling rocks! Hilarious!)

The ending made no sense to me, either. I may be wrong, but I got the idea that they weren't really that far under the surface at all. And where was the volcano (which sounded like the amplified recording of a rolling bowling ball and a bit from a storm) relative to the surface? Why wasn't it more of a noticed event from the ship?

The orchestral soundtrack on my DVD copy is really sour, and sounds more like two tomcats having a stand-off.

2/10. A two only because of the octopus and shark battle before the actors come in and ruin everything.

Unfortunately, this one's really bad. The comic writing and plot idea is fairly interesting, but most of the single scenes (with the sole exception of perhaps one, involving the radio program) are completely out of pace with the continuity and the plot. The gags are just randomly thrown in without rhyme or reason. It is far more like you are watching actors playing around with the outline of a different, unmade movie, while the cameras just happen to be rolling.

For example, there's the line "Call your shots Sheriff, you're not at a SWIMMING pool", which would work had they been playing pool, but they're all at the dinner table (each seeming to be waiting to say their next little joke); the line is just casually and randomly thrown out there, and it makes little sense in the context used. It's almost as if someone found an old joke book and decided to use all the gags in a short time without the considerations for where and how the jokes would work. There isn't even as much mystery as is implied.

Sadly, it is a sinking ship about eight minutes in, and the climax and the ending are embarrassing. Even though the plot is fairly simple (with regard to who is really who), it comes off as totally incoherent.

3/10.

If you are looking around for something like this, you should check out "The Bee's Buzz" (from the same company) which is nearly flawless and very well-made from start to finish. It's hard to believe, though, that these two films could be so different concerning entertainment value.

I'm going to have to admit that I really like this movie, mostly only because of Jack and Boris acting together (as well as Dick Miller), of course, which seems like some sort of odd, rare union of two different centuries of film-making.

The plot involves an old peasant woman who uses some sort of weird black magic (with a colorful kind of turning lantern set-up - which looks a bit too modern in my opinion) to take over the body and spirit of a young woman (who's history we learn nothing about from start to finish) and make her "haunt" the baron to drive him to suicide, as an act of revenge. However, the two weird twists thrown together near the end don't really belong here. On the one hand, it WASN'T the baron but the servant that killed your son, immediately followed by - but on the other hand, your son wasn't actually killed, but... ARGH! Like I said, the "twists" should have been left out!

The castle is nice and creepy, even though it is only a painting. Anything involving tombs and old corpses is always creepy in my opinion. I don't care what anyone else would say.

There is some sort of confusion regarding the girl's and the bird's true identities, and the on-going business about "there is no girl" gets quite silly at times. Who do they think they are fooling? I always wonder about that aspect of movie scenes. People can see and hear, right? I'm somewhat surprised that there wasn't an ongoing "there is no bird" routine. Heh.

There are quite a few silly lines to enjoy, like Jack (as André) saying "go ahead; it's permitted for you to laugh" and "no, not the bird, the GIRL..."

And look at the floating bricks, near the end, when the water is rushing in! Haha!

Silliest scene:

Helene: The crypt...it must be destroyed, and with it, the dead. André: Don't speak of the dead anymore. You're with me now. Helene: I am possessed of the dead. André: You're a warm, living woman. Who has told you these things? Helene: The dead...

6/10, only for Jack and Boris.

The main complaint about these older Superman cartoons is that they are too short to generate enough interest with regard to the otherwise interesting plots and attractive titles, especially since the history and build-up is too long with regard to the actual Superman elements that come later on.

This one is odd in that it really begs "King Tut" but we get "King Tush" instead. By the way, the "u" is short, not long, or it would be even more amusing.

Not much in the line of original action sequences. Animation is very good as usual, but it should have been about a minute or two longer and without the mummy/mother joke which they just couldn't resist, could they? (Sigh.)

4/10.

This review is for the "Daughter of Horror" version.

The bulk of this odd little gem consists of close-ups of people making goofy faces at the camera (and moving cigars in and out of their mouths), an unseen woman who seems to be working on trying to sing the classic "Star Trek" theme song (but never quite hits the last couple of notes), and a piano player playing bits of the opera "Carmen" (most noticeably, the Toreador Song).

The plot mostly follows the experiences of a (crazy?) woman who may or may not have committed a certain recent crime, but did kill when younger.

Oh, and there's a very long scene of a chubby gentleman eating chicken for what seems like several minutes and making his face all nice and shiny with grease.

It is advisable that, unless you want to break into giggling fits, that you watch this the FIRST time with all the sound OFF. The only part with the sound that actually works for this gem is the dancing scene about 15 minutes in.

It isn't really that spooky. It doesn't really offend or even challenge the senses much in my opinion, as some have said. There are a few parts that remind me slightly of "Eraserhead".

In the end, I'm not even sure what has happened, whether it was ALL a dream, SOME of it was a dream, or only certain parts were a dream. (I ask that because hands don't really move hours after they've been removed, DO they?) The most interesting scene is where a wave comes over her and the bits of water look like human fingers going over her (which is shown a few times at the beginning, and a couple of times near the end) which seems to relate to the hand that was removed during the crime.

It also seems that the director has a hatred for people who like jazz by making them all look like confused and unstable buffoons. This part actually reminds me a lot of "Reefer Madness".

7/10 for weirdness. Nothing at all for the ridiculous, amateurish narration which basically ruins it and keeps it from having a more spooky flow from start to finish. Again, turn the volume completely down the first time you watch it. Trust me on that.

Oh no. Oh my. Oh my goodness. Where do I even begin? The highly unique idiocy of this movie made for the telly is so jaw-dropping, I would almost recommend watching it because of how strange it is in terms of bad writing.

I'm amazed that the lead character didn't react more after they just decided to cover an area with concrete instead of looking for the missing person.

What sort of job requires recording sounds from the ground that are scaring off all the birds? Yes, I know you don't have to report every time bird droppings are out of place and I hope you reincarnate as a worm to be eaten by a cheerful little robin! Right.

Okay, so you've determined an area is full of dangerous explosive gasses. So what do you do? Light a match and throw it down into the area below your feet with the explosive gasses, just to make sure. Right.

What in the world is going on with this scarf business? Yes, it's a beautiful scarf. Let's talk about your beautiful scarf for awhile. Let's all pause and consider how wearing this beautiful scarf makes you so out of place with the rest of humanity. Hey, wait a minute. Lots of women wear scarves. Okay, you've lost me again. Seriously.

Let's all sit at city hall, but first let's ask why everyone is there, to make sure no one is there for an actual reason! Make sure there's a door that looks like it belongs on a submarine or on "Lost". Every public office has this, of course. No reason to be suspicious... Just open the submarine hatch and go right on in! Let's all race downstairs and help the guy we don't know and kill everyone that looks like a doctor! Wait. Did I miss something?

So the astronut, yes you heard me right, astroNUT, is "kryptonite to the aliens"? A fact brought up a couple of times. But why? Is he the only one in the entire world with "kryptonite blood"? Why? Please tell me more about why, instead of all the endless talk about scarves!

Okay, so they make a very big deal about how these aliens, whilst in human guise, never blink. So why did the lead character never notice the queen not blinking in all that time he had spent with her? Well? He certainly took notice within about a second of the public servant not blinking! Even the fact that they "don't blink" was one of the first things mentioned by the "astronut" when they rescued him. Actually, they do blink - especially the queen. Now I'm confused... They only seem to "never blink" during close-ups when they are trying very hard not to blink. Heh.

What in the world is the business where the lead character goes all the way around, up through the chute, and through the processing area AGAIN, just to get back and spy on the queen in a room upstairs? And by some strange coincidence, the aliens always seem to be gone when people are doing stuff like this? Except for that conspiracy bloke, of course. "The Lone Alien" (not even with his trusty side-kick) just happened to be there at the time!

The alien queen just had to say that line about being better off mating with a human, didn't she? Didn't she?

Is it just me, or did the motives of the queen, and in fact, the motives of almost every character in the movie seem to change from one scene to the next?

Okay, so the gun is empty, but wait, it was only jammed and still conveniently has three bullets later on. Let's make it up as we go along. Weeeeee...

Now tell me. Would you carry around a live grenade everywhere you go, even if it did "save your life" many years earlier? Be honest.

Let's all go shopping! Wait. You lost me again...

My my, the queen certainly laid a lot of eggs, didn't she? My goodness...

Why oh why do they have to call the eggs, the area with the eggs and the events related to the eggs "the hatch"? No, not the submarine hatch to the processing area mentioned earlier nor the hatch on "Lost" that this show replaced this Thursday night!

The part near the end where the lead character admits to not liking people or the human race kind of threw me off and even spoiled the general outcome even more.

And yes, ANYONE could have blown up all the aliens with that flammable atmosphere and the grenade, so what was the big deal about the blood of the astronut? Senseless. It would have been better had he lived so his blood could be used should the aliens return! DUH DUH DUH!

3 out of 10. The last 15 minutes are somewhat likable, but I thought I was watching "Mimic" again, with a couple "Men in Black" elements thrown in! (And for that matter, even "A Bug's Life". Heh.)